the scene › wp-content › uploads › 2011 › 07 › may-2002.pdf · russell “buzz” busby,...
TRANSCRIPT
Volume 9 Issue 2 May 2002
The Scene The Association For Crime Scene Reconstruction 7800 Lotus Drive Anchorage Alaska, 99502 WWW.ACSR.ORG
Officers and Board 2002 Rod Englert, President Forensic Consuilants, Inc. P.O. Box 605 West Linn, OR. 97068 (503) 656-0953 [email protected] Kim Duddy, President-Elect Washington State Police Crime Lab 610 3rd Ave., 2nd Flr PSB Seattle, WA 98104-1824 (206) 464-7074 Roy Heim, Past President Tulsa Police Department 600 Civic Center Tulsa, OK 74103 (918) 596-9156 [email protected] Mike Meislish, Treasurer Membership Chair Phoenix Police Department 620 W. Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 (602) 438-0134 [email protected] Iris Dalley, Secretary Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 701 W. Carl Albert Parkway McAlester, OK 74501 (918) 423-6672 [email protected] Russell “Buzz” Busby, Board Member Kay/Noble County D.A.’s Office Kay County Courthouse
210 S. Main Newkirk, OK 74647 (580) 762-1480 [email protected] Joe Foster, Board Member Albuquerque Police Department 400 Roma N.W. Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 768-2259 [email protected] Tom J. “Grif” Griffin, Board Member Criminal Investigator Colorado Bureau of Investigation 690 Kipling, Suite 4000 Denver, CO 80215-3000 (303) 239-4276 [email protected] Cal Jennings, Board Member Colorado State University 20102 Backhorn road Bellvue, CO 80512 (970) 491-7360 [email protected] Tom Bevel, Historian TBI Consulting and Training, Inc. 1827 Crestmont Street Norman, OK 73069 (405) 447-4469 [email protected] Alex Jason, Board Member Shooting Incident Reconstruction P.O. Box 375 Pinole, Ca 510-724-1003 Fax 510-724-0733 [email protected]
ON THE INSIDE Letter from the President Applying the scientific method to crime scene reconstruction Tips and Tricks 2002 Conference update Election 2002, update Membership Application
Call for articles Your news letter needs your support by providing articles for review and publication. See inside for more details.
Tips and Tricks Let us know how you do things. Focus on one aspect of evidence collection, evidence processing etc. Again look inside
PRESIDENT’S LETTER Rod Englert April 2002
It is exciting to hear from Tom Griffin, our Program Co-Chair about what our conference speakers will be presenting. First of all, the dates he set are for October 24 – 26 at the Hyatt Hotel in Denver proper. Tom Adair and Cal Jennings have been working with “Grif” handling the local arrangements and vendors. Enclosed is a registration form that you are encouraged to get in as soon as possible for this special year of presentations. There is also a call for papers to be submitted to “Grif” and I want to encourage all of you who have any interesting cases to please submit them, especially if you’ve never done so before. Alex Jason came up with an idea he is working on which involves awarding the three best papers with special recognition and possibly a “perk” for the 2003 conference. One of the special presentations will be by Past-President Roy Heim, who will speak about his on-site activity at ground zero after September 11. His wife, Sherrie, and my wife Penny Englert, all of whom spent several weeks at the site, will join him during the slide presentation. It will be very special to have Roy chair this. Many of you may not be aware that Roy had a heart attack on March 2, and due to alert family members, including his wife Sherrie, he is convalescing and reports that all is well. Our prayers are with you and Sherrie, Roy. Also on the program, “Grif” has Dr. David Norris and Dr. Jane Bock, both botanists that will discuss “last meal” evidence. This will deal with feces and stomach contents in relationship to reconstructing a scene. Colorado Coroner Dr. Michael Doberson, a forensic pathologist, will share his expertise on the study of “stun gun” wounds. “Grif” is currently contacting other speakers and this conference will be one you will not want to miss. Again, I strongly encourage those that have never delivered a paper before to do so. The ACSR group is the best group to which you will ever find to deliver an address. We want to learn from you and about what you have done. We will see you in October at the Hyatt. Bring a friend, share a case, and let’s all have fun.
APPLYING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION
Reprinted from Journal of Forensic Identification Vol. 51, No. 2 March/April 2001 pp. 150-162
Introduction The informal practice of crime scene reconstruction has existed as long as humans have had the ability to think and the capacity for committing crime. The existence of crime created the need for investigations and as a natural progression of investigations, the concept of crime scene reconstruction evolved. The first phase, the informal crime scene reconstruction is practiced on the scene while still processing, documenting and collecting evidence. The informal phase is often a subconscious process. The investigators look for signs or clues to give direction in their search for physical evidence. The formal or the second phase of crime scene reconstruction, is after the scene has been processed, evidence analyzed and all investigative reports completed. The formal phase is, by necessity, a conscious process. This second phase is in the developmental stage, yet to mature. In order to mature, crime scene reconstruction methodology needs to be standardized. The purpose of this paper is to promote the use of the scientific method as the best model for crime scene reconstruction and thus to be the standard methodology. The author feels that the use of this model should be universally applied by all those practicing such analysis.
Crime Scene Reconstruction Defined Crime Scene Reconstruction Analysts emerge from a number of different occupations with a variety of educational backgrounds. Some are science based and some are not. The use of the scientific method is not predicated on holding a science degree. It is however, essential for Reconstruction Analysts to understand what scientific method is and how it is applied to the discipline of crime scene reconstruction. L. Thomas defines the scientific method as a mental process of “identifying the problem, recognizing variables, discovering patterns, building models, gathering and weighing evidence, looking for feedback, forming theories, and testing predictions”[1]. Jerry Chisum, one of the early leaders in crime scene reconstruction defined it as, “the application of common sense reasoning in conjunction with forensic science to interpret evidence as it resides at the scene”[2]. Chisum’s definition of “as it resides at the scene” explains the first phase of crime scene reconstruction. Findley and Hopkins describe it as: “...the process of applying logic, training, experience, and scientific principles to: (1) The crime scene itself (i.e. location, environment, condition, etc.) (2) Physical evidence found at a crime scene. (3) The results of examinations of physical evidence by qualified experts. (4) Information obtained from all other sources in order to form opinions relative to the sequence of events occurring before, during, and after, the criminal act”[3]. Steps 1 and 2 of Findley and Hopkins model encompass the first phase while steps 3 and 4 deal with the second phase. Saferstein describes reconstruction as a method that “supports a likely sequence of events by the observation and evaluation of physical evidence as well as statements made by the witnesses and
those involved with the incident”[4]. Saferstein’s definition deals primarily with the second phase. Following the scientific method, statements by witnesses cannot be used for the reconstruction, but will be tested against the reconstruction. Scientific Method Defined The scientific method is simply a proven systemic process of problem solving which follows six steps. Grzybowski and Murdock provide the following formal example of these six steps [5]:
1. State the problem - The “problem” can be anything you want to think about.
2. Develop a hypothesis - A hypothesis is simply a tentative explanation of a possible solution to the stated problem.
3 Test the hypothesis by experimentation - The purpose of this testing is to see if you
can prove that the hypothesis is false. Testing is done by conducting experiments. When conducting experiments, conditions (or variables) should be carefully controlled such that the analyst can be confident that the subject of interest is the one truly being observed. The analyst must be constantly alert to internal bias caused by expectations, which can prevent anomalous results from being recognized. The analyst must be thorough and consider all relevant ways of varying the conditions of experiments designed to test the propriety of the hypothesis.
4. Formation of a theory - If other researchers are able to replicate the experiments and
get the same results, a theory can be formed.
5. Use theories to predict events - The end result of the scientific method is the development of a theory that provides us with the ability to predict events or results.
6. Theory becomes law - As a theory holds up under testing as an accurate predictor, the
theory eventually becomes a scientific law. With a formal definition of the scientific method, lets look at an example of how this process is applied may be observed. Many use the scientific method to fix a lamp that won’t turn on when the chain is pulled. A three-way comparison of the steps of the scientific method, lamp repair, and the process of crime scene reconstruction is seen in table 1 [6].
Table 1
SCIENTIFIC METHOD
LAMP REPAIR
CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION
1. Define a problem
Lamp won’t turn on
How was entry gained into the residence?
2. Form hypothesis The bulb has burned out Entry was gained through forced entry
3. Collect Data
Collect Data
Collect Data
4. Predicted results of the experiments
Replace with new bulb
If forced entry was used, there will be pry marks or broken glass on or around locks, doors or window frames
5. Perform experiments to test the hypothesis
Replace with new bulb
Look for evidence of pry marks or broken glass on or around locks, door or window frames
6. Observed results of the experiments
New bulb does not light
No evidence of forced entry is found
7. Conclusions from the results of the experiments
Burned out bulb is not the cause of lamp failure
Entry was not gained by forced entry
Form a new hypothesis
Lamp was not plugged in
Entry was gained by an unsecured door or window
Predicted results of experiments
If the lamp is not plugged in the lamp will not light
If there was an unsecured door or window, there will be a history of the victim leaving one open or there will be evidence of entry, i.e., a ladder under the window, screen removed, etc.
Perform experiments to test the hypothesis.
Check to see if the lamp is plugged in.
Check against any found unsecured door or window and victim’s history of leaving open doors or windows. Any ladders etc. under window.
Perform experiments to test the hypothesis
Check to see if the lamp is plugged in
Check to find unsecured door or window, victim’s history of leaving open doors or windows, ladder under window, etc.
Observed results of experiments
Lamp is not plugged in
No evidence of an unsecured door or window, and no history that victim leaves one open
Conclusions from the results of the experiments
Lamp is not working because the lamp is not plugged in
Entry was not gained by an unsecured window or door
The example includes only two cycles of the scientific method process. By adding more boxes to the table, the process can continue as long as needed to resolve problems, questions and
inquiries that are routinely addressed in crime scene reconstruction. The application of scientific method in effect leads one from a question to an answer, to another question and another answer. As such, the scientific method can best be described as a continuously expanding and self-correcting body of knowledge. Useful definitions used in scientific method and reconstruction Several other definitions that will assist in better understanding the scientific method and reconstruction are as follows:
• Scientific method: Reasoned step-by-step procedure involving observations and experimentation in problem solving.
• Hypothesis: “Educated guess” or temporary explanation that must be tested by
experimentation to determine its validity. • Theory: Working hypothesis that, based on accumulated evidence, has a high
degree of probability. • Abduction:, Pierce states, “is the process of proposing some explanation that is
likely in itself, but that must be tested before anyone can be fully justified in accepting it.” Put another way “choosing the best explanation of this specific past event from proposed alternatives”[7].
• Reverse engineering: analytically reasoning backward to identify the best
explanation of the occurrences that took place at a crime scene. • Incident: the overall crime. • Events: the specific actions (macro view).
• Event Segments: smaller specific actions (micro view) that are required in
order to accomplish the Event they are associated. • Deductive Reasoning: reasoning from statements considered true, called
premises, to a conclusion, called a deduction. Unlike an inductive generalization, the deduction is true only if the premises are true The analyst must do everything possible to ensure the correctness of the premises.
• Inductive Reasoning: summarizing the observations of experimental results
nclusion called a generalization. into a co Identifying the question to be analyzed There are several points to consider when hypothesizing in crime scene reconstruction. First, the question needs to be narrow in scope and precise. As stated by Nordby, “Evidence must wait for the appropriate question before revealing any answer.” And, “Getting the right answers depend on asking the right questions.”[7]
A common problem in crime scene reconstruction is making the investigative question too broad. The overall question of, “what happened,” needs to be broken down into specific, individual events and event segments. Gardner writes, “In viewing crime for the purpose of analysis or even general comprehension, it helps to break the crime down into defined windows or moments. These moments in time define some specific action taken during the crime”[8]. Viewing the overall crime, may be overwhelming and unmanageable. By breaking down the overall into parts, it is easier to answer each separately using the scientific method rather than to answer all together. Second, once the question is narrowed in scope and as precise as possible, the investigator needs to consider as many possibilities as are feasible that would answer the question. The caution of Nordby that, “not all doubts are reasonable, and not everything possible becomes probable”[7] must be kept in mind. This is another area where common mistakes are made. Investigators tend to focus on the most probable possibility immediately. They tend to give less emphasis to the other possibilities which can exist, and this leads to serious problems.
To remain objective, the investigator must give equal emphasis to all feasible and reasonable possibilities when considering answers to questions. The analyst should welcome questions about his/her methods or conclusions. “But the questioning should start with you; be critical of yourself and your methods and doggedly pursue information that may contradict your beliefs. Be creative and try every way you can think of to prove that you are wrong. If, in the end, you can’t prove you are wrong, you are probably right”[5].
Third, the question must be simplified. This is similar to breaking the question into parts. The scientific method, on one of its facets, seems simple and straightforward, depending on the question or problem being analyzed. Applied to another question or problem, another facet of the model appears. This side of the model is anything but straight forward and is compounded with difficulty. At this stage it is a good idea to revisit the investigative question and the hypothesis to determine if they can be further simplified.
An example of a question that is readily broken down into simpler parts is - is this a suicide or a homicide? This can only be answered by first addressing many smaller questions, which once answered, may reveal that one hypothesis is more probable than the other. Such smaller questions might include:
Are the wounds all within reach of the deceased?
Are any of the wounds post mortem?
Is there a weapon present?
Is there evidence of forced entry?
Is there evidence of a struggle?
Is there a suicide note?
Is there anything of value missing from the scene?
Could this scene be staged? {a}
With a hypothesis stated for each question a prediction is stated and then tested. The list of smaller, manageable questions continues until exhausted. Another example of breaking a question down into smaller Event/Segments might be:
How did the assailant gain entry into the crime scene?
The possibilities for consideration might include:
A) Forced entry, B) Let in, C) Through an unsecured door or window, or D) With a key.
Here gaining entry is the Event, and the four (4) possibilities considered are the Event/Segments. Using all known physical evidence, expert analyses, and all other factual information, one should seek to eliminate the possibilities. If there is one remaining possibility, and it can not be disproved, it becomes the most probable of the possibilities considered. {a}-a staged crime scene is one in which the evidence has been modified by the suspect to make it appear that something else has happened, i.e., a homicide made to look like a suicide. Reviewable, Testable and Repeatable
Opinions must be based upon an analysis of the physical evidence and known facts. In any forensic endeavor, analysis is subject to review. Another expert reviewing the same evidence and facts should be able to use the scientific method and come to the same results. If there is disagreement, the opposing expert must explain why the opinion is different by identifying the physical evidence and facts that support, and lay a foundation for that opinion. Following the scientific method both experts should be able to come to an agreement in most areas. In those instances when the opposing experts don’t agree, the jury will have been exposed, from testimony, to the scientific method and will be the final judge of which opinion is more supportable from the physical evidence and its analysis. Opinions are always open to new knowledge
Ultimately it is a question of whether a theory is adequate to explain some identified question given the current state of knowledge and technology. The use of the scientific method for crime scene reconstruction is a systematically structured method for identifying the single best alternative, of the possibilities considered, as based upon the current state of knowledge and technology. Knowledge in science is an area that is always changing. Additional knowledge can change the findings in any scientific test, therefore, science always leaves the door open for other possibilities. With this philosophy, crime scene reconstruction is able to identify the “most probable” answer of those considered. If additional information or knowledge is discovered, it must be considered and may alter some portion of the crime scene reconstruction analysis. Even the Supreme Court in Daubert recognizes that “[s]cientific conclusions are subject to perpetual revision.” Using the Decision Making Template A simple version of the scientific method applied to crime scene reconstruction is as follows:
1. Gather all data on incident in question;
2. state question to be answered;
3. form a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed;
4. use the hypothesis to make predictions as to what evidence will be created;
5. test those predictions by comparing them to all information including physical evidence, autopsy, photographs, diagrams and lab results;
6. if not consistent, modify hypothesis and repeat steps 4 and 5 until there are no
discrepancies between hypothesis and experiment and/or observation; 7. State theory.
Figure 1 is an example of a “Decision Template”[9], fill-in-the-blank, flow chart applying the scientific method to crime scene reconstruction. The decision-making template is provided as a skeleton outline following the scientific method for the reconstruction analyst to follow during an analysis. This guide provides a consistent “road map” which can be universally used by any analyst. It also serves as a document, which can be reviewed by another analyst for a critique of your work.
State investigative question:
Hypothesis 2
Not consistent: Modify hypothesis
Test 1 Not consistent Test 2
Hypothesis 1
Prediction 2
Consistent
State opinion
Prediction 1
Gather all information, reports ,autopsy, lab results, photographs, etc.
Case Decision Template # ____
Admissibility Issues Whenever experts testify in court, the court considers certain issues prior to the expert’s testimony. The method for examination of the expert differs from state to state. In 1923, Frye v. United States, set the first formal standard for expert testimony in the United States. Frye looked at general acceptance by members of the relevant scientific community for the admittance of scientific evidence. In 1993 in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 113 S. Ct. 2786, the Supreme Court embraced Rule 702 in an effort to exclude unscientific conjectures. Rule 702: Allows any testimony from an “expert” with scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge which would assist the trier of fact in reaching a decision[10]. Many states are now also looking at “The New Reliability Standard for Expert Witnesses”[11].
The subjects of these standards are: 1) The extent the theory has been or can be tested; 2) the extent to which the technique relied upon the subjective interpretation of the
expert;{b} 3) whether the technique has been subjected to peer review and/or publication; 4) whether the underlying theory has been accepted as valid by the relevant scientific
community; and 5) the non-judicial uses which have been made of the theory or technique.
If rule 702 or The New Reliability Standard for Expert Witnesses are used, the issues will center around the expert’s knowledge, education, training, and experience, as well as whether an accepted methodology was used in analyses. Crime scene reconstructionists, collectively and individually, must review the discipline to insure that a standardized methodology based on the scientific method is accepted as a standard. As stated by Grzybowksi and Murdock; “If our conduct of inquiry improves, so should the quality of our forensic conclusions, which is after all the whole point of the Daubert decision”[5]. If investigators follow this logic and adopt an improved method of inquiry, i.e. the scientific method, then our discipline will mature. The use of the scientific method would overcome obstacles to the admission of the testimony. While applying the structured system of the scientific method to crime scene reconstruction is a must, to become standardized across the discipline, it alone will not make crime scene reconstruction a “science.” Crime scene reconstruction is not a science, it is the application of science to solve problems regarding the events in crime. If a court excludes crime scene reconstruction on any basis, it is likely to be on the basis of “speculation,” and the use of the scientific method can overcome that objection. {b}-It is of the utmost importance that the expert not form a firm conclusion first and then work backwards by conducting research only to support the conclusion.
Conclusion: Crime scene reconstruction must have a methodology that is standardized for use by all analysts. The best model to apply as a methodology is the already proven and accepted scientific method. A decision template is an appropriate format for applying the scientific method to reconstruction. It serves as both a guide through the process and documentation of the analysis itself. Acknowledgments: The author wishes to acknowledge the colleagues who have helped to shape the ideas presented in this paper, Jerry Chisum, Bruce Moran, Ross Gardner, Henry Lee, Craig Cooley, Mike Maloney, Doug Perkins, Larry Olson and the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction.
For further information, please contact: Tom Bevel TBI 1827 Crestmont Street Norman, OK 73069 (405) 447-4469, Voice (405) 447-4481, Fax
References: 1. Thomas, L., The Search for Solutions, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1980, p ix. 2. Chisum, J., “Crime Scene Reconstruction: A Holistic View”, paper presented at the ACSR Crime Scene
Reconstruction Conference, Oklahoma City, OK, October, 1994, p 1. 3. Findley, J.; Hopkins, C., “Reconstruction: An Overview”, Identification News, October, 1984, pp 3-15. 4. Saferstein, R., Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle Riber, NY,
1997, p 36. 5. Grzybowski, R.; Murdock, J., “Firearms and Tool Mark Identification - Meeting the Daubert Challenge”,
AFTE Journal, 30 (1), 1998, pp 7-8, 12. 6. Personal communication, B. Moran, Laboratory of Forensic Services, September 16, 1999. 7. Norby, J. J., Dead Reckoning: The Art of Forensic Detection, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2000, pp11, 14,
17, 21. 8. Gardner, R., :Considerations in Crime Scene Analysis”, International Association of Bloodstain Pattern
Analysis NEWS, 10 (2), 1994, p 10. 9. Bevel, T., “CSR-Final Solution 2000", TBI Computer Software, 2000. 10. “Federal Rules of Evidence for the United States Courts and Magistrates 1993", West Publishing Company,
St. Paul, MN 1993. 11. Coen, J. V., Dallas Bar Association Journal, 1996.
2002 Conference in Denver, Colorado, USA
ASSOCIATION FOR CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION October 24 (Thursday) - 26 (Saturday) Hyatt Regency Denver Tech Center, 7800 East Tufts Avenue, Denver, CO 1 (800) 233-1234 Scheduled presentations include: Last Meal Evidence Stun Gun Wounds NecroSearch© International Trajectory and Reconstruction Case Presentations Workshops Last Piece Society Conference Registration: $225 for ACSR members before October 2; $250 after that $250 for nonmembers before October 2; $275 after that
Registration cost includes lunch on Thursday and Friday, and the Association dinner Friday evening.
"Super Shuttle" can be used to and from Denver International Airport (DIA). The current rate is $18 one-way and $32 round trip (reservations at (303) 370-1300 or www.supershuttle.com)
"Enterprise" car rental is available at the host hotel. The hotel has valet and guest parking at no charge to hotel guests. Attendees not staying at the hotel will have a rate of $5 per day for self parking.
If you are interested in being a vendor, please contact Calvin Jennings at (970) 491-7360.
(NOTE: Efforts are under way to gain access to facilities with computer workstations for workshops. Should this happen, there may be separate fees for these workshops. If workshops are going to be run simultaneously, a registration system will be implemented. Updates will be provided as information becomes available.) If you wish to stay at the Hyatt, our host hotel, room reservations are separate and may be made through the Hyatt Regency at 1-800-233-1234 or the link on the ACSR Web page. Our room rate for this conference is $99 per night, excluding taxes, if reservation is made before October 2. We have 50 rooms blocked out for our attendees and this block opens up on October 2. Send your conference registration to Mike Meislish, ACSR Treasurer, 11024 N 34 Street, Phoenix, AZ 85028-2711, USA. Make checks payable to ACSR Conference. You may also register electronically at the ACSR Web page.
Registration Form 2002 ACSR
Name (for certificate): Name you wish on name tag: _____________________________ ______________________________ Agency: Contact phone number(s): _____________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ E-mail address: Mailing address: _____________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________ Country:_______________________ Registration: $________Check #_______ Credit Card Type:___________ Extra Dinner(s): $________ Name as shown on card: ($35 each) _________________________ TOTAL: $________ Number___________________ Expiration Date:____________
Is anyone traveling with you interested in participating in a group activity on Thursday, the 24th? Yes [ ] No [ ] Checks Payable To: ACSR Conference Mail To: Mike Meislish, ACSR Treasurer 11024 N. 34 Street Phoenix, AZ 85028-2711 USA
This section is dedicated to snipits of evidence collection techniques. It may include a specific technique that you use and have found works well. We will share this information in each newsletter. Any topic is welcome - trace evidence, GSR’s, trajectories, diagramming and so on. It is not a lot of work so please send your ideas to The Scene.
Portable Fuming Chamber By: Richard J Warrington
GIZMOS and GADGETS for the crime scene officer and investigator
Super glue fuming is widely used in the process of evidence both in the lab and at the scene. In the lab, we use fuming chambers, such as a commercially purchased fuming chamber, aquariums of various sizes, old refrigerators and handmade Plexiglas chambers but these are not practical to use at the crime scene because of their size and portability. The reason some evidence needs to be processed at the scene is to preserve the latent print on the evidence using super glue so the latent prints are not destroyed or damaged before they are delivered to the lab. To have a fuming chamber that can be used at the crime scene, it must be compact, easy to assemble and cost effective. It is quite easy to make your own fuming chamber. To do this, the framework is built out of ½” PVC pipe and the cover is a trash bag. The completed overall dimensions of the chamber when assembled are 14.75” wide x 19” long x 18” high. Unassembled size is 14.75” x 19” x 2.75.” The trash bag used for this size of chamber is a 39 gallon bag which is 2’9” x 3’8” in size. The size of the chamber can be changed by making the ½” PVC pipe sections longer or shorter to fit your needs. The PVC pipe, cleaner and cement can be purchased at your local hardware store. Supplies needed: 1- ½” PVC pipe 10’ $ 0.18 per foot 1- ½” PVC pipe 5’ $ 0.18 per foot 8- ½” PVC “T” connectors $ 0.20 ea. 8- ½” PVC 90° elbows $ 0.20 ea. PVC Pipe Cleaner $ 2.29 ea. PVC Pipe Cement $ 2.89 ea. Cutting procedures: Cut the PVC pipe with either a fine bladed saw or PVC pipe cutter. 1. From the 10’ section of PVC pipe cut the following:
A. Cut four (4) pieces at 16” Uprights B. Cut four (4) pieces at 13.5” Side section
2. From the 5’ section of PVC pipe cut the following: A. Cut four (4) pieces at 12.25” End section B. Cut four (4) pieces at 5/8” (nipples)
Assembly procedures: Step 1 - To build one end for the frame the following pieces are required:
2 pieces - 13.5” 2 pieces – 12.25” 4 - ½” PVC “T” connectors 4 - ½” PVC 90° elbows 4 - ½” PVC 5/8” nipples
Note: If you do not want to glue the end sections together do not use the PVC cleaner or cement to put the end sections together, this way they can be completely taken apart. Use the PVC cleaner to clean the ends of each section of ½” PVC pipe, ½” PVC, 5/8” nipples, inside the ½” PVC “T” connectors and ½” PVC 90° elbows. Use small brush to apply cleaner with clean, dry rag wipe clean. Step 2 - Pre-assemble all pieces before applying the PVC adhesive.
A. Place one end of a ½” PVC 5/8” nipple into one end of a ½” PVC 90° elbow. Insert the other end of the ½” PVC 5/8” nipple into the ½” PVC “T” connector. Line up the nipple and the “T” connector (see figure 1).
B. Repeat this step with the remaining three corners. C. Insert the two end sections into the “T” connector (see figure 2). D. Insert the two side sections into the “T” connector (see figure 2). E. When completed, it should look like figure 3.
Step 3 - Repeat Steps 1 and 2 to make the other end frame. Step 4 - Now that you know what it is supposed to look like, it is time to apply the PVC cement to the joints to hold the ends together.
A. Apply a small amount of the PVC cement to the joint then insert the pipe section and align the connectors.
Note: When the PVC cement is applied and the two joints are put together, make sure you have put it together correctly as the setup time is very fast.
Step 5 - Once the end frames have been cemented together and allowed to dry, you are basically ready to
use it.
To use the chamber:
A. Insert the four (4) upright section into one of the end frames (see figure 4). B. Place the other assembled end frame onto the four upright sections (see figure 5). C. Place the portable PVC frame into the trash bag and lay on its side (see figure 6). D. Insert evidence to be processed into the chamber (see figure 7). E. Place the super processing method you choose (Hot Shot, Sodium Hydroxide treated cotton,
warming plate, etc.) into the chamber. F. Seal chamber by closing the end of the trash bag and secure with a wire tie (see figure 8).
From the Editor
William D. Gifford [email protected]
Edition and Volume: For those of you who save and catalogue your newsletters be aware that the volume and issue numbers fell out of sequence last year. In the event you are looking for past issues just look at the dates and change the numbers accordingly. I apologize for this error. Conference Information: The conference planning is progressing very well. Excellent presenters and subjects are being lined up. A schedule of events will be available in the next newsletter. In addition to the presentations we will provide a time and location for you to bring your unsolved cases. You will have an opportunity to meet with one or more experts to review your case(s) and offer suggestions on how to move them along. This has been a good selling point for some attendees in gaining sponsorship or at least the time by their agencies to attend the conference. This value time spent in the past has helped in the solution of cases. There is no better place to come for help. If you would like to reserve space please send me an e-mail request. You may also just bring your case along, time slots will be filled on a first come first served basis. We will, however endeavor to accommodate all requests. Call for Papers: Please send articles for publication. There are several good reasons why you should: • You may take advantage of an expert editorial staff who is very willing to assist you in getting
published. • You will be sharing your valuable information with others in the field. What you may think basic could
contribute to the solution of cases for others. • It adds greatly to your resume and will prove beneficial to your testimony in court.
Elections: Don Stinehi, the Nominating Committee Chair is requesting nominations for the upcoming election. 2 Board Member positions are open. If you would like to run or would like to nominate someone else please contact a board member. Their contact information in located on the cover.
Membership Dues:
Be sure to pay this years dues. Help out our association and recruit additional members. Membership forms are at the end of this news letter or you can visit our web site. WWW.ACSR.com.
Association for Crim
e Scene R
econstruction W
WW
.ACSR
.CO
M
7800 Lotus Drive
Anchorage Alaska, 99502
