Forensics 101: Sexing an Unidentified Victim Based on Skeletal Markers – The Pelvis

It’s a situation that occurs all too often ― the remains of a victim are found, but all that’s left is an unidentified skeleton. How can police solve this mysterious death if they don’t even know who the victim is? Several key pieces of information are needed to identify a unknown victim ― sex, age, race and time since death ― but without flesh or identifying documents, how can any of this be established?

A forensic anthropologist can determine this information given nothing but the skeleton itself. It may look like smoke and mirrors, but really it’s all about knowing which small details to look for. Add up those small details and a convincing picture appears, and, hopefully, a reliable piece of information can be added to the missing pieces of the puzzle.

So what are the details a forensic anthropologist looks for?

When it comes to sexing an adult victim solely from skeletal markers, the pelvis remains the most reliable feature. Pelvic sexing of children and preteens can be very difficult due to the lack of difference between the sexes before maturity.

There are several specific physical characteristics in the pelvis that are different between the sexes:

• Subpubic angle – The angle formed by the joining of the two halves of the pubis at the front of the pelvis. The angle is narrow in males and wider in females; this is partly due to the shorter pubis in males and elongated pubis in females.

• Greater sciatic notch – The notch in the back of the hipbone that allows muscles and nerves to pass through the bony pelvic region. The notch tends to be narrow in males (less than 68o) and wider in females (more than 68o).

• Orbaturator foramen – The hole made by the joining of the ischium and pubis bones in the pelvis that allows nerves and muscles to pass through. It tends to be more oval in shape in males and more triangular in females.

• Blade of ilium – The ilium is the largest of the three bones in the pelvis; commonly referred to as the ‘hipbone’. It is more flat and vertical in males and more flared or cupped in females.

Because of variation between people, some of these sex differences might be more or less pronounced, so the use of multiple markers is crucial. Better yet is using multiple skeletal elements (if they are available) to confirm the estimate. In our next Forensics 101 post, we’ll look at how to determine sex of a victim based on the skull.

Thanks to the McMaster University Department of Anatomy for providing skeletal specimens.

How Storytelling Can Drive Cops and Scientists Crazy

There’s a rule in my household ― when I watch TV crime shows with my family, I’m not allowed to comment on the episode. This comes from years of watching shows with me and listening to me gripe about all the things that are wrong with the episode. There’s usually a lot they do wrong.

Sometimes I think it would be more fun to watch TV if I didn’t know as much as I do. But I have a significant knowledge of forensics from years of detailed study, and a growing knowledge of homicide and general police protocols, and there’s no going back now.

Last year, while attending Bloody Words 2010 in Toronto, it was comforting to sit in on one of the forensics talks (given by a member of the Toronto Police Services) and to hear many of my own views reflected back to me. Apparently, flashy TV storytelling doesn’t just irritate scientists; it really irritates law enforcement as well.

But this kind of flashy storytelling isn’t just seen in TV screenplays. It can also be found in crime fiction. And nothing jerks me out of a story faster than inaccurate details.

So what kind of issues really drive the scientist in me crazy?

• Science that is conducted at the speed of light ― when DNA or mass spec results only take minutes. At best these protocols take hours; I know, I’ve done them myself. In reality, if a state lab is involved, it can take months or years to get results back.

• Test results that are rarely ambiguous and usually point directly as a single suspect. Let me assure you, as much as we’d love it to be black and white, science often isn't.

• Every case is solved successfully. I realize that TV screenwriters need to have 22 cases per year and they can’t leave the majority of them unsolved if they want to satisfy their audience. But leaving the odd case unresolved is realistic and would open the door to some great character-based storytelling.

• Police officers who blithely cut legal corners or disregard Miranda rights because the plot requires that they do so. In many cases, a little more time spent working out the plot would provide a legal way to achieve the same goals.

• Scientists with unrealistic skills. In reality, scientists that are experts in their field are very specialized in their specific niche. In other words, they don’t do DNA and fingerprinting and ballistics with equal proficiency. In reality, different areas of the lab perform specific tests. For very specialized testing, evidence is often sent off-site, perhaps even out of state.

• Unrealistic science. Shining a black light on untreated blood will not make it fluoresce, no matter how convenient that might be.

• Unrealistic databases. AFIS is a great example of this. The FBI runs a system called IAFIS, but it is in no way as useful as the TV version of AFIS. With only 66 million civilian prints in the system, the chances of finding a match (especially to a partial) is much lower than you would think considering how successful TV detectives are. Realistically, this system takes four to five hours to process a single request, and then police departments will not accept those results as a positive match until a human expert has compared the prints.

• Expert witness who conveniently have connections/previous ties to the department, thereby undermining their credibility at a crucial moment in a trial. In reality, witnesses are screened with excruciating care, ensuring that this rarely happens.

My point in this list is that a lot of this could have been avoided if a little more time was spent plotting. Yes, in a forty-two-minute TV show, they can’t write in a two month wait for DNA results, but sometimes they swing so far the other way that it’s laughable. Use realism if you can and let your characters react to it. The trick to writing realism is to find a way to hook your reader and them keep them drawn into the story through characterization, no matter how long the lab results take.

I can’t be the only one with a list of pet peeves when it comes to storytelling. What drives you crazy?

Photo by striatic

The Long and (Hopefully) Winding Road

When you write mysteries, you hope you to lead your readers down a winding path, complete with roots to trip over and rocks to climb, instead of a smooth, straight highway. Unlike TV, where the general rule is to introduce the murderer by act 2 in such a manner that the character is often painfully obvious, a mystery writer hopes to hide the identity of the person responsible, giving the detective (and the reader) an exciting and difficult puzzle to solve. If the journey is too easy, it’s simply not entertaining.

But at the same time, a certain amount of logic is required, especially when you write forensic crime. Clues revealed at the crime scene have to make sense in the denouement, and the trail of evidence has to rationally and realistically trace back to the murderer, while not being such a straight line as to point directly at him in Chapter Two. This requires a fair amount of planning before the writing begins.

For most of our past novels, I always wanted to have a detailed road map of where we were going. Charts, maps, bullet points, chapter tables, timelines… I wanted it all laid out in black and white. One of the reasons I never get writer’s block is because once I know where I’m going, it’s always smooth sailing. Put me in a position where I don’t know where my story is headed, and suddenly I’m a deer in the headlights. So, in the past we’ve always done a very detailed outline, with all the questions answered before we even started.

But when we started planning for DEAD, Ann made a request. She was concerned that having such a detailed plan before we even started was limiting us creatively. We couldn’t take the left fork in the path because we’d already planned the next step in the case down the right fork. So, instead of planning the whole manuscript out from start to finish, she suggested that we outline in detail the first half or so of the manuscript, leaving the back half only lightly planned, allowing us some wiggle room to see where the writing took us. Additionally, planning is also the most stressful time when we’re writing as we’re both jockeying to get our vision of the manuscript into place, so this would allow us a break in the process.

I admit it, I was sceptical. After writing four previous novels with detailed outlines, I really didn’t think it would work. What if we got half way in and then found that we needed to rewrite the beginning because of a change in direction halfway through? What if part way through we ran out of ideas? What if we got half way in and whole thing simply didn’t work? We’d lose months of time.

But she finally convinced me that it was the way to go. We planned out the non-negotiable issues that had to carry through into the last half of the book ― including the scientific details that had to line up right from the discovery of the first victim ― but we allowed ourselves some latitude on motive, later character development of our leads, and the Act III climactic scene. Then we started to write, with the plan to come back to plan when we hit the end of the detailed outline we already had in hand.

And you know what? We didn’t need to rewrite the beginning, we didn’t run out of ideas, and the story worked just fine. In fact, taking time to settle into these characters and this case ended up being a crucial issue that I didn’t foresee. The case developed naturally and it allowed us to freedom to be creative where the tight restrictions of a detailed outline might have hobbled us. When it was time, we stopped writing for a week to plan out the rest of the storyline, and then we continued on to the end of the manscript.

Lesson number one: I should always listen to Ann when she speaks because she’s usually got something important to say. Lesson number two: There isn’t just one way to write a novel. Yes, it was crucial that some aspects of the storyline were planned ahead of time but some of the best twists that made it into the story were later additions, only made once some of the more detailed case issues were already behind us.

Ann and I are in the ending stages right now of our initial planning for our work-in-progress. I’ve already written several scenes because I simply had to get them out of my head, however the real writing begins this week. But I’ve looked at planning with a very different eye this time around. I’m not worried that while the beginning of the story is already firmly fixed in my head, the end is not. I know in round terms where we’re going and experience has shown me that we’ll have all the ends neatly tied off when they need to be. It’s all good.

How about you? Are you an obsessive planner with bullet points and charts or a discovery writer? Or somewhere in between?

Photo credit: Jess Newton

The Power of Community

When I first came back to writing a few years ago, I wrote by myself for my own enjoyment. Writing can be a very solitary art, and it certainly was for me back then. Ann and I joined forces shortly thereafter, and, for a while, it was just the two of us. But all that changed when a girlfriend, Kate, invited us to join a bunch of writers on LiveJournal, and my first experience with a writing community began.

Through LiveJournal, I met a large group of writers at various stages of their careers. Many wrote just for fun and were happy to keep it that way. But there was a group of us that strove to learn more about our craft and eventually focused on professional publication. Of that group, several are now agented writers, and several more are well on their way to reaching that goal. But more than what we accomplished individually, it was what we accomplished as a group that was important. We shared our writing freely and reviewed others’ material on a regular basis. We worked hard to encourage fellow writers in their writing habits, in finding their style, and improving their skills.

As social media platforms have increased in prevalence and size, the idea of community has expanded as well. Recently, Kristen Lamb started the #MyWANA community on Twitter, based on her book We Are Not Alone  ― The Writers Guide to Social Media (she also posts every Wednesday on this topic on her Warrior Writers blog). The #MyWANA community is a place where writers can share blogging experiences, tips on platform building, links they found helpful, and promote each other to the community as a whole. It’s an incredibly positive atmosphere, as can be seen in the number of writers who follow and return time and time again to contribute to the group.

Recently, a handful of Nicole’s clients found each other on Twitter and we’ve banded together as a small group to encourage each other, provide a shoulder to lean on when frustrated or discouraged, to share tips, trade ideas and even to give each other some healthy writing competition. We’ve had a few mornings when an e-mail has gone out to the group from one of us setting their word count goal for that day and others have chimed in to match it or with their own personal goals. It gives us something to be accountable for at the end of the day, and, if we don’t succeed, it gives us a cheering section to try again next time. Yesterday, in a great bit of teamwork, a tagline was bandied about until it was tweaked to perfection, with everyone available at the time tossing out ideas for discussion. And recently, one of our ranks, Amanda Carlson, announced her very first deal, a three book contract with Orbit. We were thrilled for her and immediately did what we could to spread the news through our respective social networks. This kind of community simply can’t be beat ― there’s no jealousy or negativity, just support and encouragement. We’re fairly new as a group, but I see a great potential for parallel growth and friendship within this group of women. I’m very thankful to have found them.

The power of community isn’t shared only in writing groups. It can be in cancer survivor networks like Livestrong, through hobby clubs, in on-line forums to discuss parenting, or within homeschooling support groups. Ann has found community in her work rescuing abandoned and abused pit bulls, and working with non-profit organizations such as Love-A-Bull and StubbyDog to improve the public image of pit bulls. It’s the connections within the group that are important, and the links between its members give strength to all.

How have you experienced the power of community in your life?

Photo credit: toffeehoff

I Can See London From My Saddle

There's been some great debate this past week over Kristen Lamb’s post Sacred Cow-Tipping–Why Writers Blogging About Writing is Bad. It certainly made me think about what I blog about here on Skeleton Keys. From the beginning, this blog has had a split focus because I’ve posted about both writing and forensics/forensic anthropology. But Kristen made me think about expanding my focus a bit to include other interests that apply directly to my current crime fiction series: architecture, science in general, and the history of Boston, Salem and Essex County, Massachusetts in particular. Combine that with Sarah Palin’s recent faux pas in Boston, and this blog post was born.

Mrs. Palin recently said about Paul Revere: “He who warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed.”

That’s not quite how it happened.

The Old North Church (Christ Church) in Boston

Revere, a member of the Sons of Liberty, spent the winter and spring of 1775 staying one step ahead of the British, riding from town to town to alert the townsfolk about the movements of the local British troops. Those troops mached through the countryside under orders to confiscate any and all armaments for their own use. But they found that each town they approached had already hidden away all their arms thanks to the tenacious Sons of Liberty, leaving the Redcoats humiliated and empty-handed. In an effort to circumvent the Sons of Liberty, General Gage, leader of the British troops, concocted a secret plan ― on the night of April 18, 1775, the British would move under the cover of darkness and conduct a surprise raid on Lexington and Concord at dawn when the patriots were unprepared. History suggests that either Gage’s wife or maid betrayed him to the Sons of Liberty, sharing the secret of the dawn raid. But on the night of April 18th, there was still some question about how the troops would move.

Revere intended to ride himself to warn local patriots, but he arranged for Robert Newman, caretaker of the Old North Church in Boston, to broadcast important information concerning troop movements by lighting either one or two lanterns in the church steeple. One lantern meant the troops were moving by land; two lanterns implied the British were crossing the Charles River by boat. A former bell-ringer himself, Revere knew that the signal would be clearly visible across the harbour, alerting his countrymen even if he was caught.

At 10 p.m. on the night of April 18, 1775, Newman climbed the steeple to hold aloft two lanterns for less than a minute. The light was seen across the harbour by patriot eyes, but the British in Boston also spotted it and the chase was on. Newman managed to flee the church by leaping through the sanctuary window (now known as the ‘Newman Window’) even as the British were trying to come through the front door. Today, hanging in front of that window is a replica of the lanterns that were used that night.

The Newman Window

Revere rode out that night, first crossing by boat from Boston to Charleston and then riding through Medford and on to Lexington. He didn’t ring bells or shout ‘The British are coming! The British are coming!’ ― this was a time of subtlety and espionage; secrecy was paramount because many colonists were still loyal to the British. But his ride set in motion a chain of fellow riders; it is estimated that there were over forty messengers riding that night, warning fellow patriots of the oncoming army.

Captured and questioned at gunpoint by the British, Revere did warn them of the size of the force they were about to confront in Lexington, recommending they abandon the attempt. Nevertheless, his captors continued towards Lexington. But after seeing the militia gathered there, they released Revere, confiscating his horse to ride east to warn the approaching army. As the sun rose, Revere helped John Hancock and his family escape Lexington, even as the opening shots of the American Revolution sounded as the Battle of Lexington began.

One of the best known versions of the events of that night was written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, a native of Cambridge. I’ve included a small excerpt from it here:

He said to his friend, "If the British march

By land or sea from the town to-night,

Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch

Of the North Church tower as a signal light,--

One if by land, and two if by sea;

And I on the opposite shore will be,

Ready to ride and spread the alarm

Through every Middlesex village and farm,

For the country folk to be up and to arm."

I Wrote THAT?

There’s nothing like a really good critique team to allow you to fully realize your shortcomings as a writer.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a bad thing. Having fresh eyes look at your manuscript allows you to see it through the perspective of a reader instead of that of a writer. Things that are obvious to you as the story planner can sometimes leave your reader scratching his or her head in confusion. These are all fixable story issues, but you need to know about them before you can revise accordingly.

We were lucky to build a really solid critique team from women we met on LiveJournal over the course of several years. Of our core critique team, Margaret and Jen are both excellent writers in their own right and Sharon is a fantastic editor. Our last team member, Lisa, has been one of our long term readers, but, more than that, she’s worked hand-in-hand with us as our technical advisor  on several novels and is currently back on board with us again for our current work-in-progress. Each of our team members brought something different to the table whether it was an eye for long arc story issues, character inconsistencies, police protocol mishaps, continuity errors, or line-by-line nitpicking. It was wonderful because, as a group, they covered all the bases. Needless to say, I’m thrilled that they’re all back on board for our current work-in-progress.

But apart from story issues, a really sharp critique reader will also help you improve your prose. This was where our agent, Nicole, really stepped up to the plate. She’s a trooper, and she spent a lot of time carefully reviewing the manuscript. And this was really where I got hit hard with that I wrote THAT?? feeling. Nicole has a professional eye, so her critique involved a lot of issues that we hadn’t fully touched upon before.

Nicole’s revision notes were quite an eye opener. For starters, apparently I have a real issues with point of view. It’s funny how switching POV never bothered Ann or I. But when Nicole sent the manuscript back, even though she'd made specific in-line notes about POV, she suggested rereading through the manuscript and highlighting each different character’s POV in a specific colour to really understand the issue.

Wow. Let’s just say that the chapters were way too colourful. But the point was made... in spades.

Another prevalent issue was passive versus active writing. There were entirely too many 'watched/saw/felt/thought' phrases and once she pointed them all out (and when I say all, I mean all), the impact of it was really obvious to me. How on earth did I not see that before?

The other thing that Nicole stressed to make sure that the goal motivated conflict for the characters was solid. This was another one of those issues where the motivations were obvious in my head, but might not be to the reader, so we made sure that aspect of the manuscript was tightened up.

Did I mention that Nicole is a trooper? Because she really, really is.

It was a massive revision to fix all that, but as much work as it was, it was a great learning experience for me. In starting our current work-in-progress, I’ve got my eye firmly on POV and am planning out chapters ahead of time specifying which POV to stick with. I have a list of passive verbs to watch for in our first edit run per chapter to weed them out right away. They say that recognizing a problem is half the battle; my goal is to not allow that kind of writing to creep in at all, but if it does, I’m now on the alert to clean it out, hopefully before Ann even sees the first draft. As I said, it was an excellent learning experience. Yes, for a moment or two it makes you question your skills as a professional writer, but in the end you develop stronger skills and that's the true positive outcome.

Have any of you had that I wrote THAT? feeling when you’ve gotten revision notes or contest notes back? Surely I’m not the only one...

Photo credit: CollegeDegrees360

Forensics 101: Determining Time Since Death Based on Decomposition

In our continuing series on forensics and the skills specific to forensic anthropologists, we’re starting at the beginning when it comes to death investigation by discussing after-death processes.

It’s a sad but true fact that the body breaks down following death in ways that aren’t pretty. Many of us have gotten a glimpse of this process from those unrecognizable lumps commonly labelled 'road-kill'. But whether human or animal, we all undergo the same processes post-mortem. In the case of a murder or accident investigation, forensic scientists can use this progression to determine when the victim died.

Microscopic changes start to occur at the cellular level immediately following death, while visible changes become evident within a few hours:

• blood no longer circulates and gravity causes it to pool in the lowest parts of the body, turning that flesh a dark purple-red (pallor and livor mortis)
• body temperature drops at a rate of 1 – 2 ^oC per hour (algor mortis)
• the body starts to stiffen approximately 2 to 6 hours following death, persisting for 24 to 84 hours (rigor mortis).

Following these changes, the process of putrefaction begins.

When human remains are actively in this putrefaction phase, a forensic anthropologist may be called in as a consultant to the medical examiner. The general rule is that the more decomposed the remains, the greater for the need for a forensic anthropologist’s expertise.

During putrefaction, the bacteria naturally found in the intestinal and respiratory tracts move into the body’s soft tissues, breaking down the component materials ― proteins, fats and carbohydrates ― and producing the noxious gases associated with the bloat stage of decomposition ― hydrogen sulfide, putrescine, cadaverine, methane, acetone and numerous alcohols and acids. Tissues in the body then liquefy in a specific order ― intestinal tract and circulatory system, lungs and related tissues, urinary tract organs, brain and nervous tissue, skeletal muscles and, finally, connective tissue, leading to complete skeletonization.

It’s a very predictable progression, but one that wasn’t well studied in the past because of society's ethical and spiritual conventions regarding death. However, since 1971, the Forensic Anthropology Center at the University of Tennessee has specialized in the controlled study of decomposed human remains under the leadership of Dr. William M. Bass. Based on the research done at this facility, forensic science has leapt forward, and much of this knowledge has been invaluable in crime scene investigations. Detailed information is now available about those variables that significantly affect human decomposition rates ― temperature, insect colonization, burial, carnivore scavenging, clothing, body weight, trauma and soil pH.

Armed with knowledge of the decomposition process and the variables that can affect it, forensic scientists can estimate with significant accuracy a ‘time since death’ window for a set of fleshed human remains at a crime scene. This is particularly important for highly degraded remains when victim identification is already problematic. As well, a reliable time since death window can contribute to information on how death might have occurred and who might have been involved.

In the next Forensics 101 post, we will be looking at sexing an unknown victim, based purely on skeletal markers. We hope to see you there…

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Resisting the Urge to Give Up When the Going Gets Tough...

Last week, Scott Eagan ran a series of guest posts at his Greyhaus Literary Agency blog, and I was fortunate enough to be selected as his guest blogger last Friday. Scott was highlighting authors’ struggles and frustrations, and my contribution to this series outlined why we turned down our very first offer of representation last fall. If you’re interested, you can find that short post here: No Agent is Better Than a Bad Agent.

But it was what happened just after turning down that offer that was the bigger blow for me; one that hit me hard enough that I almost gave up on the dream of publication.

When we received the offer from Agent #1, we informed any other agents that had fulls or partials about the offer. Except for one agent, those that only had partials requested the full, and they all started reading. One of the agents, Agent #2, is a BIG agent. She read the manuscript and sent back some very encouraging feedback, calling the manuscript ‘fresh and original’ but saying that she didn’t connect strongly enough and would require editorial changes before offering, so she was stepping aside. As we were already starting to have some misgivings about Agent #1, I asked if she would be willing to discuss those changes further if we didn’t go with the offering agent, and she agreed.

When Ann and I turned down Agent #1, we did so with the tiny bit of security that we could go back to Agent #2 and discuss revising, something we both were willing to do. So, I contacted Agent #2 again. But when she got back to us the next day, it was to decline doing revisions. Her comments about what was wrong with the manuscript had to do with the very heart of our writing, things like tone, which simply couldn’t be changed.

It was a crushing blow. After four hard months of querying over sixty agents, we were done. We’d turned down our only offer of representation and no one else wanted us. And based on the comments Agent #2 offered, did our work even have any value?

I received her e-mail just before lunch that day. I forwarded the message to Ann with only the shortest of comments and then I literally shut down the computer and walked away from it for hours. It was funny ― I withstood all the query rejections (okay, the day that three arrived in thirty minutes was tough) and even the passes on partial or full manuscripts from other agents, but this one hit really hard. Without a doubt, it was the worst crisis of my personal writing life to date. That afternoon I seriously considered throwing in the towel for good. It was just too hard. Was it worth having your ego constantly pummelled to hang in there and then have to start from scratch all over again?

So what stopped me from quitting? In a coincidental moment of timing, that one agent who hadn’t requested a full e-mailed me after dinner that day saying that he enjoyed the partial and would like to see the full manuscript.

We weren’t out of the running after all. Hope springs eternal. And that request reminded me of the subjective nature of this industry ― what one agent will pass on, another agent will love. And it renewed our 'go big or go home' attitude that has been our companion through this whole process. We hadn't worked this hard to give up now; no way, no how.

We took a well-deserved break at that point to mentally regroup, but went back to querying two weeks later. Eight weeks after that we found Nicole and the rest is history.

Do I harbour any bad feelings towards Agent #2? Not at all. She was simply making the best business decision for herself and her agency. But from a writer’s perspective, when we are so heavily invested in the artistic aspect of our craft, the business side of it can be a cruel adversary. Rejections are not just a rejection of our work, but a rejection of us. It’s hard not to take it personally. But we have to keep the business end of the industry in mind during the querying and submission stages because, at that point, the overwhelming majority of decisions will simply be business-related and not about us personally.

What about you? Have you had moments when you’ve been tempted to give up the dream? How did you overcome those feelings?

Photo credit: portobeseno

No Agent is Better Than a Bad Agent

I'm guest blogging over at Scott Eagan's blog today, telling the tale of our first offer from an agent and why we turned it down. Please stop by to find out why 'No Agent is Better Than a Bad Agent'.

When an Idea Strikes

Ideas are crucial to a writer; they are, in fact, a writer’s stock in trade. Granted, it’s the execution of that idea that sets one writer apart from another, but without that initial idea, there is no journey. So how do you ensure that you don’t lose any of those precious ideas?

Like most of you, my life is busy, usually teetering right on the edge of insanity ― working full-time in the lab, a second full-time career as a writer, a family and household to run and life’s daily activities to carry out. On top of that, or just as likely because of the pace I have to maintain, I don’t do ‘nothing’ well. I listen to audiobooks while I cook, garden, wash dishes or drive to work, I plan or write in every spare moment and I can’t even watch TV without analysing the plotline and characterizations on-screen. There is always something going on in my head.

But this means that whenever inspiration hits, I can’t rely on my brain to remember the details. It’s amazing how the great idea from five minutes ago that was guaranteed to save my story can be gone in a puff of smoke this instant. It’s... uh... because there’s simply too much in my brain and things keep falling out (okay, it really has to do with short-term memory capacity and the amount of inflowing information, but that’s the explanation that only a science geek would love).

I’ve learned the hard way that when the lightning bolt of inspiration hits, I’ve only got a few minutes to find some way to record it. I don’t need every last detail, just enough to jog my memory later when I’ve got time to make complete notes. My most useful tool for this is the notepad and pen I carry at all times (I can be seen making notes in just about any situation). I’ve sent myself voice mail messages to my home answering machine. I’ve used Dragon Dictation on my iPod Touch. I’ve sent myself e-mails or direct messages through Twitter. The worst is when inspiration hits in the shower. I think I should invest in a set of Crayola bathtub crayons for making notes on the tile because I’ve come tearing out the shower on a few occasions, wrapped in a towel and making a beeline for my laptop to get an idea down before it evaporates. Ann, my writing partner, keeps paper and pencil by her bed and has been known to make notes at 3 a.m. Now that she works from home, her current method of recording ideas is an Excel file where she can organize items chronologically and then match them later with their resolution. Her worst place for inspiration to hit is standing in three feet of water when she’s working on her pond. Perhaps she should start keeping chalk handy for note taking on the rock retaining wall.

I know we’re not the only writers suffering from Overflowing Brain Syndrome. So how do you ensure that inspiration doesn’t pass you by? Please share in the comments because we’d all love to hear your strategies.

Photo credit: fostersartofchilling

The Kindness of Strangers When Researching Your Novel

About six weeks ago, Katie Ganshert had an excellent post about when it’s time to stop using the Internet for research and use real resources instead. You can read that post here. Katie’s post was very much the inspiration for this one.

I’m a firm believer in going to the source for information, be it a peer-reviewed scientific journal for primary data or interviewing someone about their real-life experience. For instance, our current work-in-progress involves arson and the science of fire investigation. To write this manuscript properly, Ann and I will be working with a close friend who is a Captain and a 20-year veteran of a California Fire Department. There’s nothing like real life experience to give your manuscript an edge, especially if you’re aiming for gritty realism.

This was something I already knew when Ann and I started brainstorming DEAD, WITHOUT A STONE TO TELL IT in the summer of 2009. We’re both researchers at heart and by training, and we both believe in going the extra mile to make sure the details are correct. This is all very doable when we’re looking at details surrounding the science, but when it came to learning about real and realistic police protocol, we hit a wall. Our female protagonist is a Trooper in the Massachusetts State Police, but when it comes to Internet information about law enforcement, we found details to be alarmingly scarce.

I had already decided that the only way to do this manuscript properly was to be physically standing in the locations where we were going to set the story. I’m a very visual writer; for years, Ann has assisted in the process by finding every photo she could of whatever it was we were writing at the time. It’s always paid off beautifully, but this time photos weren’t going to cut it. I needed to see those locations with my own eyes.

I also knew that I had to take that extra step and actually contact the Massachusetts State Police for information. After writing five novels together, we knew that this was going to be the one that we’d take to literary agents; we finally felt ready. But I still wasn’t confident about my role as a writer for anything other than actual writing. I’m just a scientist and an unpublished author; what right did I have calling busy people with important jobs to take up their time to discuss my project? And, truthfully, it seemed trivial to me, compared to what they do. Nevertheless, I put on my ‘author’s hat’, screwed up my courage, and cold-called the Massachusetts State Police. I was passed to the Director of Communications who requested more information via e-mail. I provided additional details of the project and told him that I’d be happy to discuss the information with him over the phone, or that I would be traveling to Boston in a few weeks and could meet with him then.

To my shock, he arranged a meeting with the District Attorney for Essex County, Jonathan Blodgett, and Detective Lieutenant Norman Zuk, head of the Essex Detective Division, Essex County’s homicide unit. *gulp* Suddenly my little meeting with the Communications Director turned into a meeting with both the D.A. and top cop of Essex County.

To say that I had an attack of nerves would be putting it lightly. I was already feeling out of my league and now I was supposed to meet with these important men? Me? And really, why did they want to meet with me anyway? Were they going to try to stop me from using their department for our novel?

I flew down to Boston to start my research trip. I rented a car and drove to Salem to meet with them. But what is it about cops? Why is it that even when you’ve done nothing wrong, you’re still scared to death of them? Add to that major nerves and feeling way out of my depth, and I was terrified. Literally shaking. Nevertheless, I walked in there and tried to brazen my way through it.

And guess what happened? When Steve O’Connell, the Communications Director, showed me into the D.A.’s conference room, D.A. Blodgett and Det. Lt. Zuk both walked in carrying gifts for me. Then they asked what they could do for me.

I was stunned. Here I was imposing on these gentlemen and taking up their valuable time, and they wanted to know what they could do for me.

They gave me an hour of their time in the conference room, answering every question on the list Ann and I had prepped from homicide protocols to Crime Scene Services to interagency cooperation. Then D.A. Blodgett had to leave as he was already late for his next meeting, but Det. Lt. Zuk took me on a personally guided tour of the Essex Detective Division, including their conference room (that held their murder board for all open and in-trial cases) and the detectives’ bullpen. When I asked him about their detailed protocols, he handed me the binder of protocols from his own office and told me I could take them with me as long as I returned them to him later.

Once again I was floored. What I originally thought would be a short phone conversation had become a crucial meeting yielding priceless information, including their official protocols that I was allowed to copy and keep.

When it comes to research, there’s nothing like talking to those men and women who do the job you want to portray in your writing, or who have knowledge that you lack. These strangers were immensely kind and forthcoming, and they genuinely enjoyed my interest in their work and their department. And their generosity has continued. When I had a few details I wanted to confirm during our final edit two months ago, I contacted Det. Lt. Zuk, asking if I could have a few minutes with one of his officers. He sent me his cell phone number and told me to call him personally. Another very generous gift of his time and knowledge.

What about you? Have you found that people are willing to go above and beyond to help you in your writing? That rather than being annoyed by your questions, that they have instead been flattered and willing to assist you?

Photo credit: 1photos

Forensics 101: So You Found Human Remains... Who You Gonna Call?

The answer to that question is obvious ― you call 911 (or Ghostbusters, if the urge hits). But the question really is: who are the crime scene investigators going to call? Sometimes the choice is clear ― the victim is fully fleshed and death has occurred fairly recently, measuring the time since death in minutes, hours or days. It's even more straightforward if the victim is found indoors in a scavenger-free area (unfortunately, any normal house cat or dog can become an opportunistic scavenger if confined for an extended period of time with a deceased human). In this case, any fully trained medical examiner or coroner is more than capable of performing the required autopsy.

However, there are certain circumstances where the medical examiner may decide that additional expertise is required. A forensic anthropologist will often be called in to consult if the remains are found:

• a considerable time after death, allowing for advanced decomposition
• in a location that promotes either accelerated decomposition or mummification of the body
• exposed to scavengers, resulting in partial or complete tissue removal
• already fully skeletonised, or are suspected to be historical remains
• severely burned (Crow-Glassman Scale¹ levels 3, 4 and 5)
• after prolonged time in a marine environment
• as victims of a mass disaster (ie. plane crashes, the Oklahoma City bombing or following natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina)

In Forensic Osteology - Advances in the Identification of Human Remains, Dr. Kathleen J. Reichs defines forensic anthropology as "a subdiscipline of physical anthropology that applies the techniques of osteology² and biomechanics³ to medicolegal problems". In layman’s terms, a forensic anthropologist studies bone structure/composition and decomposition, and assists as part of the forensics team when investigating a death.

What expertise can a forensic anthropologist bring to an investigation? While not an exhaustive list, those skills include determining:

• time since death, based on knowledge of decomposition rates in different climates and environments
• time since death based solely upon skeletal structure when no soft tissue remains
• sex of the victim from skeletal markers
• age at death from skeletal indicators or using histological⁴ techniques
• likely ancestry of the victim
• childhood and recent geographic locations based on the analysis of the mineral composition of bone
• method of death as a result of gross skeletal trauma (ie. blunt/sharp force trauma, gunshot wounds, dismemberment etc.)
• method of death based on the analysis of macroscopic and microscopic tool/kerf marks on bone (this includes the ability to identify and exclude post-mortem scavenging)
• victim identification using facial reconstruction techniques, either two- or three-dimensional

My own personal writing relies very heavily upon these skills. As a scientist and as a long-time lover of mysteries and crime fiction, I am fascinated with the science of forensic anthropology. Over the next few months, I’ll be sharing a more detailed look at forensic anthropology as an aspect of crime fiction, mixed in with my regular blog posts that are more specifically related to writing. For me, the two go hand in hand, and I’m thrilled to be able to share this aspect of my writing with you. In the next Forensics 101 post, I’ll discuss how decomposition relates to time since death in a murder investigation. Hope to see you there…


         1 – The Crow-Glassman Scale is a standardized classification to define burn damage in fire victims
         2 – osteology - the study of the structure and function of bones
         3 – biomechanics - the study of mechanics of a living organism
         4 – histology – the study of the microscopic structure of plant or animal tissue

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Using Reality as Inspiration for Fiction

We see it often on TV ― those Ripped From The Headlines! storylines. It happens so often that just seeing that particular catchphrase as a tag line for a crime drama has many of us involuntarily rolling our eyes. Again? Can’t they come up with anything original on their own? But as a writer, the question becomes ― how often do you use real life as the inspiration for your own writing?

There are some writers that overtly use real life as their inspiration. When historical fiction author Jody Hedlund wrote her novel ‘The Preacher’s Bride’, she based the main characters on John Bunyan (author of ‘The Pilgrim’s Progress’) and his second wife Elizabeth. To be able to write this period piece accurately, Jody had to immerse herself in historical documents of the times. Did she exactly portray the historical figures of John and Elizabeth as they existed in 17^th century Bedford? Of course not; there was simply too much missing information that those documents could not or did not provide. Thus the term historical fiction. Jody freely and honestly admitted in her afterword that parts of the story had to come from her imagination for exactly that reason. But, in doing so, she provided readers with a well rounded and highly enjoyable version of what the characters’ lives might have been like based on the framework of that existing knowledge. She used a real life situation to entertain and inform, and did so beautifully.

But for those of us who aren’t writing historical fiction, is it cheating to pull from the real life experiences of ourselves and others to prime the creative pump? We certainly don’t think so.

We’ve often used reality as our inspiration for writing. One of our favourite short stories came from a news report about the remains of a Union soldier recovered 146 years after his hasty burial at Antietam. Some stories have grown out of our own personal areas of expertise. Some have been inspired by a particular scientific technique that we found interesting; we then worked backwards from that technique to construct a crime we could solve using that tool. When you write crime fiction that is very much grounded in reality, current events and realistic crime is often a great place to start. Truth really is often stranger than fiction, so with such a rich palette before you, why not take advantage?

An interesting case in point happened last week, once again illustrating how (in our case) two brains are better than one when it comes to this kind of inspiration. I’m lucky enough to have a partner who is extremely well read and constantly stays well informed. Ann ran across a particular news story that caught her eye and she immediately sent it to me. In this case, it wasn’t the whole story that caught me, but there was one aspect of it that had the effect of virtually stopping me in my tracks. About five minutes and a half dozen back and forth e-mails of ‘what if’ discussion later, we literally had a rough outline for the first third of a new novel in our series. That one little detail had the capability of being a springboard for us into a short marathon of story planning that may lead to a new novel for us. In our case, it pays to stay well informed.

What about you? Do you think that using a real life situation is a crutch or a legitimate source of inspiration? Do you often find yourself pulling from your own experiences or real life to enhance your storytelling?

Photo credit: jamesjyu

How to Write With a Partner (Without Needing to Hide the Body)

The questions that I get most as an author center around the fact that I write with a partner. I’m certainly not the first author to team up with a partner, but I know that my relationship with Ann is a little different than many writing partnerships. Many authors have short term collaborations with other writers, or have a more permanent relationship with another author to share the task of writing. Ann and I are a little different ― we share the brain storming and story planning, I write, she rips apart what I’ve written and, together, we rebuild it and make it better. A little unconventional, but it works for us, and has for almost four straight years.

Ann and I met over the Internet. After twenty-five years away from the keyboard ― going to University, starting a career as a bench scientist, getting married and having two kids ― my life had settled to the extent that when the writing bug came back with a vengeance, I had the freedom to indulge it. I wrote a few pieces and had posted a few things on-line where Ann started off as a reader, and then as a reviewer. I was very, very green, but a learning curve is a great thing (this is also why most of us can’t publish the first thing we write; we’re simply too low on our climb up the curve at that point). But there was something that Ann saw back then that caught her eye. Some kind of potential. So, green or not, she stuck with me.

And then came that fateful moment when I posted a chapter of the current novel I was writing and I made a mistake with a gun. To be fair, I’m a gun control loving Canadian, so I didn’t then have what I would now consider to be the knowledge base I needed for that scene. Ann immediately e-mailed me to let me know that in real life I might have just killed my female lead when the male protagonist pointed his gun at her after ejecting the magazine but neglecting to check for a round in the chamber during a scene re-enactment.

Oops. Leave it to the Texan to catch the Canadian in a gun error.

It was a true mistake in research and technique, but I’m forever grateful for it because it opened a door for us and started a discussion. When I posted the next chapter, complete with a small spelling error, Ann contacted me again to let me know, and the conversation continued. At the end of that discussion, I asked her if she wanted to help out in a more robust fashion as my beta reader. She said ‘yes’ and we’ve been together ever since.

During our first forays together, we worked hard at trying to find our feet. Initially, Ann was very kind and gentle and fixed very minor issues. But that wasn’t what I was looking for. I could do that myself with a careful reread. I wanted her to be honest if she found fault with my writing so I could improve it. She agreed that she could edit that way and she officially became my alpha reader. That was the real beginning of our partnership.

Ann ceased to be an alpha reader after about a month, and stepped into her current role of partner. I do almost all of the first draft writing, but she has a significant hand in everything else. Over the years we’ve developed our own system and, in doing so, we break a lot of the ‘rules’. You know those rules ― the ones that say you should write your entire first draft in one run without looking back and that you should never edit as you write. That’s definitely not how we work. We continue the way we started ― we story plan together and share the research responsibilities, then we write, taking it one chapter at a time, writing that chapter and then editing it sometimes up to 4 or 5 times before we move on to the next. Then we overhaul the story again as a whole at the end. It may not be the standard way to write a novel, but it works for us.

There are times when I swear we were separated at birth because we’re so often on the same page. We come from a similar background in that I’m still a bench scientist and Ann was one in a previous career (she's now a grant writer). Research is in our blood and our respective areas of expertise complement very nicely ― I’m hard science, academia, forensic anthropology and police procedures; she’s mechanics and mathematics, military matters, world history/politics and all things medical. And if we don’t know it already, we’ve both got the research skills to ferret it out.

People often ask me if it’s worth it to write with a partner, mostly centered on the loss of control. Yes, it’s true, I have to give up some of my control to make this a worthwhile process for her. But it’s a trade off. When it comes to story planning, I share some of the control with her, but I get her brilliant mind in return. Many of our best plot points have come directly from Ann (there is nothing like working on a pond for hours at a stretch to get the mind thinking about how to kill someone in the most nasty of ways...). And we’ve learned to really play off each other to build a great mystery and really solid characters. So it’s a trade off for me, but one where the final product absolutely comes out better for it. Honestly, yes, we’ve butted heads a few times over issues; it’s impossible to work this closely with someone for this long and not disagree occasionally. But we’ve also learned how to meet each other half way. When we do, the results are always worth the effort of compromise. Her name will be beside mine on the front cover of our book, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

And, for those of you that are wondering, yes, Ann is contributing to and editing my blog posts. Because we’re a team...

Do any of you write with a partner? Do you have someone constant in your life who assists in your writing? I’d love to hear about how you write if you do.

Photo credit: 1photos

Welcome to Skeleton Keys!

Welcome to my new website. It’s something that I’ve wanted to put together for a while, but finding an agent and multiple revisions of our manuscript kept us busy. But now that we’re officially on submission, I really wanted to get my online presence off the ground. Thank you to all for joining me here.

What’s in a name? In this case, a double meaning. Skeleton keys have a mysterious air about them and open many doors. However, in forensic anthropology, the skeleton is often the key to solving a mysterious death.

I’ve only recently signed with Nicole Resciniti of The Seymour Agency so I don’t have a lot of official material yet, but I’ve based much the website on our manuscript for DEAD, WITHOUT A STONE TO TELL IT:

• The Books page consists of a short flap cover synopsis of the manuscript, as well as some info on our current work-in-progress.

• The Picture Gallery page contains photos that I took in September of 2009 when I travelled to Boston, Salem and the Essex Coast to conduct ‘boots-on-the-ground’ research for the novel before we put hands to keyboard. Many of the locations and settings we used in the novel are in those pictures, including the body dump site and the crypts under the Old North Church in Boston, a site that requires special permission to visit.

• The Links page includes some of the writing and publishing blogs that I’ve found invaluable, as well as links to many of the scientific resources that we consulted while writing the manuscript.

So much of blogging today is about branding yourself as an author. So what is my brand? It’s certainly how science can be used to reveal the human condition; that's the backbone of everything we write. So part of this blog will have a real science/forensics theme to it. I’ll also discuss our research and writing process, and our journey towards publication. I expect to be blogging once a week on Tuesdays, and next week will mark the start of the real blog posts.

A huge thank you needs to go to my eldest daughter for all her help on this site. She stepped in early as my artistic director and was with me through every step of designing the website. She created the banner, helped with the colour scheme and worked her artistic magic on a multitude of the photos on the website. Thank you, Jess, for all your hard work and your patience. The site looks fantastic and 90% of that is because of you.

A host of other people pitched in to help as well. My writing partner, Ann Vanderlaan, has gone above and beyond in the last few days as my troubleshooter and tester as we mapped the Squarespace site to my domain and then implemented a new commenting system for the blog (we're still working on the commenting system, so please let me know via the Contact page if you're having issues). As well, Ann and one of our main critique group members, Sharon Taylor, were kind enough to lend advice, suggestions and feedback on the website as a whole. My husband patiently fielded my questions on HTML programming when Squarespace was giving me fits. And when I needed fresh eyes to make sure there were no errors and everything worked as it should, Heather Paich and Alanna Pfeifler-McKee were more than happy to look things over. Thanks to you all for your help!

And so begins a new journey. Thanks for stopping by and I hope to see you all next week!