Focus On Hair and Fiber Analysis in Homicide - Research Paper Example

Your of Forensic Anthropology: Focus on Hair & Fiber Analysis in Homicide Forensic science providesscientific and technical information to assist judges, juries, prosecutors, defense attorneys, investigations and intelligence analysts (Houck & Siegel ix). Forensic science is a way that experts examine facts related to a case to provide evidence that can be used to solve the crime and identify the real person/persons responsible for committing the crime at hand. Forensic science includes the use of fingerprints, DNA and trace evidence to compile relevant evidence for the prosecution of crimes, mainly crimes relating to murder (Houck & Siegel ix). “Anthropology is the study of humans, their culture and their biology. Anthropology can be divided into the study of human biology and human culture” (Houck & Siegel 183). This includes the study of the past and present elements and features of a given social classification of people. Forensic anthropology therefore seeks to merge the concept of anthropology with forensic sciences which provides evidence based on the unique features of a given perpetrator of a murder. This means that forensic anthropology makes the use of social grouping and classification to match the features of a given suspect to provide the broad classification of the possible perpetrator of a given crime. Aside being used in courts, forensic anthropology may be of use in the investigation of human rights abuses like genocides and the examination of mass graves to attain further details of crimes (Haviland et al 10). Details of skeletal anatomy can help establish various social classifications of victims like age, sex, population affiliation and stature of deceased (Haviland et al 10). The differences between people can be attributed to several factors and situations. This is the main essence of anthropology. It seeks to study our differences based on our unique features and skeletal structures. Forensic anthropology therefore try to apply our differences based on dominant findings in relation to “... human evolution, paleopathology (study of bone diseases in antiquity), physiology and morpoplogical adaptatiosn to various environmental conditions and osteology (study of bone structures” (Brickley & Ferllini 5). These differences ultimately lays the foundation for the identification of differences amongst people. This provides the basis for the classification of victims and their murderers. This can therefore become the basis for the identification of these people in a competent court of judicature and the ultimate conviction of such perpetrators. However, the use of forensic anthropology in a court of law can come with difficulties. This is because there is the need for some standards to be observed in the usage of external evidence in a trial which can determine the future of a suspect. It is therefore necessary for some safeguards to be erected to prevent the misuse of anthropology in court cases and the broad generalizations of situations that could potentially cause the miscarriage of justice. This paper examines the use of hair and fiber analysis, a sub-unit of forensic anthropology as evidence in court. It examines the components of hair and fiber analysis in homicide cases and its appropriateness as evidence in court. It looks at the various cases where it has been used and its limitations in court cases. In arriving at this end, two major landmark cases will be examined: the OJ Simpson Trial (1994) and the Daubert Case (1993). Hair & Fiber Analysis in Homicide “Hair and fiber analysis are important to examine a victim and events that took place at the place of murder through to the place of dumping the body” (Houck 123). This implies that hair and fiber analysis can provide important components of a murderer in a case that can enable the identification of such a criminal to come much easier. Hair and fiber analysis provide a way through which the hair of the perpetrators of a murder which fell off at the scene of the crime or a relevant area to be segregated and carefully examined. This means that there is the need for careful analysis of the place of the crime for hair pieces of persons other than the victim. When this is gathered carefully, it can be examined and anthropological features of the hair can be gathered. Since anthropology tries to study the unique features of groups of individuals, hairs that were found in crime scenes could be studied closely and linked to certain social groups in relation to race, age, physical appearance and others. This can give vital clues for the investigators to begin their work. When investigators have gathered enough evidence, prosecution could gather the evidence and present it to court and help prepare a much stronger case against suspects. Hairs from animals can also be a source of good evidence that can trace animals and link them to certain individuals. This can all come together to present a solid case against persons suspected of being part of the crimes. Also, fiber found in clothes and other accessories used for crime could form strong leads that can be used to identify murderers in a homicide case (Bell 2008 137). This is because there is the chance that various components of the cloths of suspects could fall off at the scene of a crime or in a related area. These components could lead to the one who used those cloths in two ways. First of all, the kind of cloth could identify a set of suspects who could potentially be indicted. For instance, if a dress common with a certain religious group is found, then it shows that the victim was probably within that religious group. From there, further investigations could be carried out. Secondly, when the broad class is identified, investigators could zoom in to find people connected to the victim who are in that social category that the clothing connects with. Thus, in the example given, investigators may want to question people of the religious group that wear that particular garment who were connected to the victim. This will provide important evidence which could potentially be turned in at court to convince the jury and get a conviction of a suspect. The Composition of Hair & Fibers Hairs and fibers are both made up of sections and layers that makes them distinct from each other (Dutelle 202). This therefore means that they can be independently studied and verified to provide important distinctiveness that can create a strong link between a suspect and a victim (Houck 125). Hair is made up of three primary sections or layers (Dutelle 202). The outermost layer is the cuticle and this is the soft scaly layer that covers the shaft of the hair. Each species can be identified on the basis of its cuticle. This is because humans and every kind of animal has a different type of cuticle which makes each of them significantly unique in this sense. Thus, when cuticles are examined, there could be a conclusion of whether it is from a human being, a cat or a mouse. The intermediate layer of hair is called the cortex. The cortex determines the hair color and some characteristics of the owner of that hair. Thus, for humans, the cortex can determine the hair color of the individual and to a large extent, the race and other sub-racial features that can make it easier to categorize which kind of person was at the scene of the crime. The medulla is the innermost component of a hair. It provides further details of the owner. It can provide unique characteristics of the one whose hair it is, like physical features and other clues which can enable investigators to zero in on a group of possible suspects of the crime at hand. Also, different hairs from different parts of the body have different features. Hair on the head, chest hair, pubic hairs and other bodily hairs each have different features and properties. This gives different accounts of the person at hand. Thus, if hair from the pubic area of a person are examined, there should be different leads that can provide more detailed conclusions of a given suspect. The reason why hair is a popular form of evidence is that hair grows under two main phases (Dutelle 203). There is the anagen phase where the growing materials are deposited to the hair as it grows. There is also the telogen phase where hair is fully grown and at this point, hair routinely falls. Thus, hair often falls in places where crime occurs and this provides good leads that can be used to process evidence against accused persons. The DNA of a given hair can easily be compared with the DNA of the blood of a suspect. If it matches, then there is the possibility that it could be processed to some form of evidence which COULD be used in court if certain prerequisites are met. The John Joubert Case In 1983, the body of a 13 year old boy was found, bound with a rope (Bertino 10). The boy had been stabbed twice with a knife. The FBI Behavioral Science Unit (The Forensic Anthropological Unit) compiled the profile of the killer (Bertino 10). The race, build, age and appearance was found. The rope was also identified to have been imported from Korea. Shortly afterwards, a woman, who suspected a man for gazing into her day care center took down the number plate of the car. The car was traced and it led to John Joubert. When detectives visited him, they found that he had a rope which he bought from Korea which matched the one used at the scene of the crime. There was also a hunting knife that was similar to the one used to stab the boy. Also, samples of the hair of the boy were found in the car of Joubert. Joubert confessed to the crime and he was found guilty alongside three others (Bertino 10). Inherent Limitations of Hair & Fiber Analysis. The main limitations of hair in forensics is that, hair does not provide details of the sex and age of a suspect readily (Dutelle 206). Although the texture of hair could differentiate broad classes of age groups (aged and babies), it is not a very reliable tool, since most crimes are committed by people whose ages are between these two extremes. Also, the only way of telling the sex of a suspect through hair analysis might be through the fact that women often have treated hairs and this could stand in the way of presenting hair analysis as evidence in a court of law. Another area of contention in presenting hair analysis for cases is about how evidence is handled. There is the need for proper handling of hair to ensure that they can be turned in as evidence in a criminal trial. This is because hair particles can easily be tampered with by events that happens after they are collected. Due to this and several other factors, it is sometimes difficult to present hair particles as evidence in court cases. Use of Hair & Fiber Analyses in Court Cases There are two ways forensic evidence can be presented to a court of law (Burns 37). There is verbal evidence which involves oral testimonies given to court by people who have knowledge about relevant information. There is also physical evidence which involves the presentation of exhibits and other forms of hard evidence to link a given crime to a person. However, there are questions about who qualifies to present a given verbal forensic evidence in court? Who is competent enough to put together a set of physical evidence? All these things raise important and legitimate questions that raise concerns about the use of hair and fiber analyses in cases. “Erroneous convictions are often based on little evidence, erroneous evidence and in some cases, physical evidence that is incorrectly analyzed” (Houck 123). This therefore means that there is the need for care to be taken in such cases. The Daubert Case The Daubert case sets the framework for the application of hair and fiber forensic analysis in cases. It helps to determine the kind of evidence which can be presented to a court of law. Daubert sued the Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals for providing a drug used by his mother which caused him to be born deformed. The Pharmaceuticals argued that the deformity was not caused by the use of the drug and they showed scientific evidence from studies that showed that the drug could not cause harm in pregnant women. Daubert also showed evidence that the drug had caused some deformities amongst the offsprings of animals which were tested for it. There were thus two forms of evidence that were being contested. The only Federal Rule that regulated evidence at that time was Rule 702 which states that “If scientific, technical or specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in an issue, a witness qualified as a expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testifiy thereto in the form of opinion or otherwise”. Based on this rule, both parties in the Daubert case could present their evidence and they had to be heard. The ruling of the Daubert Case showed three main rules which is applicable to the use of hair and fiber analysis as evidence in court: 1. The Judge has the right to determine whether expert evidence is appropriate or not. 2. The evidence that is being turned in must be relevant and reliable 3. The evidence must be based on a valid scientific method, that is it should be prepared by a experienced person(s), subject to peer review, should have a specific error rate, be generated in accordance with existing standards, and must be a generally accepted technique in the community of scientists (Bell, 2010 98). Therefore, every case where hair and fiber analysis are provided, there should be carefully prepared evidence that should be in conformity with the laid down standards that are generally accepted within the industry. Without that, there would be issues that can potentially invalidate the matter. The OJ Simpson Case In the OJ Simpson case, the popular sports icon was widely suspected of killing his ex-wife in 1994. He was said to have bought a knife a few weeks before the murder that fits the kind of knife used in the case. He was alleged to have gone to his ex-wife's house and stabbed her and her friend several times (Bell 2010 327). Afterwards, he disappeared and wrote what seemed to be a suicide note. He evaded capture and was widely believed to have been the murderer of the deceased persons. When he finally got into custody, the overwhelming evidence showed that he should be tried for murder. The initial DNA findings showed that the bloody footprints suggested that OJ Simpson was the murderer. The DNA available at Nicole's residence also showed that OJ Simpson was there at the scene of the crime. However, the DNA profile taken at the scene of the crime were tested at two different laboratories and they both showed two different and conflicting conclusions. The lawyers of OJ Simpson argued that the DNA evidence taken at the point of the crime were tampered with and were not reliable. The case was rejected by the court. Using the three points of the Daubert ruling, which had occurred a year earlier it can be seen that the judge had no option so he accepted the DNA samples as evidence. This is because it was supposed to have been collected and kept securely by experts and was relevant to the case. However, the defense lawyers could argue that it was not reliable because it was tampered with. Again, this lack of reliability showed that the scientific method was not invoked and Simpson could not be convicted on the grounds of forensic evidence that had been tampered with. Due to that, the case of the prosecution was flawed. Need for Care in Using Hair & Fiber Analysis Huck sums it up, that hair and fiber provide trace evidence (126). He states that when contact occurs, materials will be transferred that can be recovered and analyzed by experts in the field. This means that the hair and fiber particles that are identified at the scene of a crime can be used as trace evidence which can help in providing important clues but not absolute evidence. Hair and fiber evidence are circumstantial evidence but not direct evidence (Huck 127). An example of a direct evidence is an eye witness account on the actual event. This therefore means that providing evidence on the basis of hair and fiber analysis can come with some inherent limitations. In a case where the accused person denies any involvement in the crime, the experts presenting the hair and fiber analysis as evidence will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is actually guilty. Without that, the court cannot take the evidence. There is no definition of reasonable doubt (Houck 126). In general terms, proving a case beyond reasonable doubt means proving a case to a point where there is absence of doubt and the expert establishes more than a probability of occurrence (Houck 126). This therefore means that hair and fiber analysis will have to be presented in a way that there will be no doubt in the mind of the jury and the court to suspect otherwise. Conclusions Forensic anthropology helps to link findings of a homicide scene to a given group of persons. This provides strong evidence that can be used for investigations and the further prosecution of the case. Hair and fibers are made up of components that can be easily matched with suspects to provide strong evidence against them. However, in presenting hair and fiber analysis in a case, there is the need for the judge to accept the evidence, the evidence must be reliable and relevant and the evidence must be deduced from scientific methods. This is because forensic evidence is circumstantial and if the accused person denies it, the experts presenting the evidence will have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Works Cited Bell Suzanne. Crime & Circumstances: Investigating the History of Forensic Science. ABCO-CLIO. 2008. Print. Bell Suzanne. Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. Infobase Publishing. 2010. Print. Bertino Anthony. Forensic Science: Fundamentals & Investigations 2012 Updates. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. 2011. Print. Brickley Megan & Ferllini Roxanna. Forensic Anthropology: Case Studies From Europe Charles C. Thomas Publishing Limited. 2007. Print. Burns Ramey Karen. Forensic Anthropology Training Manual. Prentice Hall. 2007. Print. Daubert V Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. 509 US 579, 589. 1993. California Federal Court. Case. Dutelle Aric. An Introduction to Crime Scene Investigation. Jones & Bartlett Publishing. 2011. Print. Haviland William, Prins Harald, McBride Bunny & Walrath Dana. Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. 2010. Print. Houck Max & Siegel Jay. Fundamentals of Forensic Science. Academic Press. 2010. Print. Houck Max. Trace Evidence Analysis: More Cases in mute Witnesses. Academic Press. 2003. Print. Pyrek Kelly. Forensic Science Under Seige: The Challenges of Forensic Laboratories. Academic Press. 2007. Print. Read More