Q and A: Can My ME Distinguish Death From Asphyxia From Death Due to Head Trauma?

Q: Here’s my book situation: A man puts a plastic bag over his head to kill himself. His wife wakes up next to him (after he nearly strangled her to death and she discovers he’s killed their son) and in her horror and rage cracks him over the head with a blunt object.

Here’s my question: Can the police/coroner/forensics determine which was the cause of death–suffocation or blunt force trauma? If so, what would the signs be pointing to asphyxiation?  Also, if it matters, this is set in 1969.

Judy Merrill Larsen, author of All the Numbers

http://www.judymerrilllarsen.com

A: If the victim died first from the asphyxia, the ME would have no problem since the blow to the head would cause no bruising or bleeding. At death the heart stops and blood flow ceases and a corpse will not bleed or bruise easily. So the ME would see a mark where the victim was struck but no bleeding or bruising and know that the blow was delivered post-mortem.

If he was still alive when struck, things become a little more difficult for the ME but he should still be able to tell. Bruising and bleeding at the site of the blunt trauma would show that the victim was alive when struck but if there is no significant brain injury found at autopsy he would know that the force of the blow did not cause death and the asphyxia must have. If there is a brain injury such as cerebral contusion (brain bruise) or bleeding into or around the brain, he might have difficulty determining the actual cause of death. Of course any evidence of blunt trauma would point to homicide and not suicide since someone using a plastic bag for suicide would not likely also strike themselves in the head.

But I see a bigger problem with your scenario. If she was unconscious from being strangled, she would wake up within 10 seconds to a minute or so after the pressure was released unless she had significant brain injury from lack of oxygen. If she were simply strangled into unconsciousness, which is due to blocking blood flow thru the carotid arteries to the brain and not blocking breathing, as soon as the pressure was released and blood flow reestablished, she would wake up very quickly. Much sooner than he could put a bag on his head and die from asphyxia. For her to be out that long would require some degree of brain injury and I don’t think that’s what you want. Of course, if he drugged her first and then strangled her to the point he thought she was dead, but she in fact wasn’t, then she would awaken when the drug effect wore off. Here he could be dead for hours before she awakened.

 

 

Guest Blogger: Lisa Black: SO YOUR DAUGHTER/NEPHEW/GRAND-NIECE WANTS TO BE A CSI

 

 

Admit it. Somewhere in your family there’s some young person who is still riding that CSI craze toward a career. They see themselves wearing lab coats and pipetting mysterious liquids under cool blue lighting to the tune of a rock music montage. Or they imagine striding inside the yellow tape, pulling on latex gloves and snapping a sharp “What’ve we got?” at the hot homicide detective. Or they imagine running down a dark alley, dodging behind the dumpster to squeeze off a shot at the serial killer they just figured out is the serial killer by the aftershave he wears, the unique scent of kumji berries blended specially for a boutique in Greenwich Village where the first victim had a temp job.

 

Okay, first off—if it’s that last one, tell them to become a cop. CSIs don’t chase suspects. Most of us don’t even carry guns; that’s not a choice, it’s because we are civilian personnel and therefore not authorized. And because we already have enough crap to lug around.

 

 

We also don’t dress in nice clothes, wear heels, and believe me positively no one looks sexy in a lab coat. Angelina Jolie couldn’t even look sexy in a lab coat, unless she wore it open with very select garments on underneath. But I won’t write an entire blog about the differences between CSIs on TV and CSIs in real life, though I could write several. Per day.

 

Colleges and universities now have degrees in forensic science and/or in crime scene processing. As with any other field, advise your daughter/nephew/grand-niece to examine these programs carefully. The harsh reality is that the field is flooded with applicants who love CSI and it’s a buyer’s market. An agency might not be so quick to hire someone with an AA degree when they can get a BS or even MS for the same salary. Check out the details of the program and their success in placing graduates. The university near me had some personnel changes and veered their forensic science program from the hard sciences to forensic psychology, which might be great for students who dreamt of becoming a profiler, but those who wanted a crime scene job were beat out by students from the local for-profit college who actually received much more practical training in their classes.

The field of forensics is changing as the technology updates. Remember how in My Cousin Vinny the prosecution’s expert testifies that the tire rubber left in the peel-out is the same composition and size of the tires on the defendants’ car? That kind of thing sounds very impressive until the defense attorney does exactly what Joe Pesci’s character did—point out that this is one of the most common tires sold. Information like that used to make up the bulk of forensic evidence, but nowadays, unless you had a clear enough pattern to match that skid mark to that tire, the prosecutor probably wouldn’t even present the evidence. DNA has spoiled us all. Courts no longer want a pile of small pebbles of what could be coincidence which build into a mountain of certainty. They want one big boulder of: this sample absolutely came from that person. So the tire rubber, the pollen spores, the hairs, the fibers, the glass fragments are being left behind.

Quick check: Are you still thinking about Angelina Jolie in a lab coat? Stop. Pay attention.

So what do we spend our time with nowadays? Advise your daughter/nephew/ grand-niece to absorb as much of the concepts governing these systems as possible:

 

Cell phones. We have a handy system that will download the information…in theory. But each model is different, so even with a case full of cables sometimes the connection won’t be made. Or we find we can download the text messages but not the photos, or the contact list but not the call history. And so on.

Video surveillance clips. At least everyone is going digital now so we no longer have to deal with scratchy VHS tapes; however we have the same problem as cell phones—the systems are all different. Many are sold by some mom-and-pop company that has since disbanded, the employees have no idea how to use it because they don’t need to on a regular basis, and they have no idea where the manual is, if they ever had one. Trial and error. It’s all trial and error. Oh, and a picture that looks great in a 4”x3” window looks like crap when blown up to 10”x8”. And no, we don’t have a handy software that fills in all those pixels so you can read the guy’s tattoo, or see the killer reflected in the victim’s eyeball.

Computers. Although the genius hackers of TV shows do not seem to exist, even the least educated criminal can figure out how to delete their emails. Where does this data go, where is it stored, what is a server, an Ethernet, a wireless connection, the Cloud? (And if you can answer these questions, please write and explain them to me.) You don’t have to know as much as an IT guy. If you do, become an IT guy. They make more.

And best of luck to your daughter/nephew/grand-niece. It’s a great field. Even if the wardrobe sucks.

 

Blunt Impact will be available April 1, featuring forensic scientist Theresa MacLean and a series of murders surrounding a skyscraper under construction in downtown Cleveland. The first to die is young, sexy concrete worker Samantha, thrown from the 23^rd floor. The only witness is her 11 year old daughter Anna, nicknamed Ghost. Ghost will stop at nothing to find her mother’s killer, and Theresa will stop at nothing to keep Ghost safe.

Also, Kindle owners can find a bargain in my new book The Prague Project, written under the name Beth Cheylan. A death in West Virginia sends FBI agent Ellie Gardner and NYPD Counterterrorism lieutenant Michael Stewart on a chase across Europe as they track stolen nukes and lost Nazi gold, hoping to avert the death of millions of people.

 

Lisa Black spent the five happiest years of her life in a morgue. As a forensic scientist in the Cleveland coroner’s office she analyzed gunshot residue on hands and clothing, hairs, fibers, paint, glass, DNA, blood and many other forms of trace evidence, as well as crime scenes. Now she’s a certified latent print examiner and CSI for the Cape Coral Police Department. Her books have been translated into six languages. Evidence of Murder reached the NYT mass market bestseller’s list.

Website: www.lisa-black.com

 

 

Q and A: Could My Young Roman Girl Estimate the Time a Death Occurred From the Blood at the Scene?

Q: I’m writing a young-adult novel set in the ancient Roman world. My “detective” is a slave girl without medical training but who has lived on a farm and observed animals being butchered. I need her to be suspicious about the reported time of death of a woman, based on the state of the body and the condition of the blood (the woman’s throat was cut and blood is still dripping off her bed when she is found). What would be the timeline of rigor mortis, and how long would the blood remain liquid? Are there any other clues that would lead her to suspect that the woman was killed very recently, and not several hours earlier, as was reported?

Tracy Barrett, YA author

http://tracybarrett.com

A: Once blood leaves the body it begins to clot very quickly. This process is completed in 5 to 10 minutes. After that, the blood begins to separate as the clot retracts into a dark knot and squeezes out a halo of yellow serum. This process would take another hour or more. The blood will then dry to a rusty brown stain. This could take several hours or even days in a moist climate.

 

As blood clots, the clot contracts, leaving behind the yellowish serum

 

You’re young slave girl could know this from her experience as a butcher. If she found blood that was liquid and still dripping she would know that the murder took place less than 10 or so minutes earlier. If she found that the blood had clotted but not separated then she might conclude that the murder took place more than ten minutes but less than an hour earlier. If the blood had separated into a clot and a surrounding halo of yellow serum, she would guess that the death occurred somewhere between one and three hours or so. Finally, if the blood had completely dried she might conclude that the death occurred at least 4 to 6 hours earlier, or longer in a moist environment. These are very general but should give you a usable timeline.

Rigor mortis would not play a role here since your corpse is found fairly quickly after death and it takes about 12 hours for rigor to fully develop. In this situation, the blood would more clearly define the time of death.

 

 

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.

 

Guest Blogger: Jaclyn Nicholson: Modern Crime Scene Science

There are many parts of an investigation that work together to solve crimes. From forensic specialists, CSIs, coroners, to detectives and the police, it is a highly detailed and intelligent process. Some of the most important steps include lifting fingerprints, estimating the time of death, utilizing forensic entomology and DNA profiling, analyzing bloodstains and doing an autopsy.  Each step is intended to supply clues that lead to more evidence. The modern methods for solving crimes are ever-changing and continue to advance.

INFO GRAPHIC HERE

 

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.

 

 

New Murder Cam Can Map a Crime Scene in 10 Minutes

One of the most important tasks investigators must perform at a crime scene is documenting it in an accurate manner. Sketches, notes, voice recordings, photos, and videos have each been employed in this endeavor. Though this is painstaking and time-consuming work, accurate documentation of the scene is critical on many levels. Crime scene documentation helps investigators see and understand the elements of the crime, aids in crime scene reconstruction, and helps support or refute suspect and witness statements, not to mention offers prosecutors useful facts and images to use in the courtroom.

Now it appears that a new “Murder Cam” can scan and create a 360-degree, 3D image of the scene. And do it in only 10 minutes. This could prove to be a very useful new tool.

 

Cambridge News Article

 

 

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.

 

The Great American Manhunt: Interesting New NatGeo Show

Here is a blurb for an upcoming forensics show on the National Geographic Channel. The 8-part series begins this Friday. As they say, check your local listings. And watch the trailer–link below. Looks like it could be a fun show.

THE GREAT AMERICAN MANHUNT

CSI fans – we know how much you love a dead body and the scientific hunt to track down a killer – well in a sensational new twist on the forensic game, an upcoming reality challenge show on National Geographic will be testing the skills and techniques of CSI in the real world.

 
The Great American Manhunt sets three real-world experts a weekly challenge: to chase down a living, breathing, mystery target at large, somewhere among the entire population of the country. With no shortcuts (no access to DNA, dental records or ID databases) a street-wise cop, a forensic scientist and a forensic psychologist access the very latest technology to help identify their quarry. The challenge is to work out just what marks them out from the crowd and – if they’re successful – their true identity.

 

Using just the clues on and inside the target’s body (including the clothes on their backs) they use super-cool science and their own remarkable skills to take on the ultimate forensic challenge. On the way they follow leads and chase down dead ends as a complex web of clues takes them across 50 States. The science is awesome, the chase every bit as challenging as the TV dramas we all love and, as the experts eventually discover, the mysterious targets turn out to be awesome and extraordinary individuals. If you like CSI you’ll love The Great American Manhunt – real world forensics like you’ve never seen before.

 

First show airs on April the 19th. For a sneak preview – click HERE