Zombie CSU (14 page)
The Zombie Factor
Though still photography of the crime scene will not, at this stage of the game, do much in our zombie hunt, the files from the research center’s digital surveillance camera will. Once the management of the research center is notified and permissions secured, the digital files can be downloaded onto laptops so the detectives can examine them to see if any of the crime was taped.
That’s where the first big break comes in. Though the slow pan of the camera, which is mounted on a pole over the guard shack, does not record anyone entering through the gates, the audio track does capture the sound of the guard noticing someone already inside the compound. We hear the guard call out for the intruder to identify himself. The only reply we hear is a low moan and then the sounds of the guard shouting and a scuffle. There is the sound of three gunshots and then more moaning—this time of a different pitch, which is determined by the detectives to be the injured guard moaning in pain.
The real payoff comes when the suspected attacker comes lumbering into frame as he staggers out through the gates and crosses the road. Footage of that kind would later help with identifying the suspect and backtracking him to his connection with the research facility.
Art of the Dead—Steve Hester
Death in Focus
“Artists see the world a little differently…some of them have the courage to look at the darker things—pain, madness, death…capturing the essence of each on canvas or in print, illuminating the mysteries for all the world to ponder.”
J
UST THE
F
ACTS
Forensic Podiatry and Footwear Evidence
Forensic podiatry is the science of applying clinical podiatric knowledge to the task of identifying evidence associated with crime. Forensic podiatry was developed in the early 1970s, mostly in the United Kingdom and Canada, before filtering down to the United States. Because of the vast number of shoe manufacturers—from hand-sewn Italian loafers to cheap Dollar Store flip-flops—it is virtually impossible to maintain a complete and accurate database of all styles and brands. Therefore the experts in footwear evidence are more concerned with matching specific impressions or castings taken at a crime scene with shoes found in the possession of a suspect.
Forensic podiatry also extends to include identifying walking patterns, or “gait forms.” These patterns are determined from analysis of the shoe impressions and also from video evidence. The science also examines the foot impressions inside the shoe and matches it against the foot of a suspect to make an I.D.
Expert Witness
According to Dwane S. Hilderbrand,
5
CLPE, CFWE, CSCSA, “Footwear evidence and forensic podiatry are two completely different and separate disciplines. Footwear deals with the shoe, the outsole and podiatry deals with the human foot. Footwear deals with the impression left by a shoe in examining and comparing a shoe to determine if that shoe made the impression. Podiatry deals with bare feet.”
I asked Dr. Hildebrand that, considering all of the shoe manufacturers out there, from top-of-the-line footwear to cheap sneakers, how can an expert determine which brand of shoe left the mark? Or is it just a matter of matching patterns found at the scene with shoes in the possession of a suspect?
“There are a few methods,” he says. “There are computerized databases
6
on the market where a footwear impression from a crime scene can be searched through to determine its brand or model. There are some examiners that have trained themselves to recognize various logo and or trademarks to determine the brand name.”
Do footwear specialists typically visit crime scenes? Dr. Hildebrand says no. “Normally a footwear expert will not go to a crime scene. Crime scene investigators are trained to properly document, collect and preserve footwear evidence in all forms. The footwear specalist performs the examination and comparison between the crime scene print and the suspect’s shoes.”
He does point out, however, that, “there are many examiners trained in gait patterns recognition,” who might be called to a crime scene and could possibly provide assistance with our zombie case. This, however, is unlikely to happen in the first few hours of a case.
According to technology sales representative Daniel Conklin, there is also highly specialized hardware and software systems for analyzing the collected evidence. “Many departments—at least the bigger labs and some of the private labs—have something like the Raman spectrometer, which can provide valuable ‘fingerprints’ for comparing and differentiating footwear materials.
7
Raman spectroscopy using the Foram685-2, is fast, non-destructive, can be performed on materials in situ and requires minimal operator training—an ideal technique for the examination of forensic evidence.”
The Zombie Factor
Matching footwear impressions to a zombie who is later captured or killed is not hugely important. Determining the identity of the zombie, especially of patient zero, is.
If the manhunt lasts more than a day, an expert in walking patterns may be called in. A zombie walks with a distinctive shuffling gait. That will leave equally distinctive footprints on the ground. Zombies are also indifferent to hiding their tracks, which means that they’ll walk over (rather than around) anything in their path, including mud, puddles, dust, and other surfaces that will take a useful impression. In the absence of K-9 trackers, the foot impression expert can often assist the police in identifying the attacker’s gait and provide useful details for officers to track that person.
Tracking the Undead Predator
Though K-9 trackers wouldn’t need to rely on footprint evidence, human trackers would. The tread patterns of shoes or the shape of bare feet are distinctive enough to the trained eye.
The skill of tracking is not something a person can usefully learn from a book. It requires a good coach as well as good senses, acute observation, concentration, patience, perseverance, alertness, physical fitness, a good memory, an analytical mind, an understanding of nature, intuition, and a creative imagination.
J
UST THE
F
ACTS
Dactylosocopy—The Science of Fingerprinting
Fingerprinting is one of the oldest reliable methods of identification. Fingerprints have been used for thousands of years as a method of identification. The ancient Chinese used prints as signatures as early as the thirteenth century. In 1685 anatomist Marcello Malpighi of the University of Bologne identified the patterns found in fingerprints, describing them as loops, whorls, and ridges—terms still used today. In 1858 a British civil servant, Sir William Herschel, began requiring residents of Bengal, India, to use handprints for identification; and many years later discovered that the patterns of palm and fingerprints did not change as people aged. In 1880, Henry Faulds, a physician practicing in Tokyo, determined that fingerprints were unique enough to be used as positive identification of individuals. It was a fairly short step from that to the 1892 publication of Sir Francis Galton’s book
Finger Prints
, which became a landmark textbook on the subject, and in which Galton reinforced Malpighi’s use of whorls and grooves as unique identifiers. Nine years later Sir Edward Henry created a classification system based on five distinct types of prints—a system that informed the fingerprinting identification methods still used in Great Britain and the United States.
Perhaps the most significant landmark, though, was the 1910 trial of Thomas Jennings who became the first person in the United States to be convicted of a crime based on fingerprint evidence. Even when appealed, the guilty verdict was upheld based on the overwhelming evidence that fingerprints are unique.
Fingerprint Card
by Jonathan Maberry
“Even zombies were human once. There’s a very good chance of identifying the zombie through fingerprints, which could aid police in tracking the plague back to its start.”
Expert Witness
According to fingerprint expert and forensic author Elizabeth Becka,
8
“The number of comparisons between fingerprints has increased exponentially and we
still
haven’t found two the same. They’re unique to the individual because they develop at random. They don’t change throughout one’s lifetime. Sand them down, they’ll just grow back in the same pattern.”
George Schiro, MS, consulting forensic scientist, tells us, “The uniqueness of fingerprints is a hypothesis that can never be proven, since we could never fingerprint and compare all people, living and dead, to determine if individual fingerprints are unique. Based on the embryonic development of fingerprints and the studies showing that identical twins have different fingerprints, it is highly unlikely that two fingerprints would be identical, but there is an extremely small probability that two fingerprints could randomly match. Given the context of a crime, the next question to ask is how many people had access to the crime scene. Based on the relatively small number of people that had access to the scene, and given the extremely small probability that two fingerprints could match randomly, then the fingerprints within that small, defined population would be unique.”
I asked why there was so much fuss built around fingerprints, and Schiro said, “The most important thing to know about fingerprints is that the courts have upheld the uniqueness of fingerprints. Fingerprinting is also the least expensive and best means of human identification. Information from a fingerprint can be quantified and digitized, prints can be placed in a database and searched. And the most important things to know about fingerprint evidence collection are that print collection at a crime scene should be a top priority, and the surface on which friction ridge prints have been deposited should be tested with a known print, prior to attempting to lift the evidentiary print. Prints might have to be photographed prior to a lift attempt. The crime scene investigator should also know how to develop latent (invisible) prints using a variety of techniques from a variety of surfaces. All relevant areas should be examined for latent and patent (visible) prints. Finally, other evidence at the crime scene must not be ignored.”
He warns us, however, “Whether or not a surface takes a print depends on numerous factors, including the type of surface. Just because a person touches a surface, it doesn’t necessarily mean that an identifiable print can be recovered from that surface. Typically, rough or textured surfaces can take a print, but an identifiable print may or may not be recovered from that surface. Other factors can determine whether or not an identifiable print is left on a surface. These factors include, but are not limited to, the following: the physiology of the individual, the activity of the individual prior to touching the surface, the humidity, the temperature, the absorbance of the surface, the pressure used in touching the surface, movement of the finger while touching the surface, whether or not there is an intervening material between the surface and the finger, and the cleanliness of the fingers.”
