8127/frame/fm

 
Sidebar 7
 
How Big Is the Crime Scene? — The 
Little Bullet that Could
She was suffering from a severe case of post-partum blues, and the Fourth of July celebration just
seemed to make it worse. Her husband had invited all of his friends over to the house, and they partied
all day long. When they finally left, she felt overwhelmed. She knew her husband kept a gun underneath
their bed, and she sought relief from the short cold blue-steel muzzle.
He caught her just in time. Standing in the living room, he grabbed the hand holding the gun,
and they struggled back and forth, she looking to squeeze off the end of her misery, he to wrest death
from her hands. One shot rang in his ears, and she slumped forward, blood pouring from her mouth.
He half-dragged, half-carried her into the bathroom, leaning her over the bathtub to catch the never-
ending river of crimson that flowed from her mouth. Not able to staunch the tide, he called 911.
Paramedics arrived within minutes, and quickly whisked her out of the house, baby and father both
crying in the wake of a gurney wheeling away their woman. She died on the way to the hospital.
This was the story that greeted homicide detectives when they arrived at the scene. All they had
was the husband’s story and whatever physical evidence was left behind. Setting up in the kitchen/din-
ing area, photograph and latent print specialists spread out to work the scene. How could they
distinguish between the story the husband told and the possibility of a homicide? A criminalist was
summoned to assist in the investigation.
When he arrived at the scene, detectives had just learned that the victim had died of a single
near-contact gunshot wound that entered from just below the jaw, severing a major blood vessel. The
bullet was not in the victim, according to the hospital. Detectives wanted some confirmation that his
story was true.
The criminalist suggested that if the husband was in close proximity to the victim when the shot
was fired, then his shirt should be full of fine spatter as a result of blow-back from the shot. The shirt
of the husband was collected, but because it was a dark color, no blood could be discerned from a
visual inspection. The rest of the time was spent examining the remainder of the scene, including the
blood patterns, and searching for the spent bullet.
Nothing found in the bloodstain patterns contradicted the story of the husband; they led from
the living room to the bathroom, increasing in volume in that direction. A large volume of blood was
evident in the bathroom and bathtub, again consistent with his story. Even his story that he had used
the phone to call the police after touching the bloody victim was confirmed by smears of blood on
the instrument.
The puzzle came in searching for the expended bullet. The hospital had confirmed an entrance
and exit wound, yet a thorough search of the living room yielded no trace of a bullet or bullet hole
anywhere. Every inch of the walls, ceilings, and floor were scoured for traces of an entrance hole, and
none were found. The drapes were examined, not just for holes, but for the bullet itself, with no luck.
As puzzled searchers scratched their heads, one sharp-eyed inspector spied a small hole in a kitchen
chair. As luck would have it, the kitchen had been chosen as the setup area, and the table and chairs
were chock-a-block with detective stuff, including crime scene kits, photograph kits, latent print kits,
and the trash bag. When the chair was examined closely, the expended bullet was indeed lodged in
the back of the chair. Needless to say, no one had a clue as to the original configuration of the chairs
and tables, so it was impossible to reconstruct the direction from which the bullet had come.
8127/frame/ch08 Page 204 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:45 AM

---

Good Field Practice — Processing a Crime Scene
205
bedspread itself). The methods for collecting and preserving each of these
are quite different. Which evidence was most important and was there a way
to preserve all of them? According to Ragle, the origin of the biological
material was really not in question because a victim missing lots of blood
and brains was also recovered from the interior of the car. However, confir-
mation of the solvent as gasoline (suggesting intent to destroy the evidence)
and determination of the origin of the bedspread could potentially provide
information crucial to associating the perpetrator with the scene.
The investigation team in that case made the decision to remove the
loose chunks of brain to a glass jar for temporary storage. The rest of the
bedspread was then sealed in a plastic bag, a procedure appropriate for
preserving ignitable liquids, but potentially destructive to biological evi-
dence. This decision may sound obvious and trivial to you as you read this,
but put yourself out on a dark road in the middle of the night with a
gasoline-soaked car full of blood, guts, and a dead victim. Our first instinct
is often to give top priority to biological evidence because of its individu-
alizing potential. The gasoline (although not the bedspread) turned out to
be one of several critical pieces of evidence that helped solve the case. We
suggest that you refer back to Mr. Ragle’s book for a detailed rendition of
this instructive case.
It is a fact that those who initially respond to a crime scene will virtually
always be agents of the prosecution. This includes the police officers and any
crime laboratory personnel. Because these individuals have the first, and
sometimes the only, access to the scene and any physical evidence within it,
they have a special responsibility to consider the crime scene in terms of
alternative hypotheses. There are no second chances; crucial evidence,
whether inculpatory or exculpatory, must be recognized the first time around
or its value immediately begins to depreciate. A perfect example of this is the
blood on the back gate of Nicole Brown Simpson’s Bundy residence that was
not collected until 2 weeks after the crime event (
 
People v. Simpson
, February
15). The laboratory results eventually obtained from that evidence appeared
highly inculpatory, but its value to the case was significantly reduced because
of questions about its origin that arose because it was not collected during
the initial crime scene search.
Examination of the shirt in the laboratory under low-power stereomicroscopy showed thousands
of submillimeter blood particles on the front of the shirt, which confirmed the close proximity of the
husband when the shot was fired. Given the totality of the evidence (or rather the lack thereof),
including the inability to reconstruct the shot from the misplaced chair, detectives declined to file
charges against the husband.
This case illustrates just how difficult it is to choose a working perimeter for the scene.
8127/frame/ch08 Page 205 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:45 AM

---

206
Principles and Practice of Criminalistics
Always remember that the speculations and hypotheses about what 
 
might
have occurred are just that. They are useful for coordinating a plan of action
and collection of evidence, but the true story may turn out to be completely
different. Be willing to change your hypothesis as the evidence changes; listen
to what the evidence has to tell you and keep an open mind.