8127/frame/fm

a.
Definition of Reconstruction
Earlier, we reviewed two definitions of reconstruction by DeForest et al.
(1983) and Saferstein (1998). We combine and paraphrase slightly to provide
the following definition:
We will use the following nomenclature:
Event
The interaction of two objects
Incident
The compilation of all of the individual 
events
comprising the
activity of interest
2.
Capabilities of Reconstruction
Virtually nothing has been written in the scientific literature about the spe-
cific steps involved in reconstructing an incident, that is, ordering the events
in space and time. For the most part, this is a logical process that involves
thinking about which event must have occurred before some other event.
The criminalist will combine facts about the crime scene with the results of
physical evidence examinations to propose a path through time and space
linking each individual contact. Assumptions, and other information not
* The 
Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) Journal
is dedicated in
part to publishing articles about ballistics in the context of crime scene reconstruction.
** We do not consider here accident reconstruction, which is the most common type of
reconstruction in civil cases.
Reconstruction
:
The ordering of events in relative space and time based on the
physical evidence
8127/frame/ch07 Page 178 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:46 AM

---

Association and Reconstruction — Inference of Contact
179
strictly related to the physical evidence, must also be incorporated into a
reconstruction. Because of this, if the assumptions or information change,
the reconstruction may also change.
Clues, in the form of physical evidence, will inevitably be left as a result
of every crime, especially violent crime. When the evidence is recognized,
collected, and analyzed properly, there exists the possibility of not only asso-
ciating two of the objects through an inference of contact, but of ordering
several such associations in time and space. As with all endeavors in crimi-
nalistics, it is imperative to keep the relevant questions clearly in mind. One
can spend inordinate amounts of time reconstructing an incident, only to
have the work ignored because it is irrelevant. Before attempting a recon-
struction, the analyst should have in mind what dispute needs to be resolved,
and whether the physical evidence is capable of providing information to the
fact finder that will assist in that resolution. To continue a theme repeated
throughout this book, the analyst must also form more than one hypothesis
for how an event occurred. This tempers any unconscious bias that we might
have, and reminds us that there is always more than one possible cause for
each event that contributes to an incident.
Consider a simple incident where someone is shot, and the victim’s blood
is subsequently found on some other person’s clothing. The question is
whether the transfer of blood occurred in connection with the shooting. Two
hypotheses can be considered.
1. Blood from the victim’s gunshot wounds was contemporaneously
transferred to the other person’s clothing.
2. The blood of the victim was transferred to the other person’s clothing
during an unrelated incident.
A variety of other facts, information, and assumptions will assist in differ-
entiating between these two competing hypotheses. This information can
and should be considered when attempting a reconstruction of this incident.
A non-exhaustive list includes:
1. The location of the wound on the victim;
2. The volume of blood exuding from the wound;
3. The volume and location of blood on the clothing;
4. Whether the wearer and the owner of the clothing are the same person;
5. When the clothing was collected relative to the incident.
If, for example, an insufficient amount of blood is coming from the
wound to account for the amount of blood on the clothing, then an inference
that the blood is not related to the incident is appropriate. Note, also, that
8127/frame/ch07 Page 179 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:46 AM

---

180
Principles and Practice of Criminalistics
the person could have acquired the victim’s blood on her clothing in con-
nection with the shooting, but as a result of some completely innocent
activity, such as assisting the victim. This simple example demonstrates the
complexity of any attempt at reconstruction. Trying to incorporate more
events will increase the intricacy even further, providing opportunities for
overinterpretation.