Forensic Science and the Microscope

Without the microscope, there would be no forensic science. At least it would look nothing like it does today. When father and son Dutch lens makers Zaccharias and Hans Janssen discovered that lining up several of their spectacle lenses in a hollow tube would magnify any object viewed, they could never have imagined how their discovery would change the world. When Anton van Leeuwenhoek, the Father of Microscopy, perfected this design and incorporated it into his studies of biology and medicine, he too never imagined the invisible world he would enter. Science and medicine would never be the same and the gateway to modern forensic science was opened.

 

 

The forensic science disciplines of blood analysis, firearm comparisons, trace evidence (hair, fiber, paint, etc.) examination, took mark interpretation, and even document examination regularly employ various types of microscopy.  HERE are some examples.

 

Marilyn: Suicide, Accident, or Murder?

 

In yet another great article titled “Marilyn’s Forensic Legacy” by Dr. Katherine Ramsland in Psychology Today, she addresses the death of Marilyn Monroe, a death that has remained controversial for half a century. Here Katherine addresses the psychological autopsy, an often useful tool in cases like this.

 

Lizzie Borden Took An Ax—120 Years Ago Today

Lizzie Borden took an axe
And gave her mother forty whacks
When she saw what she had done
She gave her father forty-one

Everyone is familiar with this little ditty even though the author is unknown. Over the decades since this horrific double homicide there has been great discussion and controversy over whether Lizzie did the deed or not. And if so, what her motives might have been.

Adding to the discussion is this excellent article in Psychology Today by my friend Dr. Katherine Ramsland.

 

Forensic Firsts Begins June 17th on the Smithsonian Channel

A new series titled “Forensic Firsts” will begin on June 17th on the Smithsonian Channel. I worked on and was interviewed for the episode on fingerprints but unfortunately won’t be able to watch the series as my cable provider COX, in their infinite wisdom, doesn’t carry the Smithsonian Channel. But from what I’ve seen it’s going to be a fun series. Watch if you can. I think the episodes will also be available on their website.

 

 

My How Autopsy Facilities Have Changed

Autopsy rooms aren’t what they used to be. Not even close. Centuries ago, the autopsy room was often a dark and dank place in the basement of a hospital, some lit only by meager sunlight through a small window or two. Others were performed in theaters where physicians could sit and observe.

 

In the 19th Century and before, the autopsy procedure itself dealt only with what the physician could see before him. Some diseases and traumas were readily apparent but more subtle diseases and injuries and essentially all poisons would often go unnoticed. Not likely today with our expanding knowledge of forensic science and greatly improved and more sophisticated facilities.

 

An interesting article in Forensic Magazine on state-of-the-art autopsy facilities underscores these changes. A modern autopsy facility would have looked unearthly to the 19th century physician.

 

Q and A: How Would My 1925 Detective Determine That a Stain Was Human Blood?

Q: The setting is rural 1925. There are dark stains on trees, shrubs and leaves which my hero believes is blood. My questions are, how would he identify it as blood and how would he discriminate it from animal blood? What tests or experiments that existed in that era could he perform?

Frank James, Ste-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, Canada

A: The two steps needed to distinguish animal blood from human blood are: Determining if the stain or sample is indeed blood and then is it human of animal.

Testing liquids and stains to determine if they are blood is not new. For centuries, the microscope has been used to visually identify blood cells, which would prove that the substance is blood. But this required liquid blood and not the typical crime scene clotted or dried blood, neither of which contain identifiable cells. Several other tests appeared in the 1800s, including the hematin test, developed by Polish scientist Ludwig Teichmann in 1853. This also required liquid blood since in this test the blood was mixed with acetic acid and salt crystals, heated, and then viewed under a microscope. The presence of the characteristic rhomboid crystals proved the sample was blood. This test is similar to the present day Teichmann and Takayama Tests.

The guaiacum test, developed in 1862 by Dutch scientist Izaak Van Deen, used the guaiac resin of a West Indian shrub and is the precursor of the present day phenolphthalein test (see below). In the guaiacum test, the blood sample was mixed with hydrogen peroxide and guaiacum and, if it was indeed blood, a blue color would appear. In 1887, a similar test was used by Sherlock Holmes to identify a bloodstain in the very first Holmes story, A Study in Scarlet.

 

In 1900, Paul Uhlenhuth developed a serum that reacted only to human blood, and not animal blood. This is an antigen-antibody reaction and is similar to how this testing is done today. The sample would be dissolved in salt water and then the serum would be added. Human blood proteins would then react with the serum, producing complexes that would precipitate (fallout of solution) and darken the serum. Animal blood would cause no such reaction so if a reaction occurred the tester would know that the blood was indeed human and if not it must be animal blood or some other substance. Now we have serums that react with a just about any species of animal you can name and with these lab techs can determine the specific type of animal that shed the blood.

So your character could use guaiacum to determine that the sample was blood and then employ Uhlenhuth’s serum to determine if it was human or not.

 

Question and Answer: In 1863, Could An Autopsy Accurately Determine the Cause of Death?

Q: I am a writer trying to figure out what, if anything, a 19th century physician (actually the book is set in 1863) in a provincial Canadian backwater might conclude about a dead body found in salt water, which had a caved in skull and no water in the lungs. Would they indicate possible foul play? Would they even examine the lungs at autopsy?

A: In 1863, there was essentially no forensic science available. Fingerprints hadn’t been discovered to be a form of identification, blood typing was nearly a half century away, and DNA was a full century down the road. Ballistic examinations were not done. Toxicology was in its infancy as a method for uncovering arsenic in the tissues of a corpse had been developed by Jean Servais Stas, a Belgian chemist, in 1851. So, there wasn’t much forensic science around.

But, there was the autopsy. The examination of corpses and the determination if any diseases and injuries were present dates back many, many centuries. Ancient Egyptians performed something like autopsies but the first true autopsies to gain medical knowledge were likely performed by Erasistratus around 250 BC. Galen, the great first century Greek physician, was the physician to the gladiators and had extensive experience in anatomy and wounds. He wrote extensively on these and many other subjects and his shadow fell over medical knowledge well into the 19th century. Not always for the good, since he was wrong about almost everything. In 1350, autopsies were done on victims of the Black Death in the hopes of finding a cause for the pandemic. Over the next seven centuries the autopsy became more common and more sophisticated.

So, by 1863, the autopsy was well ingrained into the practice of medicine. This means that your physician could easily have the knowledge to perform them. Or not. Since he is in an isolated area, he could be out of the loop on that so you can have it either way. If he had any experience at all, he could determine whether the blow to the head was enough to kill the victim or not. He would see a skull fracture or bleeding into and around the brain. If he saw these, he might conclude that this was the cause of death. If he saw none of this, but merely a scalp bruise, he might conclude that drowning was the cause of death. He might not look at the lungs but simply know that the victim was found in water and assume that a drowning occurred. Or if he did examine the lungs and found them to be dry, he might say that drowning had nothing to do with it and the victim must have been dead at the time he entered the water. With dry lungs and no significant head injury he might not be able to say what caused the death. This gives you several options for how you construct your plot.

I should point out that dry lung drownings can occur and that any corpse—drowned or not—that has been in the water longer than 12 or so hours will have lungs filled with water. This is simply due to water seeping in and forcing the air out. Like a sponge dropped into water. But this was not known in 1863 so dry lungs might have suggested to your physician that no drowning occurred. He might be wrong but who could argue with his conclusion?

 

Los Angeles Times Festival of Books this weekend

This weekend the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books will be held on the USC campus. I’ll be doing a pair of signings on Sunday, May 1st. Drop by and say hello.

This year is the 20th Anniversary of the FOR DUMMIES brand and as part of the celebration I’ll be signing FORENSICS FOR DUMMIES at the Wiley Booth (#745) at 2 p.m.

Then at 3 p.m. I’ll be signing STRESS FRACTURE and my other books at The Mystery Ink Booth (#370).

I hope to see many of you there.

 

Historical Forensics Class–More Info

I’ve received several questions about the class and apologize for any confusion. The class is an on line, real-time class that runs through the month of March. Once you sign up, you will be invited to join a Yahoo Group set up for the class. This will occur before March 1st when the classes begin. Then the various classes will be added twice per week and discussions will be ongoing for the entire month. Here is the class schedule:

Tuesday, March 1: Introduction to the workshop

Wednesday, March 2: Lecture 1: Introduction to Forensic Science

Monday, March 7: Lecture 2: Early Forensic Scientists and the Coroner

Wednesday, March 9: Lecture 3: The Autopsy

Monday, March 14: Lecture 4: Fingerprints

Wednesday, March 16: Lecture 5: Toxicology

Monday, March 21: Lecture 6: Firearms Examination

Wednesday March 23: Lecture 7: Blood Typing

Monday, March 28: Lecture 8: Final Questions

Again, to sign up go HERE

 

Upcoming Historical Forensics Class

Want to know where it all started? Learn how fingerprinting, toxicology, blood analysis, firearm examinations, and autopsies developed and were used in criminal investigations a hundred years ago? Sign up for my Coffin Class for the Romance Writers of America’s Kiss of Death Chapter. It begins March 1st. Here are their descriptive materials and sign up instructions.

Title: Historical Forensics

Instructor: D.P. Lyle, MD

Class Description: Today we’re all familiar with the marvels of CSI, whether from reading mysteries or true crime or watching television programs and movies. But all these ways to pin the crime — and the criminal — down had to start somewhere! So where and when did it all begin? And what sorts of things were early forensic investigators able to do?

This class will cover the late 19th and early 20th centuries, an era that gave birth to so many forensic techniques: fingerprints, blood typing, firearm’s examinations, toxicology, and the expansion of the autopsy into the forensic arena. This will give the writer of historical fiction the accurate information needed and will give all crime writers a firm foundation for understanding the world of modern forensics.

Dr. Doug Lyle, M.D. will lay the historic groundwork in March 2011′s Murder One workshop, HISTORICAL FORENSICS.

To sign up go HERE