Evidence
of a Forced Entry
Written
Assignment #8: Tool Marks at a Crime Scene
Leslie
K. Penny
Chancellor
University
Abstract
The following essay
covers the process of investigating a burglary with a forced entry into the
residence. The process began with
listing places where one would look for tool marks and impressions. Also listed is evidence one would expect at
the point of entry. A description of how
each type of evidence that would be collected is given and how preservation is
conducted. Lastly, suggestions were
given regarding the evidence in reference to criminal investigator that would
help in a line of inquiry.
Written
Assignment #8: Evidence of a Forced Entry
It is common knowledge that burglaries are extremely
prevalent in our communities. When a
burglary involves a forced entry into a residence or building, evidence is
generally left behind. Among the many
types of evidence left behind at such a crime scene, this essay will mainly concentrate
on tool marks and impressions. The
following points will be discussed: where tool marks and impressions might be
found, types of evidence that one would expect to find, how the collection and
preservation is conducted as well as the direction a criminal investigator
might take concerning a line of inquiry .
Upon arrival of the scene, point of entry needs to be
determined then secured so evidence is not disturbed. If the point of entry is a door, I would
start looking for tool marks where the door meets the door jamb and around the
locking mechanism of the door. Sometimes
doors are pried open by their hinges or the pins of the hinges are knocked out
with a tool so that would be looked over as well. If the point of entry is a window I would
look at the window sill where the window meets the sill, where the two windows
meet in the middle and around the edges of the window. Impressions to consider would include tool
impressions and shoe print impressions either it be on the ground, on glass, on
the door panel or on the floor of the building in, say, a layer of dust.
According to (James W. Osterburg, 2004) methods for forced
entry include prying by using a "jimmy, screwdriver, tire iron, pry bar,
or knife to force a door, window, or lock where the perpetrator may leave tool
impressions on the point of entry", picking by using a knife or
professional locksmith's picks to open the cylinder of a lock, pulling by
"using an auto body repair tool kit called a dent puller or "slap
hammer" to pull the cylinder out", brute force by kicking, breaking,
or forcing a door with the body or an instrument. "Where a door has been kicked in, the
perpetrator may leave shoe or sneaker impressions", removing door panel by kicking in or breaking
the door pane, or unscrewing the panel on an aluminum door, "a burglar may
force entry through a window by forcing in a tool to push back the window latch
leaving behind tool marks" In this
case, a sample of the wood and paint should be taken into evidence for comparison.
Evidence that I would find at a forced entry, discussed
some in the above paragraphs, would include possible tools used in the burglary
left at the scene that can then be used to match tool marks and impressions at
the point of entry as well as possible fingerprints and trace evidence. Other evidence might include fibers that
caught up on the area of forced entry, DNA including blood and hair and foot or
shoe prints. Shoe prints can be located
below the window in question as the point of entry, around basement windows
that have been tampered with or kicked in doors.
There are a couple of methods for preserving shoe prints
but first photographs must be taken with a scale included "to show all the
observable details of the impression" and "to show the position of
the questioned impression in relation to the overall crime scene"
(Saferstein, 2007, p. 486).
"Footwear impressions on glass or doors can be recovered using
fingerprint powders and lifting tape"
(http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/forensic-science-a-csi/crime-scene-investigation/39-burglary-investigations). Saferstein
discusses a "more exotic approach to lifting and preserving dust impressions"
by using a portable electrostatic lifting device which uses a mylar sheet of
film that is placed on top of the shoe print with a roller. By using a high-voltage electrode placed
against a metal plate, a charge difference builds up between the mylar and the
surface below the dust of the print making it adhere to the lifting film.
Preserving shoe (or tire marks, for that matter) in soft
ground can be done by first taking pictures then using a material that forms a
cast of the print. The material used for
the cast is called Class 1 dental stone which is a form of Gypsum (Saferstein,
2007, p. 486). According to http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/forensic-science-a-csi/crime-scene-investigation/39-burglary-investigations,
the casting material is usually mixed with water in a ziploc bag and poured
into the impression.
Tool marks or impressions "can be thought of as the
harder of two objects which when brought into contact with each other,
resulting in the softer one being marked" (http://www.indy.gov/eGov/County/FSA/Documents/Toolmark.pdf). A tool can either leave an impression and/or
striated marks. Striated marks are made
when a tool is placed against an object that's softer than itself and moved or
dragged with pressure producing a scrape.
Once a tool mark or impression has been found, photos need to be taken
that show the entire scene in reference to the forced entry and close-up photos
of the tool mark or impression and should contain a scale. Sketches should also be taken before removal
or casting.
Objects that can be removed from the scene with tool
markings or impressions need to be marked with a case number, initials of
recovering officer and date/time of removal, as well as the location of the
item that was removed. Items such as
doors where the tool mark is large and can't be easily removed, a mold or cast
is made of the impression. "A
suitable material for this purpose is Mikrosil- a two part substance which
reproduces the fine detail needed for microscopic comparison" (http://www.indy.gov/eGov/County/FSA/Documents/Toolmark.pdf). Once the cast/mold is made it should be
placed in a paper or cardboard container, sealed and identified on the outside
properly. Each cast must be contained
separately.
Suggestions that would help select a line of inquiry for
the case would include shoe prints. Shoe prints can narrow down the type and size of shoe that was at the
scene of the crime and entered in a shoe print database. Knowing the specific brand of shoe could lead
to shoe sale records that could very well lead to the perp. Having further evidence, such as DNA, would
be the primary evidence while the shoe print would be supporting evidence. Also, getting an idea of what type of tool,
say a tool used in a certain type of repair shop, narrows the search for where
the tool could have originated from. These are just a couple examples of where a
line of inquiry can come from in this particular case.
To conclude, forced entry's can provide a wealth of
evidence in the form of tool marks, tool mark impressions and even footprint
impressions. The collection process
includes taking pictures before preservation and then taking molds or casts of
the tool and/or shoe impression for the forensic labs. All evidence is collected, preserved, and
packaged properly. Once the forensic
scientists have the evidence they can then move forward with identifying the
origin of the impressions and tool marks.
Reference
Clemens,
D. W. (2011, 09 09). Burglary Investigations. Retrieved 06 29, 2012,
from Crime & Clues: http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/forensic-science-a-csi/crime-scene- investigation/39-burglary-investigations
Dennis J. Nicholas, M. M. (n.d.). Tool mark
Evidence. Retrieved 06 28, 2012, from Indianapolis- Marion County Forensic Services Agency: http://www.indy.gov/eGov/County/FSA/Documents/Toolmark.pdf
James W. Osterburg, R. H. (2004). Criminal Investigation: a Method for Reconstructing the Past. Cincinnati: Anderson.
Saferstein, R. (2007). Criminalistics: An introduction to forensic
science (9th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment