Please read chapter 5 that was previously emailed to you.
What I would like you to do is to find a topic from this chapter that interests you and search the internet for material on that topic. You might, for example, find people who are doing research on the topic, you might find web pages that discuss the topic, you might find youtube clips that demonstrate something related to the topic, etc. What you find and use is pretty much up to you at this point.
Once you have completed your search and explorations (which may include a fair amount of browsing time, and reading websites, links, news pieces, or articles), I would like you to say what your topic is, how exactly it fits into the chapter, why you are interested in it, and what you learned about that topic from 3 of the sources you viewed/read on the internet (please at the end of your comment include the 3 URLs). Choose quality sources. You may want to review people's posts from last week's assignment to see examples of posts different from your own.
Your comment should be clearly written and demonstrate the time and effort you spent on this assignment. Do not just talk about each of the three URLs separately. INTEGRATE your discussion of the topic referring to the URLs as necessary.
I’ve always figured that solving a crime would be extremely difficult. Where would you even start? How do police officers even begin to develop suspects? As it’s discussed in chapter 5, police and investigators have many ways to find and narrow down suspects.
One way police may try and find/identify a suspect is through the use of the media or by help from the public. In this newspaper article the police are going to the public to see if anyone has any information on stolen TVs (http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/10/police_seek_help_finding_suspe.html). Asking the public for help could provide the police with new information but I think it could also put people at risk. Maybe not in this case, but if police were looking for help on a murder investigation, speaking up could put a person’s life in danger. Asking for help doesn’t necessarily mean they will get it either. Or that it is correct information.
Another way in which suspects can be narrowed down is through alibis. Alibis are hard to come up with and just as hard to prove. I can’t imagine having to come up with what I did a month ago. Sure there are receipts to look at and bank statements, but what if all I did was hang around my apartment with my roommates? Chances are I wouldn’t remember that. Why would I? It’s not exciting and normally I would have no need to remember it. Or, what if I was alone all day. There is no proof that I didn’t go anywhere and commit a crime. That’s not a very fun situation to be in if you are innocent. I could see some people lying about their alibi even if they are innocent. They don’t want to be convicted of a crime that they didn’t commit just because they can’t remember what they were doing at the time of the crime. But, of course this could be fatal as well. If you lie about what you were doing, the police would probably expect you even more. This article explains that you shouldn’t make up a false alibi just to prove your innocence. The two sections that go along with alibis are: determining your alibi and don’t fabricate your alibi. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/487525/what_to_do_when_youre_wrongly_accused.html?cat=17
The last way I’m going to talk about that police can narrow down a suspect is through motive. Chances are that a person with motive is more likely to commit a murder than a person without motive (although I’m sure there are cases in which a person with no motive to kill someone has killed). So, the suspect pool can be narrowed down if there are people with no motive. This article discusses how the “why” of a crime is often hard to determine. How it is sometimes difficult to find motive. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11481546/
Each on their own, I wouldn’t think that any of these is enough to say someone did or did not commit a crime. And even if they have motive and no alibi they still may be innocent. It’s hard to imagine that people are convicted of crimes that they never committed. But how could you prove that you didn’t do it if all the evidence is against you?
After reading chapter 5 the thing that really caught my interest is how the police go about finding a perpetrator or narrowing down a suspect pool. In the book it talked about using eyewitnesses and having them look at line ups or photos but my question was, how accurate is this and how often are these measures used compared to other ones. The text talked about using sketch artists to get an image of what the witness saw but the scary part about that to me is what if the witness gets it wrong and the police end up on a wild goose chase because they are going off of false information. I decided to look into some research on the methods that are the most commonly used in police departments today. I found that the most common and most accurate non computerized method is that of a sketch artist. In a study done in a variety of police stations the sketch artist showed the highest satisfaction in accuracy. However computerized methods are becoming more and more popular and show nearly as high of satisfaction when used correctly. Software such as identi-kit 200 and faces 3.0 are designed to give a digital photo of a suspect based on several facial recognition options. This is a system that is very easy to use and can create an image very quickly with information from an eye-witness. The study also looked into the way information was collected from the eyewitnesses and how that went into a sketch. The most commonly used method was to get a verbal description from the witness and get that into the sketch and then refine with further details. This method was followed by cognitive interviews and showing witnesses pictures of facial features. However even with this information I still wonder how accurate these eye witnesses are with their descriptions and how often these drawings found a name to go with them. Another study found that 20% of the time a drawing done by computerized software as I mentioned before results in finding the perpetrator and this is only if the eye witness is interviewed in the first 48 hrs, after this timeframe the rate drops. When the composite is done by a sketch artist the success rate is only about 10%. One way that was found to enhance the effectiveness of sketches was to change the interview done with witnesses. Research found that witnesses are better at describing a person when they have put a personality to the face, so instead of just a cognitive interview the interview will also get the witness talking about personality traits of the perpetrator. Another way found to enhance the accuracy of an image is to blur the photo so the person giving the descriptions wont be thrown off by major facial features and will still be able to give further detail, more research is still being done on this but the research that has been done has shown it to be very successful. I found some information on a new software that is being developed to enhance the process of sketching a possible perpetrator. These processes involve more recognition instead of recall, in this process the witness is asked to pick the options that most closely relate to their visual of the person. They say this is the next new and better thing but I still kind of wonder about how that would impact the witnesses memory, seeing other images might confuse them or give them false memories. I guess this is just something that will have to be continually studied to find the best thing like many other processes.
http://www.uclan.ac.uk/scitech/research/rae2008/psychology/staff_profiles/files/Frowd_et_al_2008_-_ThePsychologist.pdf
http://eyewitness.utep.edu/Documents/McQuiston%20APLS%202000.pdf
http://identi-kit.com/products.html
While reading chapter 5 and also "Mind Hunter," by John Douglas I became very interested in the topic of a criminal's Modus Operandi. I found it very interesting that most criminals have developed or created this set pattern to all their crimes that can help police narrow down the suspect. Modus Operandi is a latin word and most criminal agencies us the initials M.O. when talking about Modus Operandi (Hunter). M.O. is a set of actions that a criminal takes to in order to accomplish or commit a crime (Modus). "They are a set of learned behaviors that are used because they work" (Mauro). An example of a Modus Operandi may be a pertetrator who robs movie theaters that are showing the movie "Showgirls." He may rob different movie theaters but the M.O. is that he is robbing only theaters that are currently showing the movie "Showgirls" and at times he may be dressed up like a showgirl (Modus). M.O. can also be associated with the signature of the perpetrator. An example of a perpetrator's signature to his M.O. is maybe a burglar who wants money, but as he robs he may leave a signature such as slashing couches in the places that he robs (Hunter). The signature and M.O. are different but they are both useful and are good together to help find the suspect.
One big aspect of M.O. is that it can change due to the criminals success and accomplishments in the crime. M.O. is associated with opernant learning, it can comfirm or disprove the behaviors of the perpetrator based on the positive or negative consequences the perpetrator may experience for the crime. If the criminal had trouble the first time in the crime he may change some aspects to the crim to improve it and make it more efficienct (Mauro). I just find the M.O. very interesting and the book "Mind Hunter" by John Douglas has some amazing and interesting stories of serial killer's M.O. What is weird is that most criminals all have different M.O.s and that is how they all get caught, because most have created these behaviors that they commit in all of their crimes.
One show example I came across in my research was an episode from the show "Profiler." In this one episode it talked about a perpetrator who killed people one of the agents from the unit in "Profiler" knew. However she knew the people he killed by different names and not by their real names. That was the pertetrators M.O.; however, the pertetrator did have signature also, which was the saying now i can kill. He would write that on this of the people he killed or wanted to kill. "Profiler" Season:1 Episode: 6 can be found on youtube.
\http://law.jrank.org/pages/8626/Modus-Operandi.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/take-all-prisoners/201003/catch-serial-criminal
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2653127/modus_operandi_and_motive_whats_the.html
While reading the chapter I decided to look further into DNA. It’s so important, especially when it’s used as evidence in a criminal case, that it’s good to know more about it…. who knows, I could end up being a DNA expert witness! I wanted to get some background first, so I went to http://www.dna.gov/basics/analysishistory/, where I learned that DNA wasn’t even used in the courts since the mid-80s (even I was alive by then!) so it’s a pretty new science, especially compared to something like fingerprints. A guy named Jeffreys was the first person to come up with a test for DNA in 1985. Basically, he found that different DNA samples had different repeated sections, thus he was able to test someone and tell whether the DNA sample matched that particular person based on the repeated sections. These repeat sections were called VNTRs (variable number of tandem repeats) and the test was called RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism) and the test is still used today. While this website gave me some good ideas about the test and the history of its use, I still wasn’t sure I was getting it. (By the way, I did already have some background knowledge of DNA – the double helix, how it’s composed of four letters that are it’s “alphabet”, so I didn’t research that. I really focused on the tests used to get DNA matches.) http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html talks more about the two types of tests used today for DNA. One is RFLP, and the website said that it really isn’t used much today – you need a larger sample and it needs to be undegraded – which rules out a lot of DNA samples that are old or were stored improperly. The other test, PCR, is more widely used because the test is faster and because the sample can still be somewhat degraded and the test will still give an accurate result. (However, it should be noted that the PCR test is not without its limitations and drawbacks – one of which is that the PCR test has more room for contamination error.) Basically, the RFLP test uses thousands of cells to trap and “map” DNA around a slab of gelatin. This is then compared to a database of people’s DNA. Even put simply, it’s hard to follow. The PCR test increases the amount of DNA available, so that it’s easier to type. This is most typically combined with a test known as the STR test. The STR test takes a section of DNA that repeats itself (like ATATATAT). This repetition is different for everyone – some may have more repetition, some may have less, some may have different combinations of the four letters. Together, these two techniques are able to give us a profile of a person’s DNA sequence, and it can be used to match a suspect to a piece of evidence. Now, all of this is well and good, but I started thinking about what crimes would need this kind of testing most. Rape came to my mind, and I flashed to a Law and Order: SVU episode I watched recently where Olivia Benson told an officer from another state that New York doesn’t have a backlog of DNA tests. I wondered if it was fairly common to have a backlog. http://news.lawreader.com/?p=2070 has an article speaking about how Los Angeles has over 7000 backlogged DNA tests. The article goes on to say that that’s just 10% of all the forensic evidence that’s backlogged, there’s also fingerprint analysis, ballistics, drug evidence, etc. That’s a lot of back work to do. Unfortunately, it seems even federal grant money isn’t helping get this things tested. Perhaps we should work harder at recruiting more people to do this type of work.
After reading Chapter 5 I have decided to elaborate more on the differences between M.O. or Modus Operandi, signature, and staging. According to Wikipedia, "Modus Operandi is a Latin phrase translated as "method of operating". The term is used to describe someone's habits or manner of working, or their method of operating or functioning". I find the idea of M.O. very interesting when it comes to law enforcement and profiling. According to John Douglas who is the writer of the second article I found and the writer of two books we could have chosen for our final paper, there are three manifestations of offender behavior at a crime scene--modus operandi, personation or signature, and staging(Douglas). The M.O. is a learned behavior that is dynamic and malleable...developed over time, the M.O. continuously evolves as offenders gain experience and confidence(Douglas). I always thought that M.O., signature, and staging were all the same thing. The M.O. is the offenders operation of the crime, while the perps signature is a ritual or personal expression left at the crime scene from a fantasy that the offender has created in their mind. Douglas explains that "unlike the M.O., the signature never changes". The offender signature is very important. It helps profilers and police narrow down the suspect pool and gives law officials a "calling card" to go by if more deaths occurred. Staging is used by investigators as a more broad approach to a crime scene. They use this to try and find immediate answers to questions like "How did the offender control his/her victim?", or "Did the offender remove or place anything at the crime scene?". Staging occurs when the perpetrator purposely alters the crime scene in some way prior to the arrival of the police. Staging takes place for two reasons, to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family(Douglas).
To finally sum things up, the offenders M.O. consists of their signature and the staging of the scene. The Modus Operandi is everchanging and perfect by the perpetrator. If the crime itself isn't enough, offenders will leave a signature that is a ritual performed at every crime scene. The crime scene may also be staged by the offender by placing objects in the crime scene or reconstructing it to their liking or the way they believed the crime should have happened. It is very important for profilers and detectives to be able to know the difference between these three concepts to be able to watch for them when they are investigating crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_operandi
http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/behavioral-evidence/48-criminal-profiling/89-violent-crime-scene-analysis-modus-operandi-signature-and-staging
ttp://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/16342-modus-operandi-vs-offender-signature
As I read Chapter 5 I decided to look into DNA in a bit more detail. Again, like many of the topics we discuss in this class, DNA is so prominent in our mainstream media. We constantly encounter television shows, movies, and books that have some type of DNA refrence. However, does the public really understand the detials. Well, I've decided I sure do not, therefore, I decided it would be best to do a little investigation.
So why is DNA so important? Why does it seem like its constantly popping up in stories we hear on the news or television shows? Well there are several reasons...
This website gives a few reasons why DNA has become such an powerful tool in the investigation of crimes.
DNA analysis is a powerful tool because each person's DNA is unique (with the exception of identical twins). Therefore, DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can implicate or eliminate a suspect, similar to the use of fingerprints. It also can analyze unidentified remains through comparisons with DNA from relatives. Additionally, when evidence from one crime scene is compared with evidence from another using CODIS, those crime scenes can be linked to the same perpetrator locally, statewide, and nationally.
DNA is also a powerful tool because when biological evidence from crime scenes is collected and stored properly, forensically valuable DNA can be found on evidence that may be decades old. Therefore, old cases that were previously thought unsolvable may contain valuable DNA evidence capable of identifying the perpetrator.
http://www.dna.gov/solving-crimes/
Okay, I'm sure it obvious why DNA is important, but how does it work.. Well I found this website that gives some insight on how exactly DNA is used.
Any type of organism can be identified by examination of DNA sequences unique to that species. Identifying individuals within a species is less precise at this time, although when DNA sequencing technologies progress farther, direct comparison of very large DNA segments, and possibly even whole genomes, will become feasible and practical and will allow precise individual identification.
To identify individuals, forensic scientists scan 13 DNA regions, or loci, that vary from person to person and use the data to create a DNA profile of that individual (sometimes called a DNA fingerprint). There is an extremely small chance that another person has the same DNA profile for a particular set of 13 regions.
During my research I found out that DNA is used in many more areas then just solving crimes. Here are a few of them...
*Identify potential suspects whose DNA may match evidence left at crime scenes
*Exonerate persons wrongly accused of crimes
Identify crime and catastrophe victims
*Establish paternity and other family relationships
*Match organ donors with recipients in transplant programs
*Identify victims in catastrophes. (Used in identifying victims in 9-11)
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml
How reliable is DNA? Well, in my reasearch I have found a little bit of controversy that surround DNA profiling. Kathryn Troyer, a state crime lab analyst, came across two inmates (unrelated inmates) that match 9 out of 13 of locations of chromosomes. The FBI states that the chances of coming across two individuals who share that same genetic make up is very unlikely (1 in 113 BILLION). However, Troyer continued to find similar cases. The FBI has attempted to stop this investigation of Hoyers, and similar investigations, but have been unsuccesful. Most experts understand DNA profiling isn't perfect, but most believe its the best thing we have at our disposal to solve crimes. In summary, DNA isn't a perfect science, but what is? The probability of similar situations to occur is still unlikely, but these types of investigations points out there is still some work to be done in DNA investigations.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20
I found the Asch experiment mentioned in the text to be interesting so I looked into it further. Asch's experiment was designed to determine the effect on group influences on the individual, in short conformity. As it says in the text Asch's experiment was based on a line judgment test with a single participant and the rest of the group trying to influence the participant.
I found a video of the experiment itself in which the subject appeared to be easily swayed by the influence of those around him. This would suggest that witnesses can be easily influenced by others especially when more people were giving the same wrong answer. However, this has a Plataea effect where after about 6 or 7 people the effect levels off.
What I did find very interesting is the fact that the line test contained a very correct and obvious answer and that somehow participants were steered away from it to answers that just seemed ridiculous. This could translate into the search for a suspect turning up a person who only didn't do it but was nowhere near the scene at the time, all of this because the witnesses felt that the need to agree with one another was more important than actually getting the right guy, or perhaps because they believed that by agreeing with one another they were helping to catch the perpetrator.
Do to this it seems imperative to separate the witnesses to an event and get their stories before they have a chance to try to be good witnesses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRh5qy09nNw
http://www.experiment-resources.com/asch-experiment.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
I decided to research alibis in the legal system. Alibis can be very useful in an investigation because they can help to reduce a suspect pool. Technology has effectively increased the efficiency in which we can provide evidence of where we were and what we were doing. Many times a family member will vouch for a suspect and this will be invalid because family members or relatives may be bias towards them to protect them. Even when authorities may doubt an alibi witness it does not mean that knowledge won’t be useful in the future (Criminaldefenselawyer.com). With the use of an alibi witness a defense lawyer can attempt to get charges dropped before going to trial which can save the defendant a lot of time and money. With the example of computers we can verify what computer it came from and what time. This is not without faults though. Joseph A. Pollini a teacher from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice said, “With a user name and password, anyone can input data in a Facebook page” (Beltrami). There are a lot of people out there that know of ways to beat the system and it would not be surprising to have some very intelligent pull off a plan to commit a crime and have an alibi to be somewhere else with actual evidence. There is a service that people can join that allows them to download prerecorded sounds to make it appear they are somewhere that they are really not. If the authorities did not investigate something like this then someone could get off the hook for a crime that they actually committed so in this modern world we need to be on the lookout for scams and liars and to get actually evidence of where people are and what they were doing when suspected of a crime. Elisa Batista, the writer of the article said, she learned that cell-phone users often download background noise of traffic jams and then play the sounds (Wired.com). There is something called the alibi rule which is a principle of criminal law that requires a criminal defendant who intends to call an alibi witness at trial to give notice of who that witness is and where they claim to have been(Definition.uslegal.com). The reason for this rule is that it lessens the chance that either side will be surprised at the trial and it helps to make sure all the facts are able to come out to get a fair trial. I chose alibis because it is interesting how people can determine the fate of other people sometimes even if they know that the suspect did something wrong. I was also intrigued to find out that the courts are allowing social sites such as Facebook to be used as an alibi, so people no longer have to be present to see the suspect they just need some technological proof, but this is not always true in every case. I think what I took away from this is that even though there are new ways that alibis can be used, eyewitness alibis that are not related to you will provide the most confidence in clearing your name if you ever get into trouble. From now on I’ll make sure that I have someone to vouch for me in case something bad was to happen and I’m innocent.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/notice-of-alibi-rule/
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/05/63439
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/nyregion/12facebook.html
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/alibi-defense.htm
I decided to do my blog on the idea of criminal motive. Why does crime even happen? What is person X more likely to commit crime than person Y? Are there cases where motive isn't involved? What does motive say about violent crime? These, in my opinion, are questions in need of answering and understanding. Firstly, I researched older theories behind the occurrence of crime. What I found was that in the 1800's a man by the name of Cesare Lombroso did extensive research on the idea of "the born criminal". Unlike a vast majority of today's theories, Lombroso believed certain people were born with a natural tendency towards criminal behavior. He believed that the physical makeup of an individual could tell you that the person was/wasn't a criminal. The major weakness of his idea, besides those stemming common sense, was that he did his research with mostly convicted criminals rather than the open population. It is safe to say that we have come a long way from these kinds of theories. Today we rely on the idea of motive, or pushers that lead people to partake in criminal behavior. This may be as the result of social or economical pressures, greed or envy, and sometimes even just anger. A website I later found pointed out a number of reasons behind crime that aren't included in the normal list. First is the idea that criminals are often engergetic and go with what they are feeling. This often leads to taking actions that produce a "thrill". Criminal behavior often provides them with a rush. Secondly, criminals may be driven for their strong dislike of conventional norms of society. This is often a result of damaging childhoods in which relationships with parents and siblings was often no idea. A third explanation is that those committing crime are often times, but not always, those that have alcohol or drug problems. This obviously impairs judgement, but also the need to obtain these things can lead and reinforce existing criminal behaviors. A final reason is that it makes the person feel alive. In times where people feel they have lost control of their lives crime can reinstate power.We have all heard of cases where people confess to crimes and the only reason they give for their actions is, "I did it because I could." By doing this it creates a high level of happiness and also involved a great adrenaline rush.
These are not the same reasons, however, that would be given by a person in the criminal justice field. In a question/answer session done with a detective, there were 7 motives pointed out. Necessity, high emotions, convenience, law ignorance, mental illness, personal predispositions, and environmental factors. It is very hard, if possible at all, to argue with any of these. Personal predispositions refers to personality traits that increase someone's chances of being involved in crimes. Some examples include high levels of impulsivity and low levels of constraint. Those who are more calm and can better control their reactions to negative stimuli, become less stressed, are less likely to be involved in crime. This does NOT mean that calm people don't commit crime and easily aggrivated people always do. High emotions is one most common reasons people think of. Crime of passion is a phrase that may come to mind and this is where jealousy would come into play.
Jealousy, love, anger, and other emotions are often involved in violent crimes. Rarely do people resort to auto theft or vadalism as a result of these feelings. Non violent crimes is where you often find the people who can't afford what they need or have been taught that this way of life is how you survive. As it has been pointed out by a number of sources, it is important not to look at people who commit violent crimes and those who commit non violent crimes the same way because their motives are much different. This means that just because someone has a history of theft does not mean they should be looked at as a prime suspect for a murder case.
One more cause of crime to think about is that the decision to commit a crime, or become part of that lifestyle, is based on a weighing of the consequences. What punishment may I be given for committing this crime? What may happen to me if I DON'T commit this crime? Even though they may know very well that what their doing is wrong, if the consequences weigh more heavily on the positive side they may choose to commit the crime anyway. With the exception of certain cases of mental illness all these explantions point to the idea that crime is a choice. There may be different reasons and driving forces, but in the end people choose take or not to take certain actions.
http://www.holysmoke.org/c000/085.htm
http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/ocjrc/94/940650G.HTM
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/crime_motivation/4.html
One thing that stuck out to me in this chapter is the use of composites to recreate the face of the perpetrator from the description a witness gives. This is usually then released to police and the media in hopes of finding the perpetrator more easily. This can be good or bad, because the picture is based on the witness’s memory which may not be very accurate and can also lead to suspects that are innocent just based on their similarity to the picture. This can also be the tool that ends up finding the suspect and bringing justice to them. This is interesting to me because it seems like a risky thing to do, but also can be very helpful.
The first site that I looked at was a blog post about a woman who uses software called FACES to recreate the witness’s description of the individual. This software creates life-like pictures of the suspect, and allows citizens to look at the picture and possibly identify it as someone that they know. If they inform police of this, they will further investigate this individual and possibly make an arrest. Roser said that from 2001-2004 (when the article was posted) 18 out of the 54 composites that she made lead to an arrest. This number is significant, because without this tool who knows if the perpetrator would have been arrested. Knowing and acknowledging that memory isn’t perfect, Roser shows the completed composite to the witness(es) and asks them to rate it on a 1 to 10 scale of looking like the individual. If the composite receives a 5 or below by the witness(es), it is not released to the media. Roser strongly believes in the effectiveness of composites for the purpose of solving crime.
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/investigation/articles/89803-Putting-a-face-on-crime/
My second source was an article about the negative effects that a composite can have. The article argued that a witness is likely to reconstruct their memory to look like the composite that was made, and then in a line-up would choose the suspect that looks like the picture they now have in their mind from the composite. Gary Wells and a team of researchers designed an experiment where individuals looked at a picture and rated it on 10 different traits. The control group viewed the pictures and then were asked to come back 48 hours later, the second group was asked to make a composite of the individuals, and the third group viewed the composites made by the second group. When all participants returned 48 hours later they were asked to pick out the individual’s picture they had seen 48 hours earlier using a photo line-up. The results for this were 83% of the control group guessed right, 10% of the composite builders guessed right, and 45% of the composite viewers guessed right. This drastically showed how much better the individuals who didn’t create or view a composite performed. This shows that the use of composites may actually be harmful when solving a crime.
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2006/09/when_crimefighting_tools_go_ba.php
My third source was about the success of composites but also touched on the downsides and harm composites can have on a crime. One very successful story that was shared was last year in New Orleans when two teenage boys murdered a woman and composites were released. The Mother of one of the boys immediately recognized one of the boys as her son and called police. Her son and the other boy confessed to the crime and were charged. In this case the composites made solving the crime very easy and fast because they were so accurate. The article goes on to say that the downside to composites are that they are only made from memory which is not accurate. This can lead the police astray and cause them to be looking for someone who fits this image that is highly inaccurate. It can also cause the witness to remember the composite instead of the face which I described earlier.
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/crime-scene-investigation/articles/1780214-New-Orleans-police-say-composite-sketches-are-successful/
Composites are very controversial in effectiveness. It is a tough decision to make if they should be used in crime because they can be so helpful in solving a crime, but also they can be very harmful. The technology today has become so advanced in the computer imaging creating life-like images that may look very similar to someone, or just be a made up face. It is important to consider all the pro’s and con’s to using composites when solving a crime
After reading chapter 5, I decided to look more into fingerprints. Fingerprints play a very important role in coming up with a suspect and getting a conviction. Fingerprints are very reliable. A person’s “friction ridge patterns” (the swirled skin on fingertips) and the ridges on the palm don’t change throughout their lifetime. The same fingerprint you have when you are a baby, is the same fingerprint you have when you are an adult. The only exception to that is if there is an accidental or intentional scarification or alteration to the prints. Also, no two people have the same pattern of friction ridges. Fingerprints are like snowflakes; they are all unique and have something different about them.
There are many different places fingerprints can be. One complicated place, is when prints are in dust. The article I read said that prints in dust are a nightmare. This is because the print in dust was actually left there due to the dust being removed by adhering to the ridges of the skin that touched it. In the article, the man describes a way that he came up with to lift prints that are in dust without having to reverse negatives or use liquid lifter. His technique is using wide fingerprint tape and putting it over the print, then you place the tape over the top of a styrofoam cup, then you cut the bottom out of the cup and put black paper over the bottom, and then take a picture. A full description can be read here: http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/physical-evidence/fingerprint-evidence/57-latent-prints-in-dust . Another way to lift fingerprints has been studied for awhile now, and they finally came up with a way; getting fingerprints off the corpses body. In most cases of a homicide, the murderer will usually grab the victim to injure them, so obtaining fingerprints off the dead body would be very beneficial, but it is difficult and many elements play a part. The Latent Fingerprint Section of the FBI Laboratory has been doing research on this. They finally found a way that works. They believe that homicide victims should always be examined for prints when investigators believe that the perpetrator touched the victim. When examining the body at the crime scene, it is important to “glue fume” the body. This helps preserve the prints and help prevent contamination of prints when the body is moved. Once the body is examined by the medical examiner or coroner, then that’s when they use the powder to try and see if theres any prints. So if investigators are willing to try, it is very possible to lift prints off of a dead body. The article that has all the research and different things they tried, can be found here: http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/physical-evidence/fingerprint-evidence/58-hidden-evidence-latent-prints-on-human-skin .
I also read about an article about a case that led to a conviction through enhanced fingerprint identification. At the crime scene, the only evidence came from a pillowcase. The pillowcase had several bloodstains and one of the stains showed a faint fingerprint ridge detail that was barely even visible to the trained eye. The department took the best photograph that they could and sent it to a facility with the capability to perform image enhancement. It took four hours to enhance, but it came out with an identifiable print. The department found a suspect and obtained ink prints, and they matched the print that was enhanced. They later did a DNA test also, and it matched with the suspect that they had. The man was found guilty and sentenced to life.
The main way the police department identifies fingerprints is if they are already on file. Ways a person’s fingerprints can be on file, are if they have been arrested before, or some people get fingerprinted when they begin some jobs. Also, some parents ask for their children to be fingerprinted, just in case of an abduction.
Fingerprints play a very important role in solving cases.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29818.html
http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/ID00004_2.html
http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/physical-evidence/fingerprint-evidence/59-case-study-conviction-through-enhanced-fingerprint-identification
After reading the article I decided to research a little bit on the job and art of composite sketching. These are used in a number of criminal cases and can be very important-- however they can also be very tricky and risky because they are a witnesses first hand account, and as we've already learned, there are a lot of factors and filters that could get in the way of a witnesses memory. They are often some of the first people to make contact with the witness, according to victorialywood.com, in order to get the freshest memory possible. Looking at pictures of other suspects, or being interviewed by others in law inforcement or the media could possibly corrupt the witnesses memory so it's important for the sketch artist to get there first. The sketch artist usually has to establish a sort of relationship or rapport with the witness, because often the witness may be traumatized or shaken up by the incident and it is often the witnesses first attempt at dealing with and facing the situation and event. The artist needs to make sure the witness is comfortable and in good emotional condition to give a clear description of the suspect.
According the askaforensicartist.com, and also in the chapter, these composite sketches can be done in different ways. The sketch artist could use their artistic skills to draw the recollection of the subject, but these days we also have a lot of technology. Now there are a number of different applications where sketch artists or members of law enforcement can come up with a composite for the subject while using computer based technology. This can be done on their own with the recount of the witnesses memory, or the artist could show the witness different pictures of different body parts (such as eyes, nose, mouth) and the witness can then choose which model or picture most resembles that of the suspect. This is particularly useful because many witnesses have a hard time giving a very detailed description of the suspect, even if they have a very clear picture in their minds.
However, in the article from post-gazette, it argues that composite sketches are only about 20% accurate for a few reasons. First is that we only remember faces or events for a certain amount of time, and it's usually only for a few hours or days and unfortunately sometimes in can take a great deal of time for a sketch artist or member of law enforcement to come into contact with a witness to gather information. So by this time, the witness may have lost almost all recollection of the suspect's imagery, or have already been biased by external factors such as peers and media. Second is that while doing a composite sketch, the artist or member of law enforcement has the witness describe the suspect by his individual body parts-- like nose, eyes, and mouth, which probably isn't the best way to go about it. Researchers have found that we see, and remember faces as a whole, not as individual parts. Therefore, sketching can have some serious flaws to it. However it is still a very important aspect to identifying the perpetrator, because in the end, every little bit of information counts!!
http://www.askaforensicartist.com/questions-about-forensic-art/composite-sketches/
http://www.victorialywood.com/CompositeSketches.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07084/772371-84.stm
The topic I chose for this assignment is fingerprinting and the IAFIS system these fingerprints are stored in. I chose this topic because, as a fan of criminal shows, this database is often used in the shows. I was curious as to how accurate the description of the system is in the television shows, and wanted to obtain more general information about fingerprinting and how accurate this practice is when pinpointing the perpetrator. This chapter is entitled “Casting the Net: Finding a Suspect,” and fingerprinting is an important tool in identifying the suspect of a crime.
The first website I used is a YouTube video entitled CSI: Purdue with Patrick Jones. This video, hosted by Professor Patrick Jones of Purdue University, goes over the basics of fingerprinting in the laboratory. I found this video to be very interesting because it broke down exactly how they go about getting the fingerprints. On television shows such as CSI the actors make it seem like a very easy process, just using a brush and powder and getting the prints right away. But in this video Professor Jones used a different technique, a spray powder, and it was clear that the process is not as simple as the television shows make it seem. I found it very interesting that there are several different ways to go about collecting fingerprints, depending on the surface. This video relates to the chapter because it gives the basics of fingerprinting, one integral way to find a suspect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaDYPOUzcCU
The next website I found is from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s website. The article is titled “Recording Legible Fingerprints.” The article goes into more depth than the YouTube video about different procedures to collecting fingerprints. It describes the different fingerprint impression types (Type 4 vs. Type 14) and goes in specific detail about the fingerprinting process. I liked that they specifically detail the process of collecting the fingerprints, because I always wondered if there was a standard procedure to collecting the fingerprints from the suspects. What I really like about this article is it lists special circumstances to collecting fingerprints, such as deformed fingers, amputated fingers, and scarred fingers. This is something that is rarely mentioned in crime shows such as CSI, and I had always been curious about the process in these special circumstances. Once again this article relates back to the chapter because there must be a set procedure to collecting the fingerprints in order to be sure the fingerprints found at the scene match those of the person in the database.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/recording-legible-fingerprints/takingfps
The final article I found is also from the FBI website. This article discusses the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS. This system is a national fingerprint and criminal history system and database that is available for use all over the country when attempting to match fingerprints to a suspect. According to the article, IAFIS “provides automated fingerprint search capabilities, latent search capability, electronic image storage, and electronic exchange of fingerprints and responses.” While I had heard the term IAFIS in CSI related shows, I never really knew quite what it was and how it’s used. One very interesting fact I learned is that criminal fingerprints are processed in about 10 minutes, while electronic civil submissions are processed within an hour and 12 minutes. This is something I had always been curious about, for on CSI shows it seems like they start the system and it finds a match within seconds. I knew this couldn’t be true, but I didn’t realize the system is still extremely speedy and is able to find a match in such a small period of time. This fast process allows for the investigators to find and apprehend the suspect as fast as possible.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/iafis/iafis
Fingerprinting and the IAFIS database are extremely important tools when it comes to identifying the suspects of crimes. Without these advances in technology many criminals would never have been identified. And as more advances are made it will become an even faster process.
I decided to look into psychological profiling, mainly because it seems like an inexact science. The articles I read talked about inductive and deductive profiling. Inductive profiling is the assumption that similar crimes are committed by similar people. "Inductive profiling involves assuming that when a criminal commits a crime, he or she will have a similar background and motive to others who have committed a similar crime." "A deductive profile is set up based on the offender's actions before, during and after committing the crime." These two types of profiling are all about how you want to view the suspect. Is he/she someone who is meticulously planning his crimes, or is it solely a crime of passion. According to common profiling ideas, serial killers for example, are thought to be obsessed with living in a "comfort zone". They are ritualistic and do everything they do for a specific reasons. So if I were trying to profile a serial killer, I would focus on understanding the ritual, and trying to find the next victim based solely on the serial killers MO. An isolated murder, one that was not the work of a serial killer may be more difficult to profile because we would have to rely on comparing the MO to other similar cases and taking what we know and comparing them to known perpetrators of a similar crime. We would need to try to find a connection between the other perp and some of our suspects. All in all, profiling is not an exact science and should not be treated as such. It is merely a way for the police to narrow down their suspects, not a sure fire way to a conviction.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020318-216319,00.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/nts_psychological_profiling.htm
http://people.howstuffworks.com/profiling.htm
After reading this chapter, and taking other psychology classes, I decided to do some more research on Stanley Milgram's study on obedience to authority. This experiment is a classic and is used when studying authoritys influence on us still today. I find this research very interiguing as to why someone would be able to continue when the learner is in extreme pain, or not responding.
The basic idea behind Milgram's experiment was to demonstarte that people were basically willing to do just about anything, such as inflict pain, when an authority figure requests it. In this study, there is a teacher and a learner. The teacher is to give word-pairs and everytime the learner gets a word-pair wrong they up the voltage. The electiricy volts go all the way up to 450, even though its not really shocking the learner, but the teacher doesn't know that. Its interesting to see the results of how many teachers continue to shock even when the hear the "person" scream in pain. 65% of the teachers went all the way up to 450 volts. Even though many teachers stopped and said they didn't want to go on, but the experimenter just tells him its essential for him to continue, the "teacher" feels required and obligated to continue, so for the most part he/she does without much of an argument. However there were a few who defyed the norm of authority influences and would not continue until they knew that the learner was okay.
What is also interesting to me is how the teacher acts towards the learners reactions. After watching the original Milgram video and some other variations, each person handled the stress of inflicting pain differently. Some teachers sounded sympathetic with the learner, and pleaded with them to listen carefully while others seemed almost oblivent and arrogant to the learner. When the teacher wanted to quit, the experimentor simply said the experiment requires that you continue, most did not argue and just went back to giving the word-pairs. Milgram put the teachers into 3 groups describing wheather they obeyed or rebelled:
1. Obeyed but justified. The participant gave up their responsibility for their actions, but blamed others either the learner (confederate) or the experimentor
2. Obeyed but blamed themselves. Some felt very bad, and now would be more likely to disobey authority now
3. Rebelled. These participants rebelled completely and questioned the entire experiment.
This experiment is relevent to this chapter and class because it shows how much authority impacts our decisions. For example in our own lives, we follow laws enforced by the police and courts, we follow our own home and class rules so we don't make our roommates or professors unhappy. According to our book, this is relevent to line-ups in police work because if the police know who the suspect was they can give off hints to the person identifying the suspect and can influence the descision made. When there is pressure put on a person by someone who they feel has more authority, they tend to lean towards their answer and justify their own response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzTuz0mNlwU&feature=related
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/milgram_obedience_experiment.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2PGnHHnRMk
http://www.trutv.com/100/042-wrong-suspect-tasered-most-daring.html
http://library.findlaw.com/2005/Jul/22/186441.html
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/08/30/Mistaken-identity-causes-pastors-arrest/UPI-32621283188826/
All these three sources lead to mistakes that could have been easily avoided. Initially I wanted to find something of show up but it was really difficult for me to find exactly what I wanted to find. However, all these sources do relate to Show ups. On the example used in the chapter is said that one of the common things that show ups do is that at times they remember the victims clothes but don't remember the victims physical appearance which can be of no use because of how strong their memory is, what time a day it was or how far was the witness able to see the suspect or the victim of the suspect getting hurt, another example is that police can lead on or influence the show up witness when given the chance to pick out the suspect out of a line up by saying, we think it's him but we are not sure, most often the witness will go along of what the police had to him/her. The video shows of police chasing a vehicle that had fit the description of a get away car earlier that day, yea the car had fit the description but it was the wrong suspect, they did not focus on the suspect at all. Another was of an expert witness doing a mistake by only considering of what information had the atttorney only given to them without looking at the whole picture. The last one was of a pastor getting arrested, this one was actually better than the first two because they actually verified if they had the right person in custody or not and it turns out that they did not so good. People should have learned no to conform to anything but only to what they know for sure is right so it is not to make the wrong mistake. The examples form the chapter remind me of middle school how everyone went on about what the majority did or do and really cared about not fitting it, glad I got over that as soon as I entered high school, sad to see that there are still some people like that at the University level.
Something that has always interested me was how the police go about finding their suspects. I always felt like after they perpetrator has gotten away and no one knows for sure who it is, that it would be really hard to find him. That is why one thing in chapter 5 that really interested me was about composites, so I decided to do some more research on it.
Police use to have professionals sketch a composite of the suspect, but since it was expensive to keep a sketch artist around they came up with software that produced a 3D picture. This way seems to be a lot easier and even more accurate, because you lets you morph faces, and gives a good 3D picture of hair, skin, texture, pose, expression, teeth and lighting. This way the picture looks much more realistic, which makes it easier for people to identify the suspect.
Composite drawings are made by using descriptions given by a witness or witnesses or the victim. This is a long process. The sketch artist interviews the witness or victim and the drawing is made in three stages. They start off by finding the facial proportions, like how big everything was including their chin, forehead, etc. Then they add in the facial details, then they use shading which helps with the texture. This can be done by hand or by using a computer.
Composite drawings are very useful and helpful, because it involves the public and can be put in newspapers and on t.v. This helps the odds of identifying who the suspect is and finding where they are.
Another thing that composites help with is other than finding suspects, it can help find missing people. Using the computer software they can take a photo of someone who went missing as a child or was abducted and can age the photo to how they would look today!
I also looked at composite pictures and some compared the composite sketch to an actual photo of the suspect and I think it is amazing how accurate the composite picture can be. I also think it is interesting how they can age the pictures, but I kind of think that if a child has been missing for twenty some years and still hasn't been found, you would think that it is kind of pointless, but then who knows maybe some have been successful that way, but I wasn't able to find much information on that.
http://www.genextech.com/pages/671/composite_sketch.htm
http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/composite-drawing
http://www.facesid.com/pdfs/Tips_Tricks_Interviewing_Tips_v1.0_TG.pdf
After reading the chapter, I decided to chose the topic of DNA for this assignment. I have always found it fascinating how such small evidence can prove so much. I remember talking about using DNA to solve criminal cases in a college biology class I took last year. DNA is now often used to solve cold cases because the technology that is used to examine DNA has only been around for about 30 years now. This means that murders from 50 years ago can possibly be solved by examining pieces of DNA on suspects that may still be alive.
I remember, from my biology class, a certain case that got solved by extracting DNA out of tooth pulp. A team of experts had found a charred body in a dumpster and could find nothing to use as evidence until they discovered a tooth. Forensics then extracted pulp from the tooth that enabled the missing body to be identified. As I read from one of my articles I found online, so many cases in police departments across the world could be solved by simple gathering and testing of DNA. I thought the article about the burglar being caught by his love for soda was pretty funny. It makes me feel safer knowing that there are so many ways crimes can be solved and criminals can be put away. DNA is such a small piece of evidence but it can make the world of difference.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml
http://www.helium.com/items/1189026-dna-analysis-solve-crimes
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27284393/
http://www.alibinetwork.com/index.jsp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alibi
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2807822,CST-NWS-dorian16.article
In reading through the chapter, I came across the subject of alibis. This topic has always been one that has intrigued me and is the subject of a number of Google-filled nights for this particular judge.
An alibi is, essentially, proof of being elsewhere at the time that a given act was engaged in. This is impressively important in terms of criminal and divorce trial proceedings. If a suspect or defendant can prove that they indeed were not available at a given place on a given time to commit a certain act, there is nothing the accusing party can do but concede defeat (after failing to tear away the alibi that is). Alibis have proven to be so important to life that there are websites and toll-free phone numbers whose sole purpose is to provide the user with an alibi for any number of events that an excuse is needed. These services have been condemned extensively by the Catholic church as being immoral (but then again, what hasn't been condemned there?) Recent years have proven that a well documented and accounted for alibi is crucial to any criminal proceedings. With technology growing ever more extensive, the ability to check and recheck a person's alibi has gotten easier and this checking has gotten deeper and more intricate. Computer usage and keystrokes along with cell phone signal traces to individual towers to pinpoint the location of a suspect at a given time are just a few examples of the extent of alibi checking.
In reading the chapter, I decided to learn more about profiling. It was not talked about very much and I have never understood if it is a good thing or a bad thing. Dictionary.com defines profiling as “The use of specific characteristics, as race or age, to make generalizations about a person, as whether he or she may be involved in criminal activity.”
There are two perspectives I think one could take on profiling. The first would be that it is wrong. That it is an inefficient way to bring justice. There are many sites that are very actively against profiling, because it often targets specific races and groups of people. This brings unneeded attention to people who are completely innocent. This is a result of stereotypes, such as African American men in a dark ally, or Arabic people in an airport. During World War II the Japanese people were profiled after the attack on Pearl Harbor. However, there are many who are profiled for no reason. Many African Americans are not drug dealers, most japenese men were not planning on harming America during WWII and there are plenty of Muslim and Arabic Americans who have no wish to harm us. These are a few of the many reasons as to why it is so widely and actively protested.
The other perspective to be taken on profiling would be that it is a moderately effective method for police to get their job done. Based on profiling, a police obtains probable cause. Probable cause means that the police has a reasonable belief that incriminating evidence will be found in a person’s car, person, luggage, etc. They are required to have probable cause to search a car (within reason, otherwise they need a warrant). Probable cause would be based on profiling, and be considered a method of trying to predict when and where a crime is likely to happen. In this way, crimes would be more likely to be prevented, and if they catch the criminal, then is there harm in profiling?
http://people.howstuffworks.com/profiling.htm
http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/racial-profiling/page.do?id=1106650
http://www.mundelein.org/police/2006_racial_profiling_statistics.htmhttp://www.ethnicmajority.com/racial_profiling.htm
http://www.ethnicmajority.com/racial_profiling.htm
After reading Chaper 5, I decided to do a little research on the AMBER Alert Program. I think this program is an important tool for law enforcement to use when trying to find missing children. AMBER stands for “American’s Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response”. It was originally named after Amber Hagerman who was a 9 year old who was abducted and murdered in Texas in 1996. A few other states call it someone else. For example, in Georgia it is called “Levi’s Call”. This program is basically a partnership between law enforcement agencies, media broadcasters, transportation agencies, etc. Agencies are included in the partnership on a voluntary basis. The AMBER Alert Program is used in the most serious cases of child abduction with the goal of making an entire community, or communities, help in the search for the missing child.
The following are specific guidelines for issuing AMBER alerts according to the official AMBER Alert website: law enforcement confirms abduction; a child is at risk for serious bodily harm or death; law enforcement agency must have enough information to lead them to think that broadcasting the alert to the public will help law enforcement locate the child; child must be 17 years old or younger; entry of AMBER Alert information must be entered into the NCIC and flagged as a Child Abduction.
AMBER Alters can involve one or more children and are issued on a statewide, regional, or local level. They are not issued on a nationwide basis because law enforcement agencies try to geographically narrow down areas that they feel the child may be located. Law enforcement agencies categorize AMBER Alert cases as one of the following types: a family abduction (FA); nonfamily abduction (NFA); lost, injured, or otherwise missing (LIM); or an endangered runaway (ERU). A family abduction occurs when a child age 0-17 is abducted from a legal parent by some other family member who does not have legal custody of the child. A nonfamily abduction occurs when a child under 17 years old is abducted by someone the family doesn’t know at all. Lost, injured or otherwise missing refers to any missing child when there’s not enough facts to figure out why the child disappeared. An endangered runaway is any missing child between 11 and 17 who went missing because they wanted to without permission from their parent/legal guardian.
One thing I found interesting was that you can actually sign up to receive AMBER Alters through SMS messages. If you want to just go to the Wireless AMBER Alters webpage (https://www.wirelessamberalerts.org/index.jsp). The United States is not the only country to have a system like AMBER Alert set up. Other countries include Canada, Australia, France, Malaysia, Netherland, and Ireland.
Each year, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children puts out an AMBER Alert Report. Here is the link to the most recent report: http://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/09_amber_report.pdf . Between 1/1/09-12/31/09, 201 AMBER Alerts were issued in the U.S., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands which involved 263 children.
http://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/09_amber_report.pdf
http://www.amberalert.gov/statistics.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMBER_Alert
I chose to look at alibi's for my topic. I think that the age of technology has made this even more complicated than it used to be. Police can use it to check up on people and know thier whereabouts even more than they used to be able to. People use facebook and twitter sometimes on an hourly basis. One case facebook even got the charges dropped from a guy. He was charged with a robbery but his attorney claimed that he had updated his facebook status at the time the robbery occured and they proved that it had been updated from a computer at his father and stepmother's home. His father and Stepmother also testifyed that he way there at that particular time. This is especially easy when the internet offers you so many options on how to fake things like this. Ther are websites where you can print out doctor's notes to get out of work. Who says that someone could not try to use these in a court case? Someone could have logged into the robber's facebook and updated his status from that particular computer who knows! Technology is helpful to police but also could hinder the process more as well.
Alibis are also proven by survelliance videos and photos. This is often the way people prove an alibi by saying they were at a store or a bank or an atm and they videos are time stamped. The second clip talks about a Duke player accused of rape and they are trying to actually get the DA removed from the trial but it is also talking about how he was shown at an ATM at the time the the rape allegedly happened. Alibis are so important in getting someone out of charges when they are innocent.
http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/facebook-alibi-a-status-update-helps-prove-a-suspects-innocence-006421
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/duke-photos-prove-alibi/64hq17m
http://www.alibinetwork.com/printabledoctorsexcuses.jsp
I chose to look at the difference between modus operandi and signature in the investigation of murder or other violent offenses. The book touched briefly on M.O. and signature, but I find this topic really interesting and wanted to look into it more. I have read several book about serial murder, and this is a topic that is talked about frequently, which is another reason I find it so interesting.
M. O. stands for modus operandi, which translates to “method of operation.” It is described on one of the websites I looked at as a behavior by a perpetrator whose purpose is for one or more of three reasons: completing the crime, escaping, and avoiding capture. For example, a robber may wear all black to avoid detection. Essentially, the sole purpose of a perpetrator’s modus operandi is functionality and avoiding arrest.
Signature, on the other hand, serves an entirely different purpose. Another website I looked at described signature in a great way. An artist’s signature serves a very personal purpose for the perpetrator. While M. O. serves a very practical purpose, signature fulfills psychological or personal needs. For example, a perpetrator may stab a victim post-mortem because it excites them sexually.
Another significant difference between the M. O. and signature is how they change over time, or rather how one changes and the other does not. M. O. is something that a perpetrator will refine over time. For example, a serial killer may initially kill someone by stabbing them, but determine it leaves to much of a mess, change to shooting, which is till to messy, and eventually settle their M. O. as strangling the victim.
Signature, on the other hand, never changes. As stated previously, signature fulfills psychological needs for a perpetrator, therefore it is something that once discovered will never change for the perpetrator. Signature is generally believed to be based on the fantasies of the perpetrator, which is one of the main reasons it remains constant. While small, specific details of a signature can possibly change, the overall theme of the signature is what remains constant. For example, an arsonist’s signature may be that they watch the fire from a distance after they set it. While the need to watch the fire for personal satisfaction remains constant, the perpetrator could initially watch the fire in their car from a hilltop, but may end up watching the fire across the street as an “innocent bystander.”
Overall, I found this information very interesting. I knew bits and pieces of this information, but learning all these specific definitions and nuances of M. O. and signature were very intriguing for me. I was glad the book touched on this, because it allowed me to gain more knowledge about something that truly interests me.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Criminal-Forensics---MO-vs-Signature---How-to-Tell-the-Difference-Between-a-Crooks-Various-Actions&id=652849
http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/16342-modus-operandi-vs-offender-signature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_operandi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_crime
I found the idea of personal histories interesting. The description in the chapter about keeping your car clean but not your room made me laugh; that's definitely me. How those personal histories become predictable tendencies and in criminal cases, a Modus Operandi. A criminal's M.O. has a lot to do with their personal history. I find the M.O. of criminals an interesting subject. The show Criminal Minds deals with that a lot in the criminal profiling and prevention of future crimes. I learned in my searching that an M.O. can help police in identifying multiple crimes done by the same perpetrator. It reveals some of the criminals personality and helps to track them down. Prosecution can tack other unsolved crimes onto a suspect if they have a similar quality consistent with an M.O. It helps if the particular M.O. is distinctive. In one of my sources it gives an example of an armed robber robbing movie theaters showing a specific movie dressed showily in a Vegas dancers' costume. That would connect one perp to multiple robberies while different colored hooded sweatshirts in multiple movie theater robberies wouldn't connect as well. It can help to identify criminal behavior. Any peculiar bits of a crime can be linked to a criminal's M.O. An M.O. can encompass the crime, the escape, and/or the search. The M.O. can vary as a criminal perfects it so slight variations in M.O. can still tag multiple crimes to one person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_operandi
http://www.answers.com/topic/modus-operandi
http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/16342-modus-operandi-vs-offender-signature
I chose to write on the job of criminal/suspect sketch artists. Sketch artists play a critical, and often malleable, role in suspect detention. Sketch artists work off of a witnesses first hand encounter and are subject to memory deterioration/contamination. There also lies the interpretation by the sketch artist to put the words of the witness onto portrait form on paper - requiring enormous patience and skill.
Sketch artists tend to be one of the first agents (post interrogation) that a witness will meet with. This helps preserve as much of the memory as possible. The sketch artist will spend a great deal of time with the witness and often must establish a personal connection. When a witness meets with an artist after a heinous crime, especially if they are the victim, it can take a great deal of coaxing to have the witness give accurate, workable information that is not being suppressed by the traumatic events they experienced.
Traditional sketch artists used a variety of artistic mediums (pencils, charcoal, paints, etc) but contemporary sketch artists use advanced software to map out witness descriptions including programs like Identi-Kit and Faces 4.0. This too requires skill (knowledge of the program, interpretation/interview skills, accessibility to archives,etc) But police say that really anyone in the department can use these programs with little training generating a huge database.
Critics say that technological sketching interferes with accuracy of sketches as the interaction between artist and witness is removed.
The process for artistic rendition can be done several ways. The artist can draw while the witness looks on, making changes in real time (narrower nose, no his eyes were smaller, etc) or the artist can have the witness select body parts from a catalog (eyes, nose, scars, etc) in which the artist will then compile an image. There is some speculation as to if this interferes with witness memory as this sort of "shopping" may prime the suspect.
An article by the Columbia tribune just this week, found that sketch artists are a 'dying breed' among law enforcement employees. The International Association for Identification has certified less than 2 dozen sketch artists in the past six years alone with many departments finding it no longer feasible to have an artist on the payroll.
Regardless of how accurate such practices are (in the traditional and/or contemporary sense) sketching still represents a way for singular information (to the witness alone) to be distributed to a much wider audience, in hopes of catching or detaining a suspect.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/dec/15/sketch-artists-called-a-dying-breed/
http://www.facesid.com/
http://www.facesid.com/pdfs/Tips_Tricks_Interviewing_Tips_v1.0_TG.pdf