By Barbara D'Amato
DNA evidence can be fabricated, accoding to a report in The New York Times [August 17 2009].
Scientists in Isreal have made up samples of saliva and blood with DNA that's different from the donor of the samples. And there's even worse news. If they had your DNA profile, say from a law enforcement database, they could construct the DNA without needing any blood or physical tissue from you.
Dan Frumkin, the author of the paper that appeared in Forensic Science International: Genetics, says "Any biology undergraduate could perform this."
Tania Simoncelli, from the ACLU, warns that DNA is easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints. As a person who once moved fingerprints in a book, I can testify that it's difficult.
But there's hope. Frumkin has also apparently developed a way to tell faked DNA apart from real samples. He's working to sell his method to forensics laboratories.
Unless the way to tell faked from real turns out to be successful, DNA forging is enough to send most writers who deal with crime scenes back to the drawing board and give them fits for a while. But like most scientific developments, for a writer, the question is whether this one is a boon or a disaster. It will certainly "date" many books if it becomes generally used.
Showing posts with label DNA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DNA. Show all posts
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Tripping down Halsted St to study DNA
by Michael Dymmoch
On June 10th, the Illinois Academy of Criminology (IAC) held its Spring Institute at UIC. The program was on DNA, a subject dear to the hearts of many crime writers. Since the round-trip bus fare was less than half the parking fee, I let the CTA be my chauffeur.
I don’t do nothing well, so when I couldn’t see the # 65 bus coming down Grand Avenue, I started walking toward the Halsted Street bus stop. You always know when you do that, the bus will fly past you mid-block. Which is just what happened. But the walk gave me the chance to note a few interesting things along the way.
The view from the bridge over the Chicago River:
This could save your hero’s life if he/she fell/was pushed into the river. Or it could snag a corpse.
A pair of like-new shoes abandoned against the bridge railing:
← (shoes)
There’s a story there. Or at least a clue.
And who knows what might occur at the Funky Buddha Lounge?
As I expected, the #65 bus passed me midway between home and Halsted, but the #8 Halsted bus was waiting when I arrived at the stop.
Halsted is an interesting street. Farther North, it winds through Cabrini Green, Yuppie Lincoln Park and Guppie Lake View. From Grand south, it transects Greek Town, crosses I-290 and the Blue Line, and passes through the UIC campus on its way toward the South Side. You could do a series set just on Halsted, or at least Winesburg Ohio collection of shorts.
Spring Institute speakers Garry Bombard, Ph.D., Detective James Hennigan, retired CPD Superintendent Matt Rodriguez, ASA Mark Ertler, and Cecelia Doyle, ILSPCL.
The DNA seminar was hosted by former CPD Superintendent Matt Rodriguez, who told the audience that the FBI lab started in an old lounge in 1932 with a sink, a microscope and a machine for examining the threading in gun barrels. Today, the lab at Quantico VA employs more than 600 people and hosts the National DNA Index System (CODEX), the world’s largest repository of DNA samples. (Visitors are usually underwhelmed by the small room in which CODEX resides, with it’s banks of interconnected computers.) In 2002, the FBI processed 5,000 DNA samples per year. By 2010, they expect to process 90,000 per month.
Mark Ertler, the Assistant States Attorney who supervises Cook County’s DNA review, explained that DNA is involved in three areas of law enforcement. In investigations, it is especially useful in solving cold cases. In addition to exonerating persons wrongfully convicted of crimes, evidence collected before DNA analysis came into widespread use is now being tested and found to implicate offenders arrested for subsequent crimes.
DNA isn’t always the answer. During trials, DNA is useful if available, but “If you don’t have DNA in an assault case, you’d better be able to explain why.” The “CSI effect” is also a problem for prosecutors—jurors expect to hear DNA testimony. There is also a developing area of law connected with DNA databases. In Illinois, all convicted felons are required to submit DNA samples to CODIS, but if an individual’s DNA is in CODIS, will it prejudice the jury? Some prosecutors tell jurors the defendant’s DNA was found in a database without mentioning which database, allowing jurors to assume the reference is to CODIS. Defense attorneys are increasingly asking that DNA evidence be tested by their own labs or with a defense expert present. The former demand raises chain of custody issues, the latter shuts down the state lab for the time the independent expert observes. (For privacy reasons, no other testing can be done while outsiders are present.) Defendants’ rights are also a consideration when DNA testing comes up. A bill stalled in the Illinois legislature would require DNA testing of everyone arrested for a felony; some states have already enacted such laws. But since citizens are considered innocent until proven guilty, this raises constitutional and privacy concerns. In Illinois, the crime lab works for law enforcement agencies, but the question could be raised to whom does the evidence belong?
The latest hot uses of DNA in forensics are mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and Y-STR DNA, which is only contributed by the male chromosome and, consequently, is especially useful for solving rapes. In all DNA cases, the Frye test applies—a court must determine of the test is generally accepted in scientific communities. Y-STR testing has passed in Illinois.
Other issues that come up in DNA testimony are the use of abandoned DNA—DNA left somewhere by a suspect and not given to law enforcers voluntarily or by court order; Red herrings—DNA left at a scene earlier by someone not involved with the case; and opinion testimony by non-experts—testimony by managers of companies to which DNA testing was outsourced. These individuals may have supervised the testing but didn’t perform the tests themselves. Their testimony would seem to be unconstitutional, since defendants are guaranteed the right to cross-examine witnesses. Whoever testifies, outsourcing tests to a private lab is problematic because it may cost up to $2,000 per occurrence for the witness to testify.
Cecelia Doyle, Chief of the biochemistry Section or the Illinois State Police Crime Lab (ILSPCL), explained the difference between real life and TV with respect to DNA testing. In reality, DNA cannot “prove” a defendant guilty. DNA evidence can link a victim to a suspect or crime scene; a suspect to a victim; or two separate crime scenes to each other. It’s up to the prosecution to “prove” the defendant’s guilt.
Evidence comes to the lab as a “biology case” and is first examined to determine if it is likely to yield DNA. About 60% of items become DNA cases. Turnaround time for processing is affected by a number of factors: the number of samples; mixtures vs. straight profiles; the amount of sample provided. Rush/high priority cases (heater cases in CPD cop speak) can take two to three weeks for a small case (two samples + two standards). If the sample size is limited, the case may take two to three weeks. If numerous samples and standards are involved, the whole process will take longer. Every case is peer reviewed. Higher priority cases are supervisor reviewed. Very high priority cases are reviewed by special experts. All tests are done using clean techniques. Unlike on CSI, ILSPCL researchers wear gloves whenever they are in the lab. When processing evidence, they wear gloves, masks, and clean lab coats with sleeve covers. VISITORS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE LAB. ILSPCL has a ”scrape-down room” for examining clothes and bedding for body fluids.
Ms. Doyle reported that CODIS has state, local and National levels (ENDIS), which receive DNA data from 170 labs in 25 countries. The ILSPCL has its own case work data base. Other data bases to which law enforcement may refer are the convicted offender database (everyone convicted of a violent felony in IL); the missing persons database; the unidentified human remains database; the biological relatives of missing persons database; and (in some states) arrestees databases. CODIS hits are not part of the chain of evidence, so if someone in CODIS is implicated in a crime, a new sample must be collected from the individual with a chain of custody maintained. DNA casework is now automated; biological examinations cannot be. ILSPCL is working toward a 30 day turnaround for both.
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (MN BCA) does mtDNA testing (also used for paternity tests) where necessary, because they have the set-up for it. MtDNA testing is very labor intensive.
Crime lab quality assurance standards are set by the National Academy of Sciences. ILSPCL is audited annually for quality of data, integrity of testing results and interpretation, and qualifications of personnel. Before they are allowed to work on their own, employees must have a 4-year physical science degree; a clean life style (and pass drug and background tests); must pass a lie detector test; have one to three years of formal training; and a period of supervised casework analysis.
[Other IAC Spring Institute speakers were CPD cold case detective, James Hennigan, and Garry Bombard, Ph.D., Chief of forensics Studies at Loyola University about which more in a later blog.]
On June 10th, the Illinois Academy of Criminology (IAC) held its Spring Institute at UIC. The program was on DNA, a subject dear to the hearts of many crime writers. Since the round-trip bus fare was less than half the parking fee, I let the CTA be my chauffeur.
I don’t do nothing well, so when I couldn’t see the # 65 bus coming down Grand Avenue, I started walking toward the Halsted Street bus stop. You always know when you do that, the bus will fly past you mid-block. Which is just what happened. But the walk gave me the chance to note a few interesting things along the way.
The view from the bridge over the Chicago River:
This could save your hero’s life if he/she fell/was pushed into the river. Or it could snag a corpse.
A pair of like-new shoes abandoned against the bridge railing:
← (shoes)
There’s a story there. Or at least a clue.
And who knows what might occur at the Funky Buddha Lounge?
As I expected, the #65 bus passed me midway between home and Halsted, but the #8 Halsted bus was waiting when I arrived at the stop.
Halsted is an interesting street. Farther North, it winds through Cabrini Green, Yuppie Lincoln Park and Guppie Lake View. From Grand south, it transects Greek Town, crosses I-290 and the Blue Line, and passes through the UIC campus on its way toward the South Side. You could do a series set just on Halsted, or at least Winesburg Ohio collection of shorts.
Spring Institute speakers Garry Bombard, Ph.D., Detective James Hennigan, retired CPD Superintendent Matt Rodriguez, ASA Mark Ertler, and Cecelia Doyle, ILSPCL.The DNA seminar was hosted by former CPD Superintendent Matt Rodriguez, who told the audience that the FBI lab started in an old lounge in 1932 with a sink, a microscope and a machine for examining the threading in gun barrels. Today, the lab at Quantico VA employs more than 600 people and hosts the National DNA Index System (CODEX), the world’s largest repository of DNA samples. (Visitors are usually underwhelmed by the small room in which CODEX resides, with it’s banks of interconnected computers.) In 2002, the FBI processed 5,000 DNA samples per year. By 2010, they expect to process 90,000 per month.
Mark Ertler, the Assistant States Attorney who supervises Cook County’s DNA review, explained that DNA is involved in three areas of law enforcement. In investigations, it is especially useful in solving cold cases. In addition to exonerating persons wrongfully convicted of crimes, evidence collected before DNA analysis came into widespread use is now being tested and found to implicate offenders arrested for subsequent crimes.
DNA isn’t always the answer. During trials, DNA is useful if available, but “If you don’t have DNA in an assault case, you’d better be able to explain why.” The “CSI effect” is also a problem for prosecutors—jurors expect to hear DNA testimony. There is also a developing area of law connected with DNA databases. In Illinois, all convicted felons are required to submit DNA samples to CODIS, but if an individual’s DNA is in CODIS, will it prejudice the jury? Some prosecutors tell jurors the defendant’s DNA was found in a database without mentioning which database, allowing jurors to assume the reference is to CODIS. Defense attorneys are increasingly asking that DNA evidence be tested by their own labs or with a defense expert present. The former demand raises chain of custody issues, the latter shuts down the state lab for the time the independent expert observes. (For privacy reasons, no other testing can be done while outsiders are present.) Defendants’ rights are also a consideration when DNA testing comes up. A bill stalled in the Illinois legislature would require DNA testing of everyone arrested for a felony; some states have already enacted such laws. But since citizens are considered innocent until proven guilty, this raises constitutional and privacy concerns. In Illinois, the crime lab works for law enforcement agencies, but the question could be raised to whom does the evidence belong?
The latest hot uses of DNA in forensics are mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and Y-STR DNA, which is only contributed by the male chromosome and, consequently, is especially useful for solving rapes. In all DNA cases, the Frye test applies—a court must determine of the test is generally accepted in scientific communities. Y-STR testing has passed in Illinois.
Other issues that come up in DNA testimony are the use of abandoned DNA—DNA left somewhere by a suspect and not given to law enforcers voluntarily or by court order; Red herrings—DNA left at a scene earlier by someone not involved with the case; and opinion testimony by non-experts—testimony by managers of companies to which DNA testing was outsourced. These individuals may have supervised the testing but didn’t perform the tests themselves. Their testimony would seem to be unconstitutional, since defendants are guaranteed the right to cross-examine witnesses. Whoever testifies, outsourcing tests to a private lab is problematic because it may cost up to $2,000 per occurrence for the witness to testify.
Cecelia Doyle, Chief of the biochemistry Section or the Illinois State Police Crime Lab (ILSPCL), explained the difference between real life and TV with respect to DNA testing. In reality, DNA cannot “prove” a defendant guilty. DNA evidence can link a victim to a suspect or crime scene; a suspect to a victim; or two separate crime scenes to each other. It’s up to the prosecution to “prove” the defendant’s guilt.
Evidence comes to the lab as a “biology case” and is first examined to determine if it is likely to yield DNA. About 60% of items become DNA cases. Turnaround time for processing is affected by a number of factors: the number of samples; mixtures vs. straight profiles; the amount of sample provided. Rush/high priority cases (heater cases in CPD cop speak) can take two to three weeks for a small case (two samples + two standards). If the sample size is limited, the case may take two to three weeks. If numerous samples and standards are involved, the whole process will take longer. Every case is peer reviewed. Higher priority cases are supervisor reviewed. Very high priority cases are reviewed by special experts. All tests are done using clean techniques. Unlike on CSI, ILSPCL researchers wear gloves whenever they are in the lab. When processing evidence, they wear gloves, masks, and clean lab coats with sleeve covers. VISITORS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE LAB. ILSPCL has a ”scrape-down room” for examining clothes and bedding for body fluids.
Ms. Doyle reported that CODIS has state, local and National levels (ENDIS), which receive DNA data from 170 labs in 25 countries. The ILSPCL has its own case work data base. Other data bases to which law enforcement may refer are the convicted offender database (everyone convicted of a violent felony in IL); the missing persons database; the unidentified human remains database; the biological relatives of missing persons database; and (in some states) arrestees databases. CODIS hits are not part of the chain of evidence, so if someone in CODIS is implicated in a crime, a new sample must be collected from the individual with a chain of custody maintained. DNA casework is now automated; biological examinations cannot be. ILSPCL is working toward a 30 day turnaround for both.
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (MN BCA) does mtDNA testing (also used for paternity tests) where necessary, because they have the set-up for it. MtDNA testing is very labor intensive.
Crime lab quality assurance standards are set by the National Academy of Sciences. ILSPCL is audited annually for quality of data, integrity of testing results and interpretation, and qualifications of personnel. Before they are allowed to work on their own, employees must have a 4-year physical science degree; a clean life style (and pass drug and background tests); must pass a lie detector test; have one to three years of formal training; and a period of supervised casework analysis.
[Other IAC Spring Institute speakers were CPD cold case detective, James Hennigan, and Garry Bombard, Ph.D., Chief of forensics Studies at Loyola University about which more in a later blog.]
Saturday, November 22, 2008
A great road trip and more on DNA
by Michael Dymmoch
I was invited to come to Minnesota recently, to do an interview with The Minnesota Crime Wave. Carl Brookins, William Kent Krueger and Ellen Hart are exemplars of what makes the mystery community a community—gracious, generous and intelligent. Damn fine writers, too. Minneapolis/St Paul is a seven hour drive, so Carl offered to put me up after the interview. Next day, he gave me a tour of the Twin Cities, a terrific lunch, and a ride to the Mystery Writers of America meeting at Once Upon a Crime.
MWA’s guest speaker was Ann Marie Gross, Technical Leader of St Paul MN’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). The FBI recently honored her for her work with DNA.
Ms. Gross told us that crime scene evidence is brought to the BCA by submitting agencies or sent in via US mail or FedEx. In the biology section, a visual inspection is performed for trace (hairs, fibers, etc.) as well as stains. A serological exam reveals whether blood, semen, saliva or other body fluids are present on clothing or other items; presumptive semen stains are examined microscopically for the presence of sperm. Blood and semen are commonly known to yield DNA, but DNA can also be recovered from licked envelope flaps, and the sweat found on hat bands, shirt collars and garment underarms. Individuals may also leave enough skin cells on a gun grip or trigger to prove they’ve handled the weapon—something convicted felons often learn to their dismay.
The root of a hair is the only part containing nuclear DNA—the type required for positive identification of an individual (or his identical siblings). A hair shaft can, however, yield mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which, as Barbara D’Amato recently pointed out, is inherited from the maternal line and shared with non-identical sibs. MtDNA is most often used to identify unknown human remains, since there are usually more standards—DNA from relatives—for comparison. (The Chicago Sun-Times reported Friday that the remains of Nicolaus Copernicus, the first astronomer to recognize that the earth orbits the sun, were recently identified by comparing DNA from his skeleton with a hair found in one of his books.) All 50 states have laws requiring convicted offenders to provide DNA samples, and the national DNA database, CODIS (Combined DNA Identification System) has 5 million on file.
After the DNA is isolated and amplified at the BCA, it’s analyzed by a machine (ABI 310) that runs 24 hours a day, five days a week. The process, which once took seven weeks and required a dime-sized blood sample, can now be done with a sample the size of a pen tip and completed in 30 minutes. Evidence turnaround time at the lab is two months—from receipt to report. Public safety cases (e.g. serial rapists) are moved to the head of the queue with scientists working late and on weekends.
BTW: Murder & Mayhem in Muskego was even better than Alison Janssen predicted in her November 7 guest blog. Thanks to Muskego librarian Penny Halle and Jon and Ruth Jordan for a terrific conference.
I was invited to come to Minnesota recently, to do an interview with The Minnesota Crime Wave. Carl Brookins, William Kent Krueger and Ellen Hart are exemplars of what makes the mystery community a community—gracious, generous and intelligent. Damn fine writers, too. Minneapolis/St Paul is a seven hour drive, so Carl offered to put me up after the interview. Next day, he gave me a tour of the Twin Cities, a terrific lunch, and a ride to the Mystery Writers of America meeting at Once Upon a Crime.
MWA’s guest speaker was Ann Marie Gross, Technical Leader of St Paul MN’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). The FBI recently honored her for her work with DNA.
Ms. Gross told us that crime scene evidence is brought to the BCA by submitting agencies or sent in via US mail or FedEx. In the biology section, a visual inspection is performed for trace (hairs, fibers, etc.) as well as stains. A serological exam reveals whether blood, semen, saliva or other body fluids are present on clothing or other items; presumptive semen stains are examined microscopically for the presence of sperm. Blood and semen are commonly known to yield DNA, but DNA can also be recovered from licked envelope flaps, and the sweat found on hat bands, shirt collars and garment underarms. Individuals may also leave enough skin cells on a gun grip or trigger to prove they’ve handled the weapon—something convicted felons often learn to their dismay.
The root of a hair is the only part containing nuclear DNA—the type required for positive identification of an individual (or his identical siblings). A hair shaft can, however, yield mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which, as Barbara D’Amato recently pointed out, is inherited from the maternal line and shared with non-identical sibs. MtDNA is most often used to identify unknown human remains, since there are usually more standards—DNA from relatives—for comparison. (The Chicago Sun-Times reported Friday that the remains of Nicolaus Copernicus, the first astronomer to recognize that the earth orbits the sun, were recently identified by comparing DNA from his skeleton with a hair found in one of his books.) All 50 states have laws requiring convicted offenders to provide DNA samples, and the national DNA database, CODIS (Combined DNA Identification System) has 5 million on file.
After the DNA is isolated and amplified at the BCA, it’s analyzed by a machine (ABI 310) that runs 24 hours a day, five days a week. The process, which once took seven weeks and required a dime-sized blood sample, can now be done with a sample the size of a pen tip and completed in 30 minutes. Evidence turnaround time at the lab is two months—from receipt to report. Public safety cases (e.g. serial rapists) are moved to the head of the queue with scientists working late and on weekends.
BTW: Murder & Mayhem in Muskego was even better than Alison Janssen predicted in her November 7 guest blog. Thanks to Muskego librarian Penny Halle and Jon and Ruth Jordan for a terrific conference.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Of Fallible Heroes and Infallible Technology
Editor's note: If The Outfit ever held a monthly dinner party with Chicago's most interesting people (and that's actually a really good idea) Lori Andrews might be the first person I'd invite. Lori is an attorney, law professor, historian, and novelist who advises government agencies around the world about genetic technologies. She also chaired the federal advisory committee on the legal and ethical implications of the Human Genome Project. In her terrific new thriller, Immunity, set during a provocative presidential race, geneticist Alexandra Blake and a rogue DEA agent track the killer behind a lethal new biotoxin. When she told me she was speaking a lot lately about the effectiveness of DNA testing, I asked her if she would guest blog here at The Outfit. If you want to hear more, Lori will read from the book tomorrow (Thursday, September 11) at 12:30 PM at the State Street Borders (150 N State) in Chicago. -kg
By Lori Andrews
I’m one of the people least dazzled by technology of anyone I know. I don’t have an iPhone, iPod, or Blackberry. I still have a VCR. In my day job as a law professor, I undertake extensive government-funded studies of the effects of technologies on consumers and society. Will nanotechnologies lead to lung damage, like a new asbestos? Will use of sperm from the Nobel Prize sperm bank cause parents to reject their child if “E=mc2” isn’t the first thing out of his mouth?
But in my crime fiction, I fall into the same trap as CSI, Law and Order, and many other mystery writers who make it seem like crimes can be solved with the flip of a switch. In my latest book alone, a new date rape drug is identified by its chemical components, surveillance tapes finger the criminal, and a smack-talking computer that runs on DNA rather than the binary code helps solve the crime.
So I wonder: Why do we make our characters fallible and our technology infallible? And, is there anything we can do to change that?
We’ve made great strides making the city of Chicago a character in our books, pointing out its dark underside, as well as its heart-wrenchingly beautiful traits. But other than in a few cases (Kevin’s book dealing with cloning, Cast of Shadows, for example), we don’t treat technology as a character, subjecting it to our scrutiny and cynicism.
But maybe it’s time we started. There’s certainly plenty of material.
DNA forensics is not as reliable as most people think. We each have a 3 billion-character long string of DNA, which includes within it around 25,000 genes. If DNA forensics tested all 25,000 genes, then it would be a great way to identify people. But it only tests 13 snippets of DNA, called loci (and it used to test only 9). A variety of people might have similar genetic profiles when only 9 or 13 segments are looked at-–if they are relatives, for example, or if they belong to the same ethnic group, like the Native Americans in my latest book.
In July, the Los Angeles Times caused a panic in the forensic community with its article, The Verdict is Out on DNA Profiles. The FBI claimed that a match between a crime scene sample and DNA in CODIS had the odds of one in 113 billion. But a technician working in the Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory, Kathryn Troyer, found 122 men in the Arizona database that matched at 9 loci, 20 at 10 loci, one match at 11 loci, and one match at 12 loci. Laboratory workers from other states claimed to have seen similar matches in their own crime labs.
In the wake of the Troyer discovery, criminal defendants have tried to compel crime labs to disclose how many other people in the forensic databases have DNA matching theirs at a significant number of loci. The FBI’s response to such court orders has been to intimidate labs by threatening to take away their National DNA Index System privileges if they comply with the request. In essence, the FBI is trying to prevent defendants from learning if there are flaws in the technology that is being used to convict them.
Plus, DNA forensics can be thrown off by human error and technological shortcomings. In one study, 45 laboratories were asked whether particular DNA samples matched. The labs were presumably using their best techniques since they knew they were being studied. Yet, in the 223 tests, matches were identified in 18 cases where they did not exist. Mistakes do occur in forensic DNA testing, yet jurors are often told that errors are nearly impossible. This means they might be convicting innocent people—or letting guilty ones off the hook.
The fallibility of technology could be an exciting subplot in a crime fiction. I think we shy away from it because it is hard to explain science. And the glitz of gadgets, the seduction of technology, is just too strong. We ooh and aah when Q in the James Bond movies unveils a pen that converts into a lethal stun gun or a car that can fire a missile. And if the right technology is not at hand, we pin our hopes on a hero like MacGyver who can fashion his own.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Gunfights, Interrogations, and More
by Libby Hellmann
Did you know that most gunfights in law enforcement last 3 seconds or less? That police officers hit their targets only 20 per cent of the time? That blood never oozes from a dead body? That there are over 15 ways to tell if a person is lying?
I learned all the above -- and more -- at a stellar conference last weekend in St. Louis. The conference was called “Forensic U” and it was sponsored by Sisters in Crime. It was an incredible opportunity for crime writers – at any stage of their career -- to immerse themselves in subjects that, to the uninitiated, can seem arcane, even gruesome. But to us, it’s research, and it’s all fascinating. At least to me.
The fact that it was sponsored by Sisters in Crime, an organization founded twenty years ago by the Outfit’s own Sara Paretsky, and that both Barb D’Amato and I served as president of, made it special. As far as I know, SINC is the only writers’ organization to offer this kind of information specifically to the crime fiction community. Sure, there are conferences on writing, publishing, and promoting. There's also that NRA/firearms conference in Las Vegas. But I’m not aware of any writers' programs specifically focused on tradecraft. Kudos to Joanna Slan and Michelle Becker for co-chairing the event.
The curriculum was impressive and just this side of overwhelming. There were workshops on DNA, forensic anthropology, pathology, police procedure, toxicology, interviews and interrogations, blood spatter, warrants and searches… and more. (In fact, here’s a link to the agenda.) A judge spoke to us about CSI and how it’s affected jurors, a pathologist took us through a death investigation that turned out to be a homicide, and the head of the St. Louis crime lab told us how they’re structured.
Jan Burke talked to us about the history of forensics and the Crime Lab Project; Doug Lyle talked about evidence, poisons, and blood spatter; former cop Lee Lofland talked about undercover tactics and police procedure; and Rick McMahan talked about the use of force, firearms, street fighting, self-defense (photo by Bonnie Cardone), and the ATF. Happily, some, but not enough, of the classes were offered more than once, so if you missed one, you could catch it again. 
All of the workshops were conducted in layman’s language, but I never felt I was being patronized. In fact, I was surprised by how many attendees weren’t writers. Apparently, there is a hunger out there, from readers as well as writers, for accuracy and information about forensics -- beyond what's available in the media and on TV.
Which prompted a question: what do you want to know about forensics? Do you want to know how DNA is analyzed? What happens to a bullet from the time it’s loaded in a gun until it hits a target? How an autopsy reveals clues to a person’s death? Which poisons are virtually undetectable?
And here’s another question: what would it take for you to come to a conference like this? I’m pretty sure SINC will repeat the conference sometime in the next two years. Is there anything you feel is a must?
Btw, the conference included a trip to the gun range. I shot a .22 and a Glock 9 millimeter. But only two rounds. I need more. I did apply for my FOID card last week. Assuming I pass the background check, it should arrive in a month or so.
To be continued…
Did you know that most gunfights in law enforcement last 3 seconds or less? That police officers hit their targets only 20 per cent of the time? That blood never oozes from a dead body? That there are over 15 ways to tell if a person is lying?
I learned all the above -- and more -- at a stellar conference last weekend in St. Louis. The conference was called “Forensic U” and it was sponsored by Sisters in Crime. It was an incredible opportunity for crime writers – at any stage of their career -- to immerse themselves in subjects that, to the uninitiated, can seem arcane, even gruesome. But to us, it’s research, and it’s all fascinating. At least to me.
The fact that it was sponsored by Sisters in Crime, an organization founded twenty years ago by the Outfit’s own Sara Paretsky, and that both Barb D’Amato and I served as president of, made it special. As far as I know, SINC is the only writers’ organization to offer this kind of information specifically to the crime fiction community. Sure, there are conferences on writing, publishing, and promoting. There's also that NRA/firearms conference in Las Vegas. But I’m not aware of any writers' programs specifically focused on tradecraft. Kudos to Joanna Slan and Michelle Becker for co-chairing the event.
The curriculum was impressive and just this side of overwhelming. There were workshops on DNA, forensic anthropology, pathology, police procedure, toxicology, interviews and interrogations, blood spatter, warrants and searches… and more. (In fact, here’s a link to the agenda.) A judge spoke to us about CSI and how it’s affected jurors, a pathologist took us through a death investigation that turned out to be a homicide, and the head of the St. Louis crime lab told us how they’re structured.
Jan Burke talked to us about the history of forensics and the Crime Lab Project; Doug Lyle talked about evidence, poisons, and blood spatter; former cop Lee Lofland talked about undercover tactics and police procedure; and Rick McMahan talked about the use of force, firearms, street fighting, self-defense (photo by Bonnie Cardone), and the ATF. Happily, some, but not enough, of the classes were offered more than once, so if you missed one, you could catch it again. 
All of the workshops were conducted in layman’s language, but I never felt I was being patronized. In fact, I was surprised by how many attendees weren’t writers. Apparently, there is a hunger out there, from readers as well as writers, for accuracy and information about forensics -- beyond what's available in the media and on TV.
Which prompted a question: what do you want to know about forensics? Do you want to know how DNA is analyzed? What happens to a bullet from the time it’s loaded in a gun until it hits a target? How an autopsy reveals clues to a person’s death? Which poisons are virtually undetectable?
And here’s another question: what would it take for you to come to a conference like this? I’m pretty sure SINC will repeat the conference sometime in the next two years. Is there anything you feel is a must?
Btw, the conference included a trip to the gun range. I shot a .22 and a Glock 9 millimeter. But only two rounds. I need more. I did apply for my FOID card last week. Assuming I pass the background check, it should arrive in a month or so.
To be continued…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
