Cheetos: A Cop’s Best Friend?

You have to admit, Cheetos are simply the best junk food ever invented. Hands down, no contest. I don’t mean those fake puffy ones. The crunchy ones. Real Cheetos.

 

19 year old Austin Westfall Presler might beg to differ.

It seems Austin pilfered beer, cigarettes, energy drinks, and Cheetos from the Cassatt Country Store in Cassatt, SC. But he screwed the pooch when he broke open the Cheetos bag and left a trail right to his front door. Police followed the bright orange tid bits to Presler’s home and found the stolen items inside.

A waste of good Cheetos but at least the crime was solved.

Chalk one up for Chester.

 

 

DNA: Chewed Up and Spit Out

Some stories just make you smile.

It seems that Gary Raub murdered a 70-year-old woman in 1976 and by now I’m sure thought he had gotten away with it. But the police never took him off the suspect list. To nab him they needed his DNA to compare against blood left at the crime scene by the perpetrator. The police came up with a very clever ploy.

A fake chewing gum survey.

It seems that old Gary was tricked into taking part in the survey and from the gum his DNA was obtained and the match made.

Lady Justice might be slow but she is relentless.

 

A Few Final Words From Death Row

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice has posted 30-years of the final words uttered by executed criminals. An interesting read. They also posted each former inmate’s Offender Information—a good thing since many do protesteth too much.

An example: Steven Michael Woods, Jr., who along with his buddy and stellar citizen Marcus Rhodes, shot and cut the throats of a young couple and then stole their car keys, cell phone, and other items. He closed his final rant with, “…go ahead and do it. Pull the trigger. It’s coming. I can feel it coming. Goodbye.”

Somehow I doubt his victim’s had the opportunity to say anything similar.

Adios, Stevie.

 

THE GREAT ESCAPES and the Reality of Most Prison Breaks

Source: eLocalLawyers.com
>

 

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

 

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

 

 

Guest Blogger: Leslie Budewitz: When Can a Very Young Child Testify in Court?

When can a very young child testify in court?

A tragic triple murder on the Crow Reservation in southeast Montana raises a question far too common in both civil and criminal law: When can a very young child testify?

Sheldon Chase, 22, is charged with the murder of his grandmother, cousin, and cousin’s boyfriend. The cousin and her boyfriend were the parents of two boys, ages 2 and 3. According to an account in the Billings Gazette, the older boy told FBI investigators that Chase and his father fought outside the grandmother’s home, and Chase shot his father, then shot the two women inside the home. http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_cfdce8fe-51e0-5ecf-8cf2-f0be64d6a4c8.html

Young children may testify at trial, if they are first found competent to testify. In Idaho, Joseph Duncan was set to stand trial for murdering a woman, her boyfriend, and her teenage son, and kidnaping her two younger children for sex; he later killed the younger boy but was captured in Montana with the girl. Idaho law requires a judge to interview privately any child under ten to determine competency. Days before trial, the judge found the girl, then nine, competent to testify.

Some states establish competency review requirements by statute, while others rely on case law. Most states require that witnesses under ten be interviewed to determine their competency, either before trial or during trial but outside the presence of the jury. Older children’s competency may also be challenged, if the lawyer opposing the testimony files a motion asking the court to determine competency. In the Duncan case, the nine year old was the only living witness to a triple homicide; the judge determined her competency before trial because of the potential effect on plea discussions and trial if she were unable to testify.

Competency determinations depend on whether the minor witness has the ability to:

1) understand the obligation to tell the truth, and

2) accurately relate events seen, heard, or experienced.

The same rules apply to adult witnesses whose mental capacity is in question. The criteria are broken down further into these elements:

• Capacity to observe.

• Sufficient intelligence.

• Adequate memory.

• Ability to communicate.

• Awareness of the difference between truth and falsehood.

• Appreciation of the obligation to tell the truth in court. Judges are trained to use age-appropriate terms and measures. A young child may say that if she lies she’ll be punished, or if he doesn’t tell the truth, God won’t love him any more. In most cases, that’s enough.

In Washington State, a three year old was allowed to testify about abuse that occurred when she was two, because she met the basic criteria for competence as to the subject of her testimony. Obviously, she could not be asked more complex questions that a seven or ten year old could understand and respond to, but she demonstrated her understanding of the difference between the truth and a lie, and the importance of telling the truth. The judge concluded that she had the necessary ability to observe and communicate what had happened to her. However, it’s entirely possible that another three year old or even an older child might not be found competent.

When a child is unable to testify, their prior statements to parents, counselors, doctors, or law enforcement may be admissible at trial in some situations. Many state legislatures passed laws in recent decades allowing such statements, particularly in sex abuse cases, because of the need for the testimony and the difficulty of obtaining it, if the circumstances indicate that it is likely to be reliable.

As a direct result of the Idaho court’s competency decision in Duncan’s case, Duncan pled guilty on the day jury selection was to begin to three charges of first degree homicide and three charges of first degree kidnaping. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. He also pled guilty to federal charges of kidnaping and homicide for taking the two younger children to Montana, saying he wanted to spare the family and community any more pain. It’s unlikely that he would have pled guilty without the finding that the nine year old could testify.

What about this little boy? His competence will be evaluated by the criteria set out above. If he understands what it means to tell the truth, and demonstrates the ability to accurately relate other events, he too may be found competent to testify to what he heard and saw. The more consistent his testimony is with other evidence, the more weight it will carry. We don’t know yet what else he told investigators, what other testimony there may be, or what the physical evidence shows. No prosecutor wants to put a child on the stand if it can be avoided. Children can be unpredictable witnesses. The experience may add more trauma to an already-traumatized life.

This boy’s testimony may turn out not to be necessary. Chase may confess. News accounts say he suffers from mental illness; he may not be competent to stand trial. The physical evidence at the scene may be enough to convict him.

But children’s testimony can be powerful. Its availability is one more important tool.

Leslie Budewitz is the author of Books, Crooks and Counselors: How to Write Accurately About Criminal Law and Courtroom Procedure (Quill Driver Books). She is a practicing lawyer and a mystery writer, and lives in Montana. Read an excerpt and more articles for writers, or send her a question, at www.LawandFiction.com

 

Cell Phones Are a Gold Mine of Info

You’ve seen it on the news many times. A criminal states that he was nowhere near the crime scene at the time of the crime yet his cell phone says otherwise. Or he says he doesn’t know a particular individual yet his cell phone shows a flurry of calls between the two around the time of the crime. Unfortunately for the criminal, but good news for investigators, cell phone data can show that a tower was accessed, a call was made or received, a text was sent, or a GPS signal was stored. Any or all of these could place the suspect much closer to the crime scene that he’s willing to admit or create a connection between the suspect and an accomplice. Or a victim. The Brian Stidham case is an example.

Police will often work with the service provider to gather this data from their computers. But what if there was a simple and easy way to glean this information from the suspect’s cell phone directly? There is. Cellebrite has a much improved portable device that will extract this data very quickly.

This is definitely something that crime writers can use.

 

 

Q and A: Could the Sensitivity of Modern DNA Testing Prove Confusing in a Contaminated Crime Scene?

Q: I attended your forensics panel at SINC OC and remember you saying that DNA can be extracted from a single cell found at the scene. Is that correct? I have a meticulous serial killer that I want to leave only DNA clues but (for me at least) that begs two questions: How far is the one-cell method of DNA ID developed now and wouldn’t the DNA results become muddied since many persons would have been in the same area? In other words, how would friends/family/acquaintances be ruled out or in as suspects when they most likely would have physical contact with the victim?

P.I. Barrington, Riverside, CA

A: The techniques that allow very small DNA samples to be useful are well-established and have been the last 15 years. They are the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and short tandem repeats (STR). Together they are referred to as PCR/STR. The PCR technique basically copies the existing DNA chains so that a single DNA chain–therefore a single cell–can be used to produce as much DNA as is needed. Since the copying is exact, all the DNA produced by this method is identical to the original DNA strand. This process is called amplification but it is basically a duplication of the existing strand. The short tandem repeat is simply a method of analyzing the DNA and producing a profile from multiple short segments of the target DNA.

What this all means is that a very small DNA sample, and theoretically only a single cell, can be used to generate a DNA fingerprint.

 

 
Your other questions bring up a very difficult problem that will be an increasing problem in the future. If the DNA techniques are so sensitive, what do we do about extraneous DNA found at the scene? Since people shed skin cells all the time, a busy public place could theoretically house the DNA from thousands of people. But as with the blues, context is everything.

If the crime scene DNA is found in a drop of blood or a smear of semen or a fingerprint, the DNA found in that sample would belong to the person that left the sample behind. Could it be contaminated by other DNA? Of course, but this contaminant would be in very small amounts. In addition, the extraneous DNA might belong to a family member or friend or someone who had a reason to be at the scene before or after the murder. That’s not always true in the case of the killer. Often he has no innocent reason for having deposited his bodily fluids or fingerprints at a murder scene.

So let’s look at a scenario such as this: the killer does his deed. He washes his hands in the sink. He uses a hand towel to dry his hands. The crime lab technicians evaluate the towel and find DNA present. The DNA proves to be from several people. The victim, the victim’s spouse, the victim’s children, and maybe the victims next-door neighbor who visits daily. But another DNA is found. One that cannot be matched to any known individual. Later a suspect is identified and indeed this DNA matches him.

What does this evidence tell investigators? It tells them what any evidence does. That the individual identified by the DNA had contact with that towel. That’s it. It doesn’t say anything else. This is true of all evidence. It merely serves as a link between a person and another person, place, or object. Your investigators must then uncover the circumstances under which this person’s DNA was left on that towel. If he can prove he had been there for dinner the night before and had indeed washed his hands then this evidence is of little value. But if he swears that he doesn’t know the victim and has never been in the victim’s home, that’s an entirely different story. Again, context is everything.

 

 

Stupid Criminals: Tattoo You

We’ve all heard of cases where a suspect or a corpse was identified by his distinctive tattoo. And other criminals have been done in by maps and “To Do” lists recovered by the police. You know, the dude had a hand-drawn map to the victim’s home, maybe even a sketch of the interior, and a list that reminded him of everything he had to do to do the deed. Things like: gloves, mask, duct tape, gun, and, oh yeah, top off the gas tank in case a chase ensues.

One Anthony Garcia can top all of that. He supposedly belongs to the Rivera-13 gang in Pico Rivera, CA. He allegedly shot and killed 23-year-old John Juarez in a liquor store 4 years ago. He got away with it. Almost.

LA County Sheriff’s Department homicide investigator Kevin Lloyd was flipping through a collect of gang member tattoos when he stumbled on Garcia’s image. Imagine his shock when he saw that Garcia had a detailed tattoo of the crime scene splashed across his chest under the banner “Rivera Kills.”

It’ll be interesting to see how they use this is court but one thing I know for sure—if you put this in a book, no one would believe it.