5.

2 - Nature of Crime
Reconstruction
Crime reconstruction, more often mentioned as crime scene reconstruction, is the use
of scientific methods, physical evidence, deductive reasoning and their
interrelationships to gain explicit knowledge of the series of events that surround the
commission of a crime. (Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction)
At its most basic level, crime scene reconstruction (CSR)  attempts to answer the
questions:  what happened and how it happened. In many cases, only the victim and
the offender really know for sure how a violent crime took place and why did it happen.
But even if the victim is already dead and the offender is still at large, it is possible for
experts in crime reconstruction to find answers to the how and why questions.
While human logic plays a large role in the CSR process, proper analysis of the physical
evidence and other facts gathered throughout the investigation play a major role. After
evidence has been identified, gathered and analyzed, crime scene investigators might
then offer a hypothesis of what may have happened at the scene.
 
In order to prove such hypothesis, tests must be carried out that will prove or disprove
the hypothesis or interpretation of the evidence. CSR must contain certain elements in
order to provide enough information to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what
happened. In a murder case, these elements could be the:

1. crime scene photographs

2. pieces of physical evidence
3. autopsy report

CSR was developed in the 1990s as a new area of forensic study that combines
aspects from a number of different disciplines, including profiling and psychological
autopsy, or what is more commonly known as an equivocal death analysis. Remember
that an equivocal death may be open to different interpretation, and unresolved as to
whether such death was the result of suicide, homicide or accident.
CSR may consist of different area or categories. In general, such reconstruction may
involve a specific incident, such as a traffic accident or a homicide. A specific event
reconstruction may attempt to resolve the order in which an action occurred, while
evidence may be reconstructed in order to provide more accurate information about
how something occurred.
CSR may be developed through the use of bullet or other missile trajectories, blood
spatter analysis, or such locations and condition of physical evidence such as the
location of the victim, signs of broken glass, or struggles and so forth. Hence, there are
many ways of inquiring what happened in the past in relation to a criminal incident.

5.3 - Methods of Inquiry

CSR involves inquiring on the past events. There are many ways on how to find information about the
uncovering what had happened, there are 2 broad but distinct categories of the various methods of inq

1. History method (those that reconstruct the past)

2. Scientific method (those that discover or create new knowledge)

 
The first is the method of the historian, archeologist, epidemiologist, journalist, and
criminal investigator; the second, that of the scientist in general (as well as the creative
artist).
Evolving from the efforts of many workers over the past centuries, the scientific method
is a way of observing, thinking about, and solving problems objectively and
systematically.
There are different inquiry techniques that investigators can use to reconstruct what
happened. These are:

1. Induction
2. Deduction
3. Classification
4. Synthesis
5. Analysis

Other terms that can help understand the technicalities of crime reconstruction are:

 hypothesis
 theory
 priori
 posteriori

Induction is a process of reasoning based on a set of experiences or observations

(particulars) from which a conclusion or generalization is drawn. It commences with the
specific and goes to the general. As to the result secured, however, care must be
exercised.
Illustration: consider the man who notes that of the 10 species of bird he has observed,
all are able to fly. When he induces from this observation that all birds fly, he will be
incorrect. Though not always recognized as such, the penguin is a bird. At one time, its
short paddles covered with hard, close-set feathers served as wings. Now, it moves
swiftly and gracefully through water, having over the eons become adapted to this
medium; the penguin does not fly. The ostrich is another example of the fallacious
conclusion that all birds fly. Induction, therefore, can lead to probabilities, not certainties.
When integrated over a lifetime, however, inductive experience is an important
component of the so-called common sense that supposedly governs human behavior.
Deduction is a process of reasoning that commences with a generalization or a
premise and by means of careful, systematic thinking moves to a particular fact or
consequence. For example, if one begins with the statement that “All persons convicted
of a serious crime are felons” (the major premise), then adds the fact that “Jack was
convicted of a serious crime” (the minor premise), that “Jack is a felon” (the conclusion)
may be deduced. This is a syllogism, a form of deductive reasoning that moves from the
general to the specific. If the original premise is valid, the logical consequences must be
valid. In logic (the science of correct reasoning), deduction leads to certainties and not
to probabilities; in criminal investigation, the generalization cannot be so precisely
formulated as to always be relied upon as valid. Only in fiction is a Sherlock Holmes
able, after a quick glance at the mud on the butler’s shoe, to state unequivocally that it
originated from but one meadow. In the real world, the criminal investigator cannot
mouth certitudes while an awed partner (like Dr. Watson) stands by and accepts them
on faith. Because of the illogical, often perverse quality of human behavior, deduction
does not necessarily lead to certainty.
Classification is the systematic arrangement of objects into categories (groups or
classes) based on shared traits or characteristics. The objects in each category, having
one or more traits in common, are chosen to suit the classifier’s purposes. They may be
natural (in accord with the observed order of things), logical, or even purely arbitrary.
The science of classification is called taxonomy. Biology has developed a taxonomy to
classify organisms; chemistry, to analyze compounds; law enforcement, to file
fingerprints, bullets, DNA, a wide range of typefaces, and automobile paints.
Synthesis is the combining of separate parts or elements. For purposes of criminal
investigation, those elements that, when combined, provide a coherent view of the
crime and its solution, are: the evidence provided by witnesses, forensic examinations,
and the facts disclosed by records.
Analysis starts with the whole (whether a material substance, thought, or impression),
and then involves an effort to separate the whole into its constituent parts for individual
study. Hence, on being assigned to investigate a crime, the investigator seeks relevant
information from three separate sources—people, records, and the physical evidence
found at the crime scene.
A hypothesis is a conjecture that provisionally accounts for a set of facts. It can be
used as the basis for additional investigation and as a guide for further activity. Because
it is an assertion or tentative guess subject to verification, the pursuit of more evidence
is required of the detective (or scientist). Along the way, the hypothesis may have to be
adjusted, causing the investigation (or inquiry) to change direction depending on
whether the original conjecture is substantiated or disproved as new facts are
uncovered. As corroborating data accumulate and are analyzed, the hypothesis moves
toward the next phase of proof – a theory.
A theory is a somewhat verified hypothesis, a scheme of thought with assumptions
chosen to fit empirical knowledge or observations. As a theory becomes more solidly
based and evidence accumulates, it evolves into a methodical organization of
knowledge applicable to any number of situations. It should predict or otherwise explain
the nature of a specified set of phenomena. The ultimate theory presents a grand
conceptual scheme that both predicts and explains, while keeping assumptions as few
and as general as possible. In science, the ultimate is often achieved; in criminal
investigation, a less decisive “somewhat verified hypothesis” is the best that can be
expected at the present time.
A priori (Latin for “from the previous cause”) is defined: from a known or assumed
cause to a necessarily related effect; from a general law to a particular instance; valid
independently of observation. In some instances, a priori conclusions are reached
through reasoning from assumed principles, which are regarded as self-evident. Thus, it
is deductive and theoretical rather than based on experiment or experience.
A posteriori is a term denoting reasoning from empirical facts or particulars (acquired
through experience or experiment) to general principles; or, from effects to causes. It is
inductive.
 
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
The first step in reconstructing the past is to identify the problem. The techniques and
methods for problem-solving have been systematized as the scientific method.
Operational research, which is concerned with correctly stating the problem to be
studied, was conceived  in England by scientist J.D. Bernal when he solved a problem
submitted by the military during World War II. Informed that his solution did not work,
Bernal investigated further only to find that although he had solved the problem given
him, it was not what was actually troubling the military. Painstakingly, he was obliged to
reformulate and restate the problem for them before the solution could be applied. Texts
dealing with public relations reveal that problem identification is a major concern. It
begins with an interview of the client to ascertain what the problem is believed to be.
Then, a search of the literature is made to learn more about the apparent issues.
Finally, there is an attempt to restate the problem. This procedure is the basis on which
an effective public relations program can be developed. Although problem identification
is seldom the concern of the criminal investigator, the problem statement pertains to two
situations in the criminal justice system. One occurs when a crime is committed on the
borderline of two jurisdictions; the other, when it is difficult to determine what crime was
committed. If it is a question of jurisdiction, an investigator may either seek to obtain the
case, or convince the investigator working the other jurisdiction to accept it. The choice
can depend on several factors: Is the case likely to be publicized? Is it inherently
interesting or important? Is there a chance to make a “good arrest”? As to determining
what crime was committed, this is usually quite simple because the elements of major
crimes (burglary, robbery, murder, manslaughter, assault, rape, and arson) are well-
known to the experienced investigator. The advice of legal counsel is advisable,
however, when the determination is a complicated one: Is it a case of extortion or third-
degree robbery? In crimes involving consent, was consent granted or withheld? Does
the mere scorching of the paint on a house, without fire, satisfy an element of arson?
 
SCIENTIFIC REASONING APPLIED TO A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
The use of the scientific method in criminal investigation is illustrated by the following
situation, based on an actual case. A detective, called to the scene where a young
woman had been murdered in her apartment, found the table set for two. There were
melted-down candles, wine, supper still warm on the serving cart, and a radio softly
playing. Finding no evidence of forced entry or struggle, the detective hypothesized that
the woman admitted the killer into her home, probably as her dinner guest. In
subsequent questioning of the victim’s family, friends, and business associates, one
name, that of her former lover, continually surfaced; indeed, several people indicated
that his earlier behavior during a quarrel had been forgiven, and that this was to have
been a reconciliation dinner.
The hypothesis that the killer was an invited guest is somewhat verified by the facts
obtained through interviews. Needing additional information, however, the investigator
must consider the following possibilities: Can the friend be located at his place of
business, home, or other usual haunts? Is flight indicated? If so, is any clothing or other
item such as a prized trophy or razor missing? Did the suspect cash a large check or
withdraw money from his bank the day of or on the morning following the homicide? If
affirmative answers are obtained and applied inductively, the weight of evidence in
support of the hypothesis is even greater. The former lover may now be considered the
prime suspect (the generalization). An inductive result, however, is not necessarily a
certainty: flight may be evidence of guilt, but it is not proof. The suspect could have
innocently gone on a vacation at what would, in retrospect, have been an inopportune
time. Assuming that information from relatives and friends has failed to trace him, the
homicide investigator must now discover his whereabouts.
The next logical step in the investigative process is deduction. The characterization of
the lover as the prime suspect (the generalization) leads to the question: “Where would
he be likely to flee?” (answers to which are the particulars). Possible locations are
suggested by such considerations as: Where was the suspect born? Had he lived for a
time in some other area? Has he a favorite vacation spot? With additional facts or
details elicited, investigative activities will seek answers (again, particulars) to other
questions, such as: What else might he do to earn a living? Who might he write or
telephone? Will he try to collect his last pay check either by mail or other means? Will
he continue to pay union dues? Will he change his driver’s license? A sufficient amount
of acquired and utilized facts (particulars) should allow the investigator to come to a
generalization through the process of inductive reasoning. The generalization about the
likely whereabouts or location of the subject permits the investigator to deduce the
particulars (such as addresses) needed to apprehend the suspect. Again, reasonable
premises (e.g., that suspects will turn up at their usual haunts) may prove to be invalid
because of the illogical, often perverse aspects of human behavior.
In summary, the cyclical process of scientific reasoning - moving from induction to
deduction, and vice-versa - is applicable to criminal investigation as a means of
reconstructing past events.

5.4 - Sources of Information

What are the sources of information for reconstructing the past?
The information needed to reconstruct the past is available through three sources:
people, physical evidence, and records. Historians’ efforts to shed light on the distant
past are largely confined to researching records. Art and epic poems (physical
evidence) and folk tales (people) are also researched. Criminal investigators, more
concerned with the immediate past, often put all three sources to use.
PEOPLE

As long as general, specific, or intimate knowledge concerning an individual endures, it can be

acquired by those who know how. People are social beings, and information on them can usually
be found in the possession of family and relatives, work or business associates, and others who
share their recreational interests. It can also be picked up accidentally through those who were
witness to, or the victim of, a crime.

The careful investigator identifies and exploits all potential sources. Some people will
talk willingly; some will be reluctant to disclose what they know. Investigators must learn
how to overcome resistance and retrieve facts that were overlooked, forgotten, or
thought not important enough to mention. Meanwhile, they must guard against
deliberate distortions or attempts to mislead, thwarting such maneuvers through skillful
questioning. Talking with people and unobtrusively observing them and the places they
frequent may be useful. In addition to surveillance, tips or decisive information furnished
by informants can be significant in moving an investigation toward a conclusion.
 
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
Any object of a material nature is potential physical evidence. The scientific specialties
that undertake most examinations of physical evidence are forensic medicine and
criminalistics. Their purpose being the acquisition of facts, the following questions arise:
What is this material? If found at a crime scene, can it be linked to, or help exonerate, a
suspect? Can it be used to reconstruct what happened (especially when witnesses give
conflicting accounts)? In a homicide, what was the cause of death?

In the conduct of everyday affairs, people employ physical evidence in decision making,
but few note this fact. For example, when looking for a house they will examine the
condition of the paint, plaster, and plumbing; determine its location relative to
transportation, schools, and churches; then inspect the surrounding neighborhood. The
ultimate decision is based to a large extent on this kind of evidence; indeed, it is the way
many day-to-day decisions are made.
 
RECORDS

Records are a form of physical evidence. They receive separate treatment in this
text, however, because they are widely scattered, voluminous, and have specialists
devoting full time to their storage and retrieval. Modern society relies on both paper
and electronically stored records by amassing the information collected day in and
day out. Later this can prove useful in a criminal investigation. For example,
telephone company records of toll calls can establish that two people who deny any
relationship had indeed been in communication.

Records need not be printed or handwritten. They may be stored in digital form or on
film or tape. One famous historic example in the US is the White House tapes that
provided the “smoking gun” evidence in the Watergate cover-up of the Nixon
Administration. This case clearly demonstrates the power of physical evidence over
verbal testimony.
ECONSTRUCTION OF VIOLENT CRIME SCENES
In most scenes of violent crimes, reconstruction can be attempted with blood and
bloodstain patterns, impressions, firearms, glass fragments and other forms of physical
evidence.
Crime reconstruction requires a number of different disciplines such as logic,
victimology and criminology. It involves extensive use of facts, physical evidence and
test results. Such reconstruction may be as simple as a detective walking through a
crime scene and verbally hypothesizing what has occurred, to elaborate reconstructions
that utilize video graphic software or services that will offer three-dimensional views of a
crime as it occurs in a frame-by-frame rendition of compiled data and facts and analysis.
Such crime scene reenactment is usually designed for use in a court of law, and is not
what crime scene reconstruction is all about.
Therefore, it is necessary for the crime scene investigator to also know the difference
between CSR and crime scene analysis. As such, a point must be made to distinguish a
CSR from merely re-creating or re-enacting a crime scene.
For example, in a court of law, visual exhibits can be one of two different categories:
real or demonstrative evidence. "Real" evidence is obvious - it is something that can be
seen or touched, like a weapon. Such evidence does not need or require the testimony
of a witness or expert to identify it for what it is; a gun is a gun.
Demonstrative evidence is typically used to help the people in the court understand
something. For example, when an expert testifies that a victim died due to blood loss,
and then points to a diagram and explains how that blood loss occurred, that is a form
of demonstrative evidence. Other forms of demonstrative evidence can include, but are
not limited to:

 Videotapes
 Photographs
 Diagrams, maps, sketches
 Plaster casts or molds
 Computer reconstruction animation
 Scientific experiments or tests

Any type of demonstrative evidence must be verified by authenticity, accuracy and

identification.
 
CSR PROTOCOL
When it comes to CSR, many different aspects about the victim, the location and the
circumstances surrounding his or her death will be weighed and analyzed. Such
aspects are:

 Victimology (Victim's state of mind)

 Victim's prior health
 Wound pattern analysis

The victim is the focal point of CSR. It is all about the victim, so it stands to reason that
the victim should become very well known to crime scene investigators as well as other
personnel involved in any attempt to reconstruct a crime scene. Such areas of the
victim's life that should be studied are: work employment records, school records, any
criminal records as well as talking to friends and family about the victim's behavior and
mental outlook and attitude about life. Alcohol and drug abuse history, or histories of
physical or sexual or mental abuse are also important aspects of a victimology.
Personal and professional relationships with others are also an important part of forming
a multi-dimensional history of a victim's profile.
When it comes to understanding what is really involved in CSR, one must also be aware
of specific terminology associated with the skills and knowledge needed for such efforts.
Terms like the following should be used appropriately:

 Analysis (the process of starting with a whole and breaking it down into individual
units of knowledge)
 Deduction (The reasoning process that starts with a general impression and then
explores logical sequences of consequences)
 Induction (Skills, experience and observations are applied to a case, resulting in a
conclusion or hypothesis)
 Typology (Sorting out facts into specific categories of knowledge)

In addition, law enforcement personnel use terminology to buttress hunches as well as

physical evidence. Such terms as tips, patterns, leads and clues come together to
provide a crime scene investigator with a number of views of any particular crime, but
as examination and observation deepens, so to does the understanding of what has
occurred and quite possibly, why.
When reconstructing a crime scene, many investigators follow basic guidelines to
gather information on various crimes. For example, for a homicide, crime scene
investigators may focus on the following aspects of the case:

 Victim
 Crime Scene
 Crime Lab results

In many cases, a crime scene reconstruction will start with a general idea of what may
have occurred at the location, based on what is immediately discovered. However, as
the investigation continues, the results of lab tests, the autopsy and the questioning of
family, friends and witnesses may offer more detailed clues as to what really occurred.
Basically, the process of reconstructing a crime scene should always incorporate the
following process:

 The Crime
 Hypothesis
 Data Collection
 Test the Hypotheses
 Pursue most logical hypothesis
 Come to a Conclusion

The results of a crime scene reconstruction may reach four conclusions:

 The crime occurred in a definitive manner

 The crime may likely have occurred in a given manner
 The crime is unlikely to have occurred in a given manner
 The crime cannot have occurred in a given manner

In the area of CSR, levels of certainty or levels of proof will vary. For
example, proof ranges between intuition, probable cause, a preponderance of evidence,
and clear and convincing evidence, evidence beyond reasonable doubt and evidence
that determines scientific certainty. Naturally, the closer an investigator can come to
scientific certainty, the better.
There are many dangers and pitfalls that may face a crime scene investigator, homicide
detective or other law enforcement personnel involved in attempting to determine a
crime scene reconstruction if they fall prey to leaps in assumption, emotional
involvement, or not taking all the evidence into consideration before making a judgment.
It is especially important to gather the evidence and wait for lab results and tests before
jumping to conclusions that may lead the investigation away from a logical and non-
emotional quest for truth.
Remember, what you see is not always what really happened. It is essential that any
crime scene investigator show due diligence and attention to detail in order to gather
and weigh all the evidence, and not just selected portions of it.
 
Conclusion
CSR takes a look at more than physical evidence in attempting to determine what may
have occurred at the scene of a crime. It takes as much logical reasoning as it does
consideration of physical evidence and lab test results. A crime scene investigator must
always go into a crime scene with an open mind, willing to wait until all possible
evidence is gathered before leaping to conclusions or refusing to accept alternative
possibilities.
Using evidence to interpret a crime scene is a learned skill that is developed over time,
but even those new to crime scene investigation can combine common sense, attention
to detail and observation of evidence to give them a huge advantage of "reading" a
scene in order to propel an investigation in the right direction.