JonBenet Ramsey: Who Did It?wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/6904/7070212/CRJ320_Ch02.pdf ·...

JonBenet Ramsey: Who Did It?Patsy Ramsey awoke just after five a.m. onDecember 26, 1996, and walked downstairsto her kitchen. At the foot of the staircase,she found a two-and-a-half-page notesaying that her 6-year-old daughter,JonBenet, had been kidnapped. The notecontained a ransom demand of $118,000.Patsy and John Ramsey were in the uppercrust of Boulder, Colorado, society. In thespan of five short years, John had built hiscomputer company into a billion-dollarcorporation. When the police arrived toinvestigate, it was quite apparent to all thatJonBenet was missing. In retrospect, someserious mistakes were made in securingthe crime scene—the Ramsey household.Initially, the police conducted a cursorysearch of the house, but failed to findJonBenet. The house was not sealed off; infact, four friends along with the Ramseypastor were let into the home and allowed

to move about at will. John was permittedto leave the premises unattended for oneand a half hours. One hour after his return,John and two of his friends searched thehouse again. This time John went downinto the basement, where he discoveredJonBenet’s body. He removed a whiteblanket from JonBenet and carried herupstairs, placing the body on the livingroom floor.

The murder of JonBenet Ramseyremains as baffling a mystery today as itwas on its first day. Ample physicalevidence exists to support the theory thatthe crime was committed by an outsider,and also that JonBenet was murdered bysomeone who resided in the Ramseyhousehold. Perhaps better care atsecuring and processing the crime scenecould have resolved some of the crime’soutstanding questions.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 36

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X

Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science, Ninth Edition, by Richard Saferstein. Published by Prentice Hall.Copyright © 2007 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Key Terms

buccal swab

chain of custody

finished sketch

physical evidence

rough sketch

standard/reference sample

substrate control

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 37

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


38 CHAPTER 2

Processing the Crime SceneAs automobiles run on gasoline, crime laboratories “run” on physicalevidence. Physical evidence encompasses any and all objects that can es-tablish that a crime has been committed or can link a crime and its victimor its perpetrator. But if physical evidence is to be used effectively to aidthe investigator, its presence first must be recognized at the crime scene. Ifall the natural and commercial objects within a reasonable distance of acrime were gathered so that the scientist could uncover significant cluesfrom them, the deluge of material would quickly immobilize the laboratoryfacility. Physical evidence can achieve its optimum value in criminal inves-tigations only when its collection is performed with a selectivity governedby the collector’s thorough knowledge of the crime laboratory’s tech-niques, capabilities, and limitations.

Forthcoming chapters will be devoted to discussions of methods andtechniques available to forensic scientists for the evaluation of physical evi-dence. Although current technology has given the crime laboratory capa-bilities far exceeding those of past decades, these advances are no excuse forcomplacency on the part of criminal investigators. Crime laboratories do notsolve crimes; only a thorough and competent investigation conducted byprofessional police officers will enhance the chances for a successful crimi-nal investigation. Forensic science is, and will continue to be, an importantelement of the total investigative process, but it is only one aspect of an en-deavor that must be a team effort. The investigator who believes the crimelaboratory to be a panacea for laxity or ineptness is in for a rude awakening.

Forensic science begins at the crime scene. If the investigator cannotrecognize physical evidence or cannot properly preserve it for laboratoryexamination, no amount of sophisticated laboratory instrumentation ortechnical expertise can salvage the situation. The know-how for conduct-ing a proper crime-scene search for physical evidence is not beyond thegrasp of any police department, regardless of its size. With proper train-ing, police agencies can ensure competent performance at crime scenes. Inmany jurisdictions, police agencies have delegated this task to a specializedteam of technicians. However, the techniques of crime-scene investigationare not difficult to master and certainly lie within the bounds of compre-hension of the average police officer.

Not all crime scenes require retrieval of physical evidence, and limitedresources and personnel have forced many police agencies to restrict their

■ Define physical evidence

■ Discuss the responsibilities of the first police officerwho arrives at a crime scene

■ Explain the steps to be taken to thoroughly record thecrime scene

■ Describe proper procedures for conducting asystematic search of a crime scene for physicalevidence

■ Describe proper techniques for packaging commontypes of physical evidence

■ Define and understand the concept of chain of custody

■ Relate what steps are typically required to maintainappropriate health and safety standards at the crimescene

■ Understand the implications of the Mincey and Tylercases

Learnng ObjectivesAfter studying this chapter you should be able to:

Physical EvidenceAny object that can establishthat a crime has beencommitted or can link a crimeand its victim or itsperpetrator.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM 8

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 39

Figure 2–1 The first investigators to arrive must secure the crime scene and establish thecrime-scene perimeter. Courtesy Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories, Inc., Youngsville, N.C.,www.sirchie.com

efforts in this area to crimes of a more serious nature. Once the commit-ment is made to completely process a crime site for physical evidence,however, certain fundamental practices must be followed.

Secure and Isolate the Crime SceneThe first officer arriving on the scene of a crime is responsible for pre-serving and protecting the area as much as possible. Of course, first prior-ity should be given to obtaining medical assistance for individuals in needof it and to arresting the perpetrator. However, as soon as possible, exten-sive efforts must be made to exclude all unauthorized personnel from thescene. As additional officers arrive, measures are immediately initiated toisolate the area. See Figure 2–1. Ropes or barricades along with strategicpositioning of guards will prevent unauthorized access to the area.

Sometimes the exclusion of unauthorized personnel proves more diffi-cult than expected. Violent crimes are especially susceptible to attentionfrom higher-level police officials and members of the press, as well as byemotionally charged neighbors and curiosity seekers. Every individual whoenters the scene is a potential destroyer of physical evidence, even if it is byunintentional carelessness. If proper control is to be exercised over the crimescene, the officer charged with the responsibility for protecting it must havethe authority to exclude everyone, including fellow police officers not di-rectly involved in processing the site or in conducting the investigation. Sea-soned criminal investigators are always prepared to relate horror storiesabout crime scenes where physical evidence was rendered totally valuelessby hordes of people who, for one reason or another, trampled through thesite. Securing and isolating the crime scene are critical steps in an investi-gation, the accomplishment of which is the mark of a trained and profes-sional crime-scene investigative team.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 39

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


40 CHAPTER 2

Figure 2–2 The finding of an evidential cigarette butt at the crime scene requires photographingit, making a sketch showing its relation to the crime scene, and recording the find in field notes.Courtesy Police Science Services, Niles, Ill.

Once the scene has been secured, a lead investigator starts evaluatingthe area. First, he or she determines the boundaries of the scene, and thenestablishes the perpetrator’s path of entry and exit. Logic dictates that ob-vious items of crime-scene evidence will first come to the attention of thecrime-scene investigator. These items must be documented and pho-tographed. The investigator then proceeds with an initial walk-through ofthe scene to gain an overview of the situation and develop a strategy forsystematically examining and documenting the entire crime scene.

Record the SceneInvestigators have only a limited amount of time to work a crime site in itsuntouched state. The opportunity to permanently record the scene in itsoriginal state must not be lost. Such records not only will prove useful dur-ing the subsequent investigation but are also required for presentation ata trial in order to document the condition of the crime site and to delineatethe location of physical evidence. Photography, sketches, and notes are thethree methods for crime-scene recording (see Figure 2–2). Ideally all threeshould be employed; however, personnel and monetary limitations oftenprohibit the use of photography at every crime site. Under these circum-stances, departmental guidelines will establish priorities for deployingphotographic resources. However, there is no reason not to make sketchesand notes at the crime scene.

Photography. The most important prerequisite for photographing a crimescene is for it to be unaltered. Unless injured people are involved, objectsmust not be moved until they have been photographed from all necessaryangles. If objects are removed, positions changed, or items added, the pho-tographs may not be admissible as evidence at a trial, and their intended

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 40

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 41

value will be lost. If evidence has been moved or removed prior to pho-tography, the fact should be noted in the report, but the evidence shouldnot be reintroduced into the scene in order to take photographs.

Each crime scene should be photographed as completely as possible. Thismeans that the crime scene should include the area in which the crime actu-ally took place and all adjacent areas where important acts occurred imme-diately before or after the commission of the crime. Overview photographsof the entire scene and surrounding area, including points of exit and entry,must be taken from various angles. If the crime took place indoors, the entireroom should be photographed to show each wall area. Rooms adjacent to theactual crime site must be similarly photographed. If the crime scene includesa body, photographs must be taken to show the body’s position and locationrelative to the entire scene. Close-up photos depicting injuries and weaponslying near the body are also necessary. After the body is removed from thescene, the surface beneath the body should be photographed.

As items of physical evidence are discovered, they are photographedto show their position and location relative to the entire scene. After theseoverviews are taken, close-ups should be taken to record the details of theobject itself. When the size of an item is of significance, a ruler or othermeasuring scale may be inserted near the object and included in the pho-tograph as a point of reference. The digital revolution promises to bringenhanced photographic capabilities to the crime scene. For example, in-dividual images of the crime scene captured with a digital camera can bestitched together electronically to reveal a near three-dimensionalpanoramic view of the crime scene (see Figure 2–3). With the aid of a com-puter, any area of the scene captured digitally can be enhanced and ex-amined in fine detail.

Figure 2–3 Individual images (top) are shown before being electronically stitched together into asingle panoramic image (bottom). Individual photographs should be taken with about a 30 percentoverlap. Courtesy Imaging Forensics, Fountain Valley, Calif., www.imagingforensics.com

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 41

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


42 CHAPTER 2

Finished SketchA precise rendering of thecrime scene, usually drawn toscale.

WebExtra 2.1Making a Photographic Recordof the Crime Scenewww.prenhall.com/Saferstein

Rough SketchA draft representation of allessential information andmeasurements at a crimescene. This sketch is drawn atthe crime scene.

The use of videotape at crime scenes is becoming increasingly popularbecause the cost of this equipment is decreasing. The same principles usedin crime-scene photographs apply to videotaping. As with conventionalphotography, videotaping should include the entire scene and the imme-diate surrounding area. Long shots as well as close-ups should be taken ina slow and systematic manner. Furthermore, it is desirable to have onecrime-scene investigator narrate the events and scenes being taped whileanother does the actual shooting.

While videotaping can capture the sounds and scenes of the crime sitewith relative ease, the technique cannot at this time be used in place of stillphotography. The still photograph remains unsurpassed in the definitionof detail it provides to the human eye.

Sketches. Once photographs have been taken, the crime-scene investiga-tor sketches the scene. The investigator may have neither the skill nor thetime to make a polished sketch of the scene. However, this is not requiredduring the early phase of the investigation. What is necessary is a roughsketch containing an accurate depiction of the dimensions of the sceneand showing the location of all objects having a bearing on the case.

A rough sketch is illustrated in Figure 2–4. It shows all recovered itemsof physical evidence, as well as other important features of the crime scene.Objects are located in the sketch by distance measurements from two fixedpoints, such as the walls of a room. It is important that distances shown onthe sketch be accurate and not the result of a guess or estimate. For thisreason, all measurements are made with a tape measure. The simplest wayto designate an item in a sketch is to assign it a number or letter. A legendor list placed below the sketch then correlates the letter to the item’s de-scription. The sketch should also show a compass heading designatingnorth.

Unlike the rough sketch, the finished sketch in Figure 2–5 is con-structed with care and concern for aesthetic appearance. When the fin-ished sketch is completed, it must reflect information contained within therough sketch in order to be admissible evidence in a courtroom. Com-puter-aided drafting (CAD) has become the norm to reconstruct crimescenes from rough sketches. The software, ranging from simple, low-costprograms to complex, expensive programs, contains predrawn intersec-tions and roadways or buildings and rooms onto which information canbe entered (see Figure 2–6). A generous symbol library provides the op-erator with a variety of images that can be used to add intricate detailssuch as blood spatters to a crime-scene sketch. Equipped with a zoomfunction, computerized sketching can focus on a specific area for a moredetailed picture. CAD programs allow the operator to select scale size sothat the ultimate product can be produced in a size suitable for courtroompresentation.

Notes. Note taking must be a constant activity throughout the processingof the crime scene. These notes must include a detailed written descriptionof the scene with the location of items of physical evidence recovered. Theymust also identify the time an item of physical evidence was discovered, bywhom, how and by whom it was packaged and marked, and the disposi-tion of the item after it was collected. The note taker has to keep in mindthat this written record may be the only source of information for refresh-ing one’s memory months, perhaps years, after a crime has been pro-cessed. The notes must be sufficiently detailed to anticipate this need.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 42

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 43

Figure 2–4 Rough-sketch diagram of a crime scene. Courtesy Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories,Inc., Youngsville, N.C., www.sirchie.com

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 43

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


44 CHAPTER 2

Figure 2–5 Finished-sketch diagram of a crime scene. Courtesy Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories,Inc., Youngsville, N.C., www.sirchie.com

Tape-recording notes at a scene can be advantageous—detailed notescan be taped much faster than they can be written. Another method ofrecording notes is to narrate a videotape of the crime scene. This has theadvantage of combining note taking with photography. However, at somepoint the tape must be transcribed into a written document.

Conduct a Systematic Search for EvidenceThe search for physical evidence at a crime scene must be thorough andsystematic. For a factual, unbiased reconstruction of the crime, the inves-tigator, relying on his or her training and experience, must not overlook

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 44

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 45

Figure 2–6 Construction of a crime-scene diagram with the aid of a computer-aided draftingprogram. Courtesy Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories, Inc., Youngsville, N.C., www.sirchie.com

any pertinent evidence. Even when suspects are immediately seized andthe motives and circumstances of the crime are readily apparent, a thor-ough search for physical evidence must be conducted at once. Failure inthis, even though it may seem unnecessary, can lead to accusations of neg-ligence or charges that the investigative agency knowingly “covered up”evidence that would be detrimental to its case.

Assigning those responsible for searching a crime scene is a functionof the investigator in charge. Except in major crimes, or when the evidenceis very complex, it is usually not necessary to have the assistance of a foren-sic scientist at the crime scene; his or her role appropriately begins withthe submission of evidence to the crime laboratory. As has already beenobserved, some police agencies have trained field evidence technicians tosearch for physical evidence at the crime scene. They have the equipmentand skill to photograph the scene and examine it for the presence of fin-gerprints, footprints, tool marks, or any other type of evidence that may berelevant to the crime.

How one conducts a crime-scene search will depend on the locale andsize of the area, as well as on the actions of the suspect(s) and victim(s) atthe scene. When possible, one person should supervise and coordinate thecollection of evidence. Without proper control, the search may be con-ducted in an atmosphere of confusion with needless duplication of effort.Evidence collectors may subdivide the scene into segments and searcheach segment individually, or the search may start at some outer point andgradually move toward the center of the scene in a circular fashion (seeFigure 2–7). The areas searched must include all probable points of entryand exit used by the criminals.

What to search for will be determined by the particular circumstancesof the crime. Obviously, the skill of crime-scene investigators at recog-nizing evidence and searching relevant locations is paramount to suc-cessful processing of the crime scene. While training will impart general

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 45

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


46 CHAPTER 2

Spiral search method Grid method

Strip or line search Quadrant or zone search

end

start

Figure 2–7 Several typical examples of crime-scene search patterns. The pattern selectednormally depends on the size and locale of the scene and the number of collectors participatingin the search.

knowledge for conducting a proper crime-scene investigation, ultimatelythe investigator must rely on the experience gained from numerous in-vestigations to formulate a successful strategy for recovering relevantphysical evidence at crime scenes. For example, in the case of homicide,the search will center on the weapon and any type of evidence left as a re-sult of contact between the victim and the assailant. The cross-transfer ofevidence, such as hairs, fibers, and blood, between individuals involvedin the crime is particularly useful for linking suspects to the crime site andfor corroborating events that transpired during the commission of thecrime. During the investigation of a burglary, efforts will be made to lo-cate tool marks at the point of entry. In most crimes, a thorough and sys-tematic search for latent fingerprints is required.

Vehicle searches must be carefully planned and systematically carriedout. The nature of the case determines how detailed the search must be. Inhit-and-run cases, the outside and undercarriage of the car must be exam-ined with care. Particular attention is paid to looking for any evidenceresulting from a cross-transfer of evidence between the car and the victim—this includes blood, tissue, hair, fibers, and fabric impressions. Traces ofpaint or broken glass may be located on the victim. In cases of homicide,burglary, kidnapping, and so on, all areas of the vehicle, inside and outside,are searched with equal care for physical evidence.

Physical evidence can be anything from massive objects to micro-scopic traces. Often, many items of evidence are obvious in their pres-ence, but others may be detected only through examination in the crimelaboratory. For example, minute traces of blood may be discovered ongarments only after a thorough search in the laboratory, or the presence

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 46

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 47

Figure 2–8 Vacuum sweeper attachment, constructed of clear plastic in two pieces that arejoined by a threaded joint. A metal screen is mounted in one half to support a filter paper tocollect debris. The unit attaches to the hose of the vacuum sweeper. After a designated area ofthe crime scene is vacuumed, the filter paper is removed and retained for laboratoryexamination. Courtesy Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories, Inc., Youngsville, N.C., www.sirchie.com

of hairs and fibers may be revealed in vacuum sweepings or on garmentsonly after close laboratory scrutiny. For this reason, it is important to col-lect possible carriers of trace evidence in addition to more discernibleitems. Hence, it may be necessary to take custody of all clothing worn bythe participants in a crime. Each clothing item should be handled care-fully and wrapped separately to avoid loss of trace materials. Critical ar-eas of the crime scene should be vacuumed and the sweepings submittedto the laboratory for analysis. The sweepings from different areas mustbe collected and packaged separately. A portable vacuum cleaner equippedwith a special filter attachment is suitable for this purpose (see Figure 2–8).Additionally, fingernail scrapings from individuals who were in contactwith other individuals may contain minute fragments of evidence capa-ble of linking the assailant and victim. The undersurface of each nail isbest scraped with a dull object such as a toothpick to avoid cutting theskin. These scrapings will be subjected to microscopic examination in thelaboratory.

The search for physical evidence must extend beyond the crime sceneto the autopsy room of a deceased victim. Here, the medical examiner orcoroner carefully examines the victim to establish a cause and manner ofdeath. Tissues and organs are routinely retained for pathological and tox-icological examination. At the same time, arrangements must be made be-tween the examiner and investigator to secure a variety of items that maybe obtainable from the body for laboratory examination. The following areto be collected and sent to the forensic laboratory:

1. Victim’s clothing

2. Fingernail scrapings

3. Head and pubic hairs

4. Blood (for DNA typing purposes)

5. Vaginal, anal, and oral swabs (in sex-related crimes)

6. Recovered bullets from the body

7. Hand swabs from shooting victims (for gunshot residue analysis)

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 47

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


48 CHAPTER 2

POL ICE

FIRST

AID

REFRI-GERATOR

FORENSIC KIT STORAGE

SINK

PO L IC EGENERATOR

COMPARTMENT

(a)

(b)

Figure 2–9 Inside view of a mobile crime-scene van: (a) driver’s side and (b) passenger’s side.Courtesy Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories, Inc., Youngsville, N.C., www.sirchie.com

Once the body is buried, efforts at obtaining these items may prove dif-ficult or futile. Furthermore, a lengthy time delay in obtaining many ofthese items will diminish or destroy their forensic value.

In recent years, many police departments have gone to the expense ofpurchasing and equipping “mobile crime laboratories” (see Figure 2–9) fortheir evidence technicians. However, the term mobile crime laboratory is amisnomer. These vehicles carry the necessary supplies to protect the crimescene; photograph, collect, and package physical evidence; and performlatent print development. They are not designed to carry out the functionsof a chemical laboratory. Crime-scene search vehicle would be a more ap-propriate but perhaps less dramatic name for such a vehicle.

Collect and Package Physical EvidencePhysical evidence must be handled and processed in a way that preventsany change from taking place between the time it is removed from the

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 48

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 49

crime scene and the time it is received by the crime laboratory. Changescan arise through contamination, breakage, evaporation, accidental scratch-ing or bending, or loss through improper or careless packaging.

The integrity of evidence is best maintained when the item is kept in itsoriginal condition as found at the crime site. Whenever possible, evidenceshould be submitted to the laboratory intact. Blood, hairs, fibers, soil par-ticles, and other types of trace evidence should not normally be removedfrom garments, weapons, or other articles that bear them. Instead, the en-tire object is to be sent to the laboratory for processing. Of course, if evi-dence is adhering to an object in a precarious manner, good judgmentdictates removing and packaging the item. If evidence is found adhering tolarge structures, such as a door, wall, or floor, common sense must be used;remove the specimen with a forceps or other appropriate tool. In the caseof a bloodstain, one has the option of either scraping the stain off the sur-face, transferring the stain to a moistened swab, or cutting out the area ofthe object bearing the stain.

Each different item or similar items collected at different loca-tions must be placed in a separate container. Packaging evidenceseparately prevents damage through contact and prevents cross-contamination.

The well-prepared evidence collector arrives at a crime scene with alarge assortment of packaging materials and tools, ready to encounter anytype of situation. Forceps and similar tools may have to be used to pick upsmall items. Unbreakable plastic pill bottles with pressure lids are excellentcontainers for hairs, glass, fibers, and various other kinds of small or traceevidence. Alternatively, manila envelopes, screw-cap glass vials, or card-board pillboxes are adequate containers for most trace evidence encoun-tered at crime sites. Ordinary mailing envelopes should not be used asevidence containers because powders and fine particles will leak out oftheir corners. Small amounts of trace evidence can also be convenientlypackaged in a carefully folded paper, using what is known as a “druggistfold.” This consists of folding one end of the paper over one-third, thenfolding the other end (one-third) over that, and repeating the process fromthe other two sides. After the paper is folded in this manner, the outsidetwo edges are tucked into each other to produce a closed container thatkeeps the specimen from falling out.

Although manila envelopes, pillboxes, and sealable plastic bags, asshown in Figure 2–10, are good universal containers for most trace evi-dence, two frequent finds at crime scenes warrant special attention. Ifbloodstained materials are stored in airtight containers, the accumulationof moisture may encourage the growth of mold, which can destroy theevidential value of blood. In these instances, wrapping paper, manilaenvelopes, or paper bags are recommended packaging materials (seeFigure 2–11). As a matter of routine, all items of clothing are to be air-driedand placed individually in separate paper bags to ensure constant circula-tion of air through them. This will prevent the formation of mold andmildew. On the other hand, charred debris recovered from the scene of asuspicious fire must be sealed in an airtight container to prevent the evap-oration of volatile petroleum residues. New paint cans or tightly sealed jarsare recommended in such situations.

A detailed description of the proper collection and packaging of vari-ous types of physical evidence will be discussed in forthcoming chapters;additionally, most of this information is summarized in the evidence guidefound in Appendix I.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 49

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


50 CHAPTER 2

Figure 2–11 Paper bags are recommended evidence containers for objects suspected ofcontaining blood and semen stains. Each object should be packaged in a separate bag. CourtesySirchie Finger Print Laboratories, Inc., Youngsville, N.C., www.sirchie.com

Chain of CustodyA list of all people who cameinto possession of an item ofevidence.

Maintain the Chain of CustodyContinuity of possession, or the chain of custody, must be establishedwhenever evidence is presented in court as an exhibit. Adherence to stan-dard procedures in recording the location of evidence, marking it foridentification, and properly completing evidence submission forms forlaboratory analysis are the best guarantee that the evidence will withstandinquiries of what happened to it from the time of its finding to its presen-tation in court. This means that every person who handled or examined theevidence must be accounted for. Failure to substantiate the evidence’s

Figure 2–10 (a) Manila evidence envelope, (b) metal pillboxes, (c) sealable plastic evidencebag. Courtesy Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories, Inc., Youngsville, N.C., www.sirchie.com

(a)

(b) (c)

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 50

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 51

Standard/ReferenceSamplePhysical evidence whose originis known, such as blood or hairfrom a suspect, that can becompared to crime-sceneevidence.

Buccal SwabA swab of the inner portion ofthe cheek; cheek cells areusually collected to determinethe DNA profile of anindividual.

Substrate ControlUncontaminated surfacematerial close to an areawhere physical evidence hasbeen deposited. This sample isto be used to ensure that thesurface on which a sample hasbeen deposited does notinterfere with laboratory tests.

chain of custody may lead to serious questions regarding the authenticityand integrity of the evidence and examinations of it.

All items of physical evidence should be carefully packaged andmarked upon their retrieval at crime sites. This should be done with the ut-most care to avoid destroying their evidential value or restricting the num-ber and kind of examinations to which they may be subjected by thecriminalist. If at all possible, the evidence itself should be marked for iden-tification. Normally, the collector’s initials and the date of collection are in-scribed directly on the article. However, if the evidence collector is unsureof the necessity of marking the item itself, or has doubts as to where tomark it, it is best to omit this step. When appropriate, the evidence is to betagged for identification. Once an evidence container is selected for the ev-idence, whether a box, bag, vial, or can, it also must be marked for identi-fication. A minimum record would show the collector’s initials, location ofthe evidence, and date of collection. If the evidence is turned over to an-other individual for care or delivery to the laboratory, this transfer must berecorded in notes and other appropriate forms. In fact, every individualwho possesses the evidence must maintain a written record of its acquisi-tion and disposition. Frequently, all of the individuals involved in the col-lection and transportation of the evidence may be requested to testify incourt. Thus, to avoid confusion and to retain complete control of the evi-dence at all times, the chain of custody should be kept to a minimum.

Obtain Standard/Reference SamplesThe examination of evidence, whether soil, blood, glass, hair, fibers, and soon, often requires comparison with a known standard/reference sample.Although most investigators have little difficulty recognizing and collect-ing relevant crime-scene evidence, few seem aware of the necessity andimportance of providing the crime lab with a thorough sampling of stan-dard/reference materials. Such materials may be obtained from the victim,a suspect, or other known sources. For instance, investigation of a hit-and-run incident might require the removal of standard/reference paint from asuspect vehicle. This will permit its comparison to paint recovered at thescene. Similarly, hair found at the crime scene will be of optimum valueonly when compared to standard/reference hairs removed from the sus-pect and victim. Likewise, bloodstained evidence must be accompanied bya whole-blood or buccal swab standard/reference sample obtained fromall relevant crime-scene participants. The quality and quantity of stan-dard/reference specimens often determine the evidential value of crime-scene evidence, and these standard/reference specimens must be treatedwith equal care.

Some types of evidence must also be accompanied by the collection ofsubstrate controls. These are materials adjacent or close to areas wherephysical evidence has been deposited. For example, substrate controls arenormally collected at arson scenes. If an investigator suspects that a par-ticular surface has been exposed to gasoline or some other accelerant, theinvestigator should also collect a piece of the same surface material that isbelieved not to have been exposed to the accelerant. At the laboratory, thesubstrate control is tested to ensure that the surface on which the acceler-ant was deposited does not interfere with testing procedures. Anothercommon example of a substrate control is a material on which a bloodstainhas been deposited. Unstained areas close to the stain may be sampled forthe purpose of determining whether this material will have an impact onthe interpretation of laboratory results.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 51

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


52 CHAPTER 2

Thorough collection and proper packaging of standard/reference spec-imens and substrate controls are the mark of a skilled investigator.

Submit Evidence to the LaboratoryEvidence is usually submitted to the laboratory either by personal deliveryor by mail shipment. The method of transmittal is determined by the dis-tance the submitting agency must travel to the laboratory and the urgencyof the case. If the evidence is delivered personally, the deliverer should befamiliar with the case, to facilitate any discussions between laboratory per-sonnel and the deliverer concerning specific aspects of the case.

If desired, most evidence can be conveniently shipped by mail. How-ever, postal regulations restrict the shipment of certain chemicals and liveammunition and prohibit the mailing of explosives. In such situations, thelaboratory must be consulted to determine the disposition of these sub-stances. Care must also be exercised in the packaging of evidence in orderto prevent breakage or other accidental destruction while it is in transit tothe laboratory.

Most laboratories require that an evidence submission form accom-pany all evidence submitted. One such form is shown in Figure 2–12. Thisform must be properly completed. Its information will enable the labora-tory analyst to make an intelligent and complete examination of the evi-dence. Particular attention should be paid to providing the laboratorywith a brief description of the case history. This information will allow theexaminer to analyze the specimens in a logical sequence and make theproper comparisons, and it will also facilitate the search for trace quanti-ties of evidence.

The particular kind of examination requested for each type of evidenceis to be delineated. However, the analyst will not be bound to adherestrictly to the specific tests requested by the investigator. As the examina-tion proceeds, new evidence may be uncovered, and as a result the com-plexity of the case may change. Furthermore, the analyst may find theinitial requests incomplete or not totally relevant to the case. Finally, a listof items submitted for examination must be included on the evidence sub-mission form. Each item is to be packaged separately and assigned a num-ber or letter, which should be listed in an orderly and logical sequence onthe form.

Ensure Crime-Scene SafetyThe increasing spread of AIDS and hepatitis B has sensitized the law en-forcement community to the potential health hazards at crime scenes. Lawenforcement officers have an extremely small chance of contracting AIDS orhepatitis at the crime scene. Both diseases are normally transmitted by theexchange of body fluids, such as blood, semen, and vaginal and cervical se-cretions; intravenous drug needles and syringes; and transfusion of infectedblood products. However, the presence of blood and semen at crime scenespresents the investigator with biological specimens of unknown origin; theinvestigator has no way of gauging what health hazards they may contain.Therefore, caution and protection must be used at all times.

Fortunately, inoculation can easily prevent hepatitis B infection in mostpeople. Furthermore, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Admin-istration (OSHA) requires that law enforcement agencies offer hepatitis Bvaccinations to all officers who may have contact with body fluids while onthe job, at no expense to the officer.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 52

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 53

Figure 2–12 An example of a properly completed evidence submission form. Courtesy NewJersey State Police

The International Association for Identification Safety Committee hasproposed the following guidelines to protect investigators at crime scenescontaining potentially infectious materials:

1. Forensic and crime-scene personnel may encounter potentially infec-tious materials, such as in the case of a homicide, in which blood orbody fluids may be localized to the area of the body or dispersedthroughout the crime scene. At such scenes, it is recommended thatpersonnel wear a minimum of latex gloves (double gloved) and protec-

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 53

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


54 CHAPTER 2

tive (Tyvek-type) shoe covers. In cases of large contamination areas,liquid repellent coveralls (Tyvek or Kleengard suits) are recommendedalong with the gloves and shoe covers.

2. The use of a particle mask/respirator, goggles, or face shield is recom-mended in addition to the protective items listed in item 1 when poten-tially infectious dust or mist may be encountered at the crime scene.This includes the collection of dried bloodstains by scraping; the col-lection, folding, and preservation of garments that may be contami-nated with blood or body fluids, especially if they are in a dried state;and the application of aerosol chemicals to bloodstains or prints fortheir detection and/or enhancement.

3. When processing and collecting evidence at a crime scene, personnelshould be alert to sharp objects, knives, hypodermic syringes, razorblades, and similar items. In the event that such sharp objects are en-countered and must be recovered as evidence, the items should beplaced in an appropriate container and properly labeled. When con-ventional latent-print powder techniques are used in or around areascontaminated with blood, a specific brush should be designated so thatit can be subsequently decontaminated or appropriately disposed of af-ter processing is complete. If latents are developed in or around blood-contaminated areas, they should be photographed, or lifted and placedin a sealed plastic bag. The sealed bag then should be affixed with anappropriate biohazard label.

Evidence collected for transport should be packaged to maintain itsintegrity and to prevent contamination of personnel or personal items.Evidence contaminated with wet blood should first be placed in a pa-per bag and then temporarily stored in a red biohazard plastic bag forimmediate transport to an appropriate drying facility.

4. When potentially infectious materials are present at a crime scene, per-sonnel should maintain a red biohazard plastic bag for the disposal ofcontaminated gloves, clothing, masks, pencils, wrapping paper, and soon. On departure from the scene, the biohazard bag must be taped shutand transported to an approved biohazardous waste pickup site.

5. Note taking should be done while wearing uncontaminated gloves toavoid contamination of pens, pencils, notebook, paper, and so on. Pensor markers used to mark and package contaminated evidence shouldbe designated for proper disposal in a red biohazard bag before inves-tigators leave the crime scene.

6. If individual protective equipment becomes soiled or torn, it must beremoved immediately. Personnel must then disinfect/decontaminatethe potentially contaminated body areas using a recommended solu-tion, such as a 10 percent bleach solution, or an antimicrobial soap ortowelette. After cleansing, the area must be covered with clean, re-placement protective equipment. On departure from the scene, thisprocedure should be repeated on any body area where contaminationcould have occurred.

7. Eating, drinking, smoking, and application of makeup are prohibited atthe immediate crime scene.

8. All nondisposable items, such as lab coats, towels, and personal cloth-ing, that may be contaminated with potentially infectious material

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 54

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 55

1 437 U.S. 385 (1978).

should be placed in a yellow plastic bag labeled “Infectious Linen” andlaundered, at the expense of the employer, by a qualified laundry ser-vice. Personal clothing that may have been contaminated should neverbe taken home for cleaning.

Legal Considerations at the Crime SceneIn police work, there is perhaps no experience more exasperating or de-moralizing than to watch valuable evidence excluded from use against theaccused because of legal considerations. This situation most often arisesfrom what is deemed an “unreasonable” search and seizure of evidence.Therefore, the removal of any evidence from a person or from the scene ofa crime must be done in conformity with Fourth Amendment privileges:“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, andeffects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated,and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oathor affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, andthe persons or things to be seized.”

Since the 1960s, the Supreme Court has been particularly concernedwith defining the circumstances under which the police can search for evi-dence in the absence of a court-approved search warrant. A number of al-lowances have been made to justify a warrantless search: (1) the existenceof emergency circumstances, (2) the need to prevent the immediate loss ordestruction of evidence, (3) a search of a person and property within the im-mediate control of the person provided it is made incident to a lawful arrest,and (4) a search made by consent of the parties involved. In cases other thanthese, police must be particularly cautious about processing a crime scenewithout a search warrant. In 1978, the Supreme Court addressed this veryissue and in so doing set forth guidelines for investigators to follow in de-termining the propriety of conducting a warrantless search at a crimescene. Significantly, the two cases decided on this issue related to homicideand arson crime scenes, both of which are normally subjected to the mostintensive forms of physical evidence searches by police.

In the case of Mincey v. Arizona,1 the Court dealt with the legality of afour-day search at a homicide scene. The case involved a police raid on thehome of Rufus Mincey, who had been suspected of dealing drugs. Underthe pretext of buying drugs, an undercover police officer forced entry intoMincey’s apartment and was killed in a scuffle that ensued. Without asearch warrant, the police spent four days searching the apartment, re-covering, among other things, bullets, drugs, and drug paraphernalia.These items were subsequently introduced as evidence at the trial. Minceywas convicted and on appeal contended that the evidence gathered fromhis apartment, without a warrant and without his consent, was illegallyseized. The Court unanimously upheld Mincey’s position, stating:

We do not question the right of the police to respond to emergencysituations. Numerous state and federal cases have recognized thatthe Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from makingwarrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe thata person within is in need of immediate aid. Similarly, when the po-

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 55

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


56 CHAPTER 2

WebExtra 2.2Patricia Cornwell’s Challengewww.prenhall.com/Saferstein

2 436 U.S. 499 (1978).

lice come upon the scene of a homicide they may make a promptwarrantless search of the area to see if there are other victims or ifa killer is still on the premises. . . . Except for the fact that the offenseunder investigation was a homicide, there were no exigent circum-stances in this case. . . . There was no indication that evidence wouldbe lost, destroyed or removed during the time required to obtain asearch warrant. Indeed, the police guard at the apartment mini-mized that possibility. And there is no suggestion that a search war-rant could not easily and conveniently have been obtained. Wedecline to hold that the seriousness of the offense under investiga-tion itself creates exigent circumstances of the kind that under theFourth Amendment justify a warrantless search.

In Michigan v. Tyler,2 a business establishment leased by Loren Tylerand a business partner was destroyed by fire. The fire was finally extin-guished in the early hours of the morning; however, hampered by smoke,steam, and darkness, fire officials and police were prevented from thor-oughly examining the scene for evidence of arson. The building was thenleft unattended until eight a.m. of that day, when officials returned and be-gan an inspection of the burned premises. During the morning search, as-sorted items of evidence were recovered and removed from the building.On three other occasions—four days, seven days, and twenty-five days af-ter the fire—investigators reentered the premises and removed additionalitems of evidence. Each of these searches was made without a warrant orwithout consent, and the evidence seized was used to convict Tyler and hispartner of conspiracy to burn real property and related offenses. TheSupreme Court upheld the reversal of the conviction, holding the initialmorning search to be proper but contending that evidence obtained fromsubsequent reentries to the scene was inadmissible: “We hold that an en-try to fight a fire requires no warrant, and that once in the building, offi-cials may remain there for a reasonable time to investigate the cause of ablaze. Thereafter, additional entries to investigate the cause of the fire mustbe made pursuant to the warrant procedures.”

The message from the Supreme Court is clear: When time and circum-stances permit, obtain a search warrant before investigating and retriev-ing physical evidence at the crime scene.

Chapter SummaryPhysical evidence includes any and all objects that can establish that acrime has been committed or can link a crime and its victim or its perpe-trator. Forensic science begins at the crime scene. Here, investigators mustrecognize and properly preserve evidence for laboratory examination. Thefirst officer to arrive is responsible for securing the crime scene. Once thescene is secured, relevant investigators record the crime scene by usingphotographs, sketches, and notes. Before processing the crime scene forphysical evidence, the investigator should make a preliminary examinationof the scene as it was left by the perpetrator. The search for physical evi-dence at a crime scene must be thorough and systematic. The search pat-tern selected normally depends on the size and locale of the scene and thenumber of collectors participating in the search.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 56

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 57

Physical evidence can be anything from massive objects to microscopictraces. Often, many items of evidence are clearly visible but others may bedetected only through examination at the crime laboratory. For this reason,it is important to collect possible carriers of trace evidence, such as clothing,vacuum sweepings, and fingernail scrapings, in addition to more discernibleitems. Each different item or similar items collected at different locationsmust be placed in a separate container. Packaging evidence separately pre-vents damage through contact and prevents cross-contamination.

During the collection of evidence, the chain of custody, a record for de-noting the location of the evidence, must be maintained. In addition,proper standard/reference samples, such as hairs, blood, and fibers, mustbe collected at the crime scene and from appropriate subjects for compar-ison in the laboratory. The removal of any evidence from a person or fromthe scene of a crime must be done in accordance with appropriate searchand seizure protocols.

Review Questions1. The term ___________ encompasses all objects that can establish whether a

crime has been committed or can link a crime and its victim or its perpetra-tor.

2. True or False: Scientific evaluation of crime-scene evidence can usually over-come the results of a poorly conducted criminal investigation. ___________

3. True or False: The techniques of physical evidence collection require a highlyskilled individual who must specialize in this area of investigation. ___________

4. All unauthorized personnel must be ___________ from crime scenes.

5. Three methods for recording the crime scene are ___________, ___________,and ___________.

6. The most important prerequisite for photographing a crime scene is to haveit in a(n) ___________ condition.

7. Photographs of physical evidence must include overviews as well as___________ to record the details of objects.

8. An investigator need only draw a(n) ___________ sketch at the crime scene toshow its dimensions and pertinent objects.

9. A detailed search of the crime scene for physical evidence must be conductedin a(n) ___________ manner.

10. Besides the more obvious items of physical evidence, possible ___________ oftrace evidence must be collected for detailed examination in the laboratory.

11. In cooperation with the medical examiner or coroner, evidence retrieved froma deceased victim to be submitted to the crime laboratory should include___________, ___________, ___________, ___________, ___________, ___________,and ___________.

12. Whenever possible, trace evidence (is, is not) to be removed from the objectthat bears it.

13. Each item collected at the crime scene must be placed in a(n) ___________container.

14. True or False: An ordinary mailing envelope is considered a good general-purpose evidence container. ___________

15. An airtight container (is, is not) recommended packaging material for blood-stained garments.

16. As a matter of routine, all items of clothing are to be ___________ beforepackaging.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 57

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


58 CHAPTER 2

17. True or False: Charred debris recovered from the scene of an arson is bestplaced in a porous container. ___________

18. The possibility of future legal proceedings requires that a(n) ___________ be es-tablished with respect to the possession and location of physical evidence.

19. Most physical evidence collected at the crime site will require the accompa-nying submission of ___________ material for comparison purposes.

20. In the case of Mincey v. Arizona, the Supreme Court restricted the practice ofconducting a(n) ___________ search at a homicide scene.

21. In the case of Michigan v. Tyler, the Supreme Court dealt with search andseizure procedures at a(n) ___________ scene.

Further ReferencesGeberth, Vernon J., Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures, and

Forensic Techniques, 4th ed. Boca Raton, Fla.: Taylor & Francis, 2006.

Nickell, J., and J. F. Fischer, Crime Scene: Methods of Forensic Detection. Lexington:University Press of Kentucky, 1999.

Ogle, R. R., Jr., Crime Scene Investigation and Reconstruction. Upper Saddle River,N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2004.

Osterburg, James W., and Richard H. Ward, Criminal Investigation—A Method forReconstructing the Past, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson, 2000.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 58

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 59

Michael P. MaloneSpecial Agent, Laboratory DivisionFederal Bureau of Investigation,Washington, D.C.

Case StudyThe Enrique Camarena Case: A Forensic Nightmare

On February 7, 1985, U.S. DrugEnforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent(SA) Enrique Camarena was abducted nearthe U.S. Consulate in Guadalajara,Mexico. A short time later, Capt. AlfredoZavala, a DEA source, was also abductedfrom a car near the Guadalajara Airport.These two abductions would trigger aseries of events leading to one of thelargest investigations ever conducted bythe DEA and would result in one of themost extensive cases ever received by theFBI Laboratory.

Throughout this lengthy investigation,unusual forensic problems arose thatrequired unusual solutions. Eventually,numerous suspects were arrested, both inthe United States and Mexico, whichculminated in an 8-week trial held in U.S.District Court in Los Angeles, CA.

The AbductionOn February 7, 1985, SA Camarena leftthe DEA Resident Office to meet his wifefor lunch. On this day, a witness observeda man being forced into the rear seat of alight-colored compact car in front of theCamelot Restaurant and provideddescriptions of several of the assailants.After some initial reluctance, PrimerComandante Pavon-Reyes of the MexicanFederal Judicial Police (MFJP) was put incharge of the investigation, and Mexicaninvestigators were assigned to the case.Two known drug traffickers, Rafael Caro-Quintero and Ernesto Fonseca, werequickly developed as suspects. A shorttime later at the Guadalajara Airport, asCaro-Quintero and his men attempted toflee by private jet, a confrontationdeveloped between Caro-Quintero’s men,

the MFJP, and DEA agents. After somediscussion, Caro-Quintero and his menwere permitted to board and leave. It waslater learned that a 6-figure bribe had beenpaid to Pavon-Reyes to allow thisdeparture.

The InvestigationDuring February 1985, searches ofseveral residences and ranchesthroughout Mexico proved fruitless,despite the efforts of the DEA task forceassigned to investigate this matter andthe tremendous pressure being applied bythe U.S. Government to accelerate theinvestigation. High-level U.S. governmentofficials, as well as their Mexicancounterparts, were becoming directlyinvolved in the case. It is believed thatbecause of this “heat,” the Mexican drugtraffickers and certain Mexican law

Reprinted from FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

September 1989. Undated photo of Enrique Camarena. CourtesyAP Wide World Photos

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 59

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


60 CHAPTER 2

enforcement officials fabricated a plan.According to the plan, the MFJP wouldreceive an anonymous letter indicatingthat SA Camarena and Captain Zavalawere being held at the Bravo drug gang’sranch in La Angostura, Michoacan,approximately 60 miles southeast ofGuadalajara. The MFJP was supposed toraid the ranch, eliminate the drug gang,and eventually discover the bodies of SACamarena and Captain Zavala buried onthe ranch. The DEA would then be notifiedand the case would be closed. Thus, theBravo gang would provide an easyscapegoat.

During early March, MFJP officers raidedthe Bravo ranch before the DEA Agentsarrived. In the resulting shootout, all of thegang members, as well as one MFJPofficer, were killed. However, due to a mix-up, the bodies of SA Camarena andCaptain Zavala were not buried on theBravo ranch in time to be discovered asplanned. The individuals paid to do this jobsimply left them by the side of a road nearthe ranch. It was later learned that certainMexican law enforcement officials werepaid a large sum of money to formulateand carry out this plan in order to obstructand prematurely conclude theinvestigation.

Shortly after this shootout, a passerbyfound two partially decomposed bodies,wrapped in plastic bags, along a road nearthe Bravo ranch. The bodies were removedand transported to a local morgue wherethey were autopsied. The DEA was thenadvised of the discovery of the bodies andtheir subsequent removal to anothermorgue in Guadalajara, where a secondautopsy was performed.

On March 7, 1985, the FBI dispatched aforensic team to Guadalajara. Theyimmediately proceeded to the morgue toidentify the bodies and to process anyevidence which might be present. Aftermuch bureaucratic delay from the localofficials, they were finally allowed toproceed. The bodies were identified only

as cadavers number 1 and number 2. Itwas apparent that each body had beenautopsied and that both were in anadvanced state of decomposition.Cadaver number 1 was quickly identifiedby the fingerprint expert as that of SACamarena. Mexican officials would notallow the second body to be identified atthis time; however, it was later identifiedthrough dental records as Captain Zavala.

The FBI forensic team requestedpermission to process the clothing,cordage, and burial sheet found with thebodies but the request was denied.However, they were allowed to cut small,“known” samples from these items andobtain hair samples from both bodies. Soilsamples were also removed from thebodies and the clothing items.

A forensic pathologist from the ArmedForces Institute of Pathology was allowedto examine the body of SA Camarena. Heconcluded that SA Camarena’s death wascaused by blunt-force injuries. In addition,SA Camarena had a hole in his skullcaused by a rod-like instrument. SACamarena’s body was then released to theAmerican officials and immediately flownto the United States.

The next day, both FBI and DEA personnelproceeded to the Bravo ranch where thebodies were initially found. Because thissite had been a completely uncontrolledcrime scene, contaminated by both policepersonnel and onlookers, only a limitedcrime-scene search was conducted. It wasimmediately noted that there was no gravesite in the area and that the color of thesoil where the bodies had been depositeddiffered from the soil that had beenremoved from the bodies. Therefore,“known” soil samples from the drop sitewere taken to compare with soil removedfrom the victims. It was also noted thatthere were no significant body fluids at the“burial” site. This led the forensic team toconclude that the bodies had been buriedelsewhere, exhumed, and transported tothis site.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 60

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 61

The MFJP officials were later confrontedwith the evidence that the bodies had beenrelocated to the Michoacan area. This wasone of the factors which led to a new,unilateral MFJP investigation. As a result,several suspects, including State JudicialPolice Officers, were arrested andinterrogated concerning the kidnapping ofSA Camarena. Primer Comandante Pavon-Reyes was fired, and arrest warrants wereissued for a number of international drugtraffickers, including Rafael Caro-Quinteroand Ernesto Fonseca.

In late March 1985, DEA agents located ablack Mercury Gran Marquis which theybelieved was used in the kidnapping ortransportation of SA Camarena. The vehiclehad been stored in a garage inGuadalajara, and a brick wall had beenconstructed at the entrance to conceal it.The vehicle was traced to a Ford dealershipowned by Caro-Quintero. Under the watchfuleye of the MFJP at the Guadalajara Airport,the FBI forensic team processed thevehicle for any hair, fiber, blood, and/orfingerprint evidence it might contain.

During April 1985, the MFJP informed theDEA that they believed they had locatedthe residence where SA Camarena andCaptain Zavala had been held. The FBIforensic team was immediatelydispatched to Guadalajara; however, theywere not allowed to proceed to theresidence, located at 881 Lope De Vega,until an MFJP forensic team hadprocessed the residence and hadremoved all of the obvious evidence. TheDEA was also informed that since theabduction of SA Camarena, all of theinterior walls had been painted, the entireresidence had recently been cleaned, andthat a group of MFJP officers werepresently occupying, and therebycontaminating, the residence.

On the first day after the arrival of the FBIforensic team, they surveyed and began acrime scene search of the residence andsurrounding grounds. The residenceconsists of a large, two-story structure

with a swimming pool, covered patio,aviary, and tennis court surrounded by acommon wall. The most logical place tohold a prisoner at this location would be inthe small outbuilding located to the rear ofthe main residence. This outbuilding,designated as the “guest house,”consisted of a small room, carpeted by abeige rug, with an adjoining bathroom. Theentire room and bathroom were processedfor hairs, fibers, and latent fingerprints.The single door into this room was madeof steel and reinforced by iron bars. It wasultimately determined by means oftestimony and forensic evidence thatseveral individuals interrogated andtortured SA Camarena in this room. Inaddition, a locked bedroom, located on thesecond floor of the main house, was alsoprocessed, and the bed linens wereremoved from a single bed. Known carpetsamples were taken from every room inthe residence.

A beige VW Atlantic, which fit the generaldescription of the smaller vehicle noted bythe person who witnessed SA Camarena’sabduction, was parked under a carport atthe rear of the residence. The VW Atlanticwas also processed for hairs, fibers, andfingerprints.

On the second day, a thorough groundssearch was conducted. As FBI forensicteam members were walking around thetennis court, they caught a glimpse ofsomething blue in one of the drains. Uponcloser inspection, it appeared to be afolded license plate, at the bottom of thedrain. However, a heavy iron grate coveredthe drain and prevented the plate’simmediate retrieval.

When one of the FBI agents returned tothe main house to ask the MFJP officersfor a crowbar, they became extremelycurious and followed the agent as hereturned, empty handed, to the tenniscourt. By this time, a second agent hadmanaged to remove the grate by using aheavy-wire coat hanger. The license platewas retrieved, unfolded, and photographed.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 61

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


62 CHAPTER 2

The MFJP officers, all of whom were now atthe tennis court, became upset at thisdiscovery, and one of them immediatelycontacted his superior at MFJPheadquarters, who ordered them to securethe license plate until the Assistant PrimerComandante arrived on the scene. Afterhis arrival approximately 20 minutes later,he seized the license plate and would notallow the Americans to conduct any furthersearches.

However, by this time, five very largeplastic bags of evidence had beenrecovered and were placed in the rear of aDEA truck. The evidence was quicklytransported to the DEA vault in the U.S.Consulate.

After negotiations between the UnitedStates and Mexico, the MFJP did allow asecond, final search of the residence. OnJune 24, 1985, a forensic team returnedand processed the four remaining roomson the first floor of the main house.

By this point in the investigation, anassociate of Rafael Caro-Quintero hadbeen arrested and interrogated by theMFJP. He stated that the bodies of twoAmericans, Albert Radelat and JohnWalker, who had been abducted and killedby Mexican drug traffickers, were buried onthe south side of La Primavera Park, alarge, primitive park west of Guadalajara.The bodies of Radelat and Walker werelocated and recovered. Soil samples takenfrom the surface of an area near theirgraves were similar in most respects tothe soil recovered earlier from the bodiesof SA Camarena and Captain Zavala.

In September 1985, DEA personnel wentto La Primavera Park and sampled an areaapproximately 2 feet below the surfacenear the same site. This sample matchedthe soil samples from SA Camarena andCaptain Zavala almost grain for grain,indicating that this site was almostcertainly their burial site before they wererelocated to the Bravo ranch.

Later that fall, after further negotiationsbetween the U.S. and the Mexican

governments, permission was finallygranted for an FBI forensic team toprocess the evidence seized by the MFJPforensic team from 881 Lope De Vegathe previous April. The evidenceconsisted of small samples the MFJP hadtaken of SA Camarena’s burial sheet, apiece of rope used to bind SA Camarena,a portion of a pillowcase removed frombedroom number 3, a piece of unsoiledrope removed from the covered patio,and a laboratory report prepared by theMFJP Crime Laboratory. The remainder ofthe evidence had been destroyed for“health reasons.”

In January 1986, a drug trafficker namedRene Verdugo, who was considered to be ahigh-ranking member of the Caro-Quinterogang, was apprehended and taken to SanDiego, where he was arrested by the DEA.He was then transported to Washington,D.C., where hair samples were taken. Herefused to testify before a federal grandjury investigating the Camarena case.Later that year, DEA personnel obtainedhair samples in Mexico City from SergioEspino-Verdin, a former federalcomandante, who is believed to have beenSA Camarena’s primary interrogator duringhis ordeal at 881 Lope De Vega.

The TrialIn July 1988, the main trial of the murder,interrogation, and abduction of SACamarena began in U.S. District Court inLos Angeles, CA. The forensic evidencepresented in this trial identified 881 LopeDe Vega as the site where SA Camarenahad been held. [See Figure 1.] Theevidence also strongly associated twoMexican citizens, Rene Verdugo andSergio Espino-Verdin, with the “guesthouse” at 881 Lope De Vega. Severaltypes of forensic evidence were used toassociate SA Camarena with 881 Lope DeVega: forcibly removed head hairs, foundin the “guest house” and bedroomnumber 4, in the VW Atlantic and in theMercury Gran Marquis, and two types ofpolyester rug fibers, a dark, rose-coloredfiber and a light-colored fiber. [See

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 62

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 63

Sliding Gate

TennisCourt

LicensePlatesFound

BATHHOUSE & SPA

AVIARY

PRIVATEBUSINESS

WALL

CoveredPorch

SIDEENTRANCE

VWATLANTICGROUNDS

WALL AND ARCHWAYS

SIDEENTRANCECo

vere

d Pa

tios

SwimmingPool

Storage

GUESTROOM

MAID’SROOM

BATH

Storage

KITCHEN MAIN HOUSE

FRONT PORCH

Cove

red

Porc

h

LIVI

NG-D

ININ

GRO

OM

BEDR

OOM

S

LIBRARY

GARAGEArea

Figure 1 Diagram of the 881 Lope De Vega grounds. Camarena was held prisoner in the guesthouse.

Figures 2 and 3.] Fabric evidence was alsopresented, which demonstrated thesimilarities of color, composition,construction, and design between SACamarena’s burial sheet and the twopillowcases recovered from bedroomsnumber 3 and 5.

Based on this evidence associating SACamarena and 881 Lope De Vega, the FBILaboratory examiner was able to testifythat SA Camarena was at this residence,as well as in the VW Atlantic and theMercury Gran Marquis, and that he hadbeen in a position such that his head hairs

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 63

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


64 CHAPTER 2

Figure 2 Trial chart showing hair comparisons between known Camarena hairs and hairsrecovered from 881 Lope De Vega.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:46 PM Page 64

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 65

Figure 3 Trial chart showing hair comparisons between known Camarena hairs and hairsrecovered from the Mercury Gran Marquis.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:47 PM Page 65

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


66 CHAPTER 2

Figure 4 A model of 881 Lope De Vega prepared as a trial exhibit.

were forcibly removed. Captain AlfredoZavala was also found to be associatedwith the “guest house” at 881 Lope DeVega. Light-colored nylon rug fibers, foundon samples of his clothing taken at thesecond autopsy, matched the fibers fromthe “guest house” carpet.

A detailed model of the residence at 881Lope De Vega was prepared by the SpecialProjects Section of the FBI Laboratory forthe trial. [See Figure 4.] Over 20 trialcharts were also prepared to explain thevarious types of forensic evidence. Thesecharts proved invaluable in clarifying thecomplicated techniques andcharacteristics used in the examination ofthe hair, fiber, fabric, and cordageevidence. [See Figure 5.]

ConclusionThe forensic pitfalls and problems in thiscase (i.e., destruction of evidence,contamination of crime scenes) wereeventually resolved. In some cases,certain routine procedures had to beignored or unconventional methodsemployed. However, in many instances,detailed trial testimony overcame thelimitations of certain evidence, andeventually, almost all of the evidenceintroduced at the trial made a tremendousimpact on the outcome of this proceeding.After an 8-week trial, conducted under tightsecurity and involving hundreds ofwitnesses, all of the defendants werefound guilty, convicted on all counts, andare currently serving lengthy sentences.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:47 PM Page 66

ISB

N: 0-558-13856-X


The Crime Scene 67

Mercury CamarenaHead Hair

Blood onFloor Mat

VWAtlantic

CamarenaHead Hair

Blood onTissue

GuestHouse

CamarenaHead Hair

ZavalaClothes

Nylon

Bedroom#3

CamarenaBlindfoldPolyester

Pillow CaseCamarena

Burial Sheet

Bedroom#4

CamarenaHead Hair

CamarenaBlindfold &Burial Sheet

Polyester

Bedroom#5

Pillow CaseCamarena

Burial Sheet

TennisCourt

LicensePlate

VW/Merc.

CamarenaBurialSheet

CamarenaHead Hair

Bedroom #4Polyester

Pillow CaseBedrooms#3 and #5

SoilLa

Primavera

Source —Blindfold/

Rope

CamarenaHead Hair

Bedrooms#3 and #4Polyester

CamarenaBlindfold

Tape

CamarenaBurial

Cordage

Burial Ropefrom Covered

Patio

ZavalaClothing

ZavalaHead Hair

GuestHouseNylon

SoilLa

Primavera

CATEGORIES OF FORENSIC EVIDENCEIN CAMARENA CASE

TYPE OF EVIDENCE

CarpetFibers

FabricMatch

CordageMatch

TapeMatchLOCATION Hair Misc.

Figure 5 Trial chart used to show the association of Camarena and Zavala with various locations.

saf16558_ch02.qxd 5/2/06 12:47 PM Page 67

ISB

N: 0

-558

-138

56-X


JonBenet Ramsey: Who Did It?wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/6904/7070212/CRJ320_Ch02.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of JonBenet Ramsey: Who Did It?wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/6904/7070212/CRJ320_Ch02.pdf ·...