I spent the five happiest years of my life in a morgue. As a forensic scientist in the Cleveland coroner’s office I analyzed gunshot residue on hands and clothing, hairs, fibers, paint, glass, DNA, blood and many other forms of trace evidence, as well as crime scenes. Now I'm a certified latent print examiner and CSI for a police department in Florida. I also write a series of forensic suspense novels, turning the day job into fiction. My books have been translated into six languages.
Generally about a 6 to 10% identified rate is good. Many prints that are collected at scenes by officers are ‘not of value for comparison ‘ (smudges or only have a few ridges) and many that are good belong to the victim or their friends, family, employees etc.
Huh, that's a good question. I hope my books show what it's really like, except, of course, that my protagonist spends much more time out of the lab than in it, which is not at all realistic.
The non-fiction TV shows and books show reality, however, you have to remember that they're presenting cases that most investigators may come across once or twice in a lifetime.
Fiction shows, like "CSI" in which they have computerized databases of every substance in the world including toothpaste and wall paint, or ones in which female pathologists wear cocktail dresses to work. are definitely not realistic at all.
It hasn’t changed. In general it’s best to process an item at the scene so that handling and possible smudging is kept to a minimum, but it depends on many circumstances. If there isn’t a clean dry place to do it or if the person at the scene doesn’t feel their expertise is adequate for the particular item or mostly if the item needs other processing than the simple black powder or mag powder. If it’s a porous item like plastic or vinyl or paper and might need to be superglued or sprayed with dye, then it should be transported to the lab.
Luminal and dye stains just enhance or show you where things are, like blood or fingerprints. DNA analysis and fingerprint analysis are equally effective, so you use what you have. You might have DNA at a crime scene but no fingerprints, or vice versa. We don’t get a choice of what’s left at a crime scene, so we have to make the most of whatever is there. Given that, whatever is the most effective is whatever gives you information relevant to the crime. Say there’s a smear of the victim’s blood on the suspect’s shirt. The suspect tells police he found the body and tried to administer CPR. In that case, the DNA is very much there, but useless to solve the crime. If the suspect says he never met the victim and the same shirt is found in the suspect’s closet , then that’s very relevant to solving the crime.
Bracketologist
Where do you think the Selection Committee needs the most improvement?Hospice Nurse
Which terminal diseases are the most painful to watch people go through?Inner City English Teacher
How prevalent are teen pregnancies in your school?It depends upon their position and the recoil of the gun and mostly on gravity. I've seen a few where the gun is in their hand, not so much because they're gripping it but because the hand falls to their lap or their side or something. But most of the time the gun has fallen to the floor or at least a lower spot.
For school projects, please email me all the questions at once at: lisa-black@live.com
Possibly, I suppose. If they were swabbed thoroughly and the swabs picked up a few skin cells, then it would be within the realm of possibility.
-OR-
Login with Facebook(max 20 characters - letters, numbers, and underscores only. Note that your username is private, and you have the option to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
(A valid e-mail address is required. Your e-mail will not be shared with anyone.)
(min 5 characters)
By checking this box, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to Jobstr.com’s Terms and Privacy Policy.
-OR-
Register with Facebook(Don't worry: you'll be able to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)