Guest Post: Putting faces on the dead – in fact and in fiction

Over the last few weeks, we’ve been focusing on the University of Tennessee’s Body Farm – how it was conceived and some of the research that’s been done there. Today we have a guest post by Jon Jefferson – the “Jefferson” half of the crime-fiction duo Jefferson Bass. Working in collaboration with Dr. Bill Bass, the forensic anthropologist who founded the Body Farm, Jon writes the bestselling series of Body Farm novels. The latest—The Inquisitor’s Key—comes out May 8.

Take it away, Jon…

One of the hallmarks of the Body Farm novels is that the fiction incorporates realistic and detailed forensic techniques. The new book, The Inquisitor’s Key, is no exception. One of the techniques that’s used is radiocarbon dating—also called carbon-14 dating, or C-14 dating. In the book, our heroes, Dr. Bill Brockton and his assistant Miranda Lovelady, use C-14 dating to determine the age of an ancient skeleton that’s found hidden in the Palace of the Popes in Avignon, France. C-14 dating works by counting the isotopes, or atomic variations, of carbon within a sample, then comparing the sample’s carbon ratio to the ever-changing ratio in earth’s atmosphere during the past 10,000 years (a ratio whose changes have been recorded in tree rings – how cool is that?!). Think of C-14 dating, then, as atomic fingerprint-matching or handwriting analysis: match the sample’s fingerprint, or signature, to the atmosphere’s at a specific point in the past and presto, you’ve found the age of the sample.

Another technique that comes into play in The Inquisitor’s Key is forensic facial reconstruction: an artist’s recreation—in clay or on computer—of the face that once existed atop the foundation of an unknown skull. In real life, Dr. Bill Bass and I once used that technique in a particularly puzzling case. A skeleton found in the woods in East Tennessee in 1979 had been tentatively identified by a medical examiner as that of Leoma Patterson, a woman who’d gone missing from a neighboring county five months earlier. That was back in the days before DNA testing, mind you, and the missing woman had no dental records to compare with the skeleton’s teeth. As a result, the identification wasn’t definitive, and some of the family doubted it. Eventually, they asked Dr. Bass to exhume the body and obtain a DNA sample, so they could be sure. He did, and the sample came back negative: according to the DNA lab, the body in the grave was not that of Leoma Patterson. That raised an interesting question: If it wasn’t Leoma, who was it? In an effort to find out, Dr. Bass and I commissioned Joanna Hughes, a talented forensic artist, to do a facial reconstruction on the skull. She did, and—to our astonishment—the clay face Joanna created bore a striking resemblance to the best photo we had of Leoma Patterson. Was it possible that the DNA lab had erred, and that the skull really was Leoma’s? To learn about this case, check out our nonfiction book, Beyond the Body Farm.

          But I digress. Here’s an excerpt from The Inquisitor’s Key—a passage where Dr. Brockton recruits a forensic artist to do a facial reconstruction on the ancient Avignon skull (actually, on a scan of the skull, taken by a French x-ray tech, Giselle). By the way, the forensic artist in the following passage, Joe Mullins, isn’t just a fictional character; he’s actually a real-life forensic artist, doing the great work attributed to him in the excerpt. Thanks, Joe, for agreeing to a cameo in the novel!

          Joe Mullins was three thousand miles to the west of France, but ten minutes after Giselle scanned the skull in Avignon, Joe was looking at it in Alexandria, Virginia.

Joe was a forensic artist at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a mouthful of a name that he mercifully shortened to the acronym NCMEC, pronounced “NICK-meck.” After a traditional fine arts training in painting and drawing, Joe had taken an unusual detour. He’d traded in his paintbrushes and palette knives for a computer and a 3-D digitizing probe; he’d forsaken blank canvases for bare skulls—unknown skulls on which he sculpted faces in virtual clay. By restoring faces to skulls, Joe could help police and citizens identify unknown crime victims.

          Joe wasn’t looking at the actual skull, of course. After the CT scan, Giselle and Miranda had uploaded a massive file containing the 3-D image of the skull and sent it to a file-sharing Web site—a cyberspace crossroads, of sorts—called Dropbox. Joe had then gone to Dropbox and downloaded the file, and, as the French would say, voilà.

          The case clearly didn’t involve a missing or exploited child, so Joe couldn’t do the reconstruction on NCMEC time. But he was willing to do it as a moonlight gig, a side job, and when I’d first e-mailed to ask if he’d be able to do it—and do it fast—he’d promised that if we got the scan to him by Friday afternoon, he’d have it waiting for us first thing Monday.

          My phone warbled. “Hey, Doc, I’ve got him up on my screen,” Joe said. “What can you tell me about this guy?”

“Not much, Joe.” I didn’t want to muddy the water by telling him what the ossuary inscription claimed. “Adult male; maybe in his fifties or sixties. Could be European but might be Middle Eastern.”

“Geez, Doc, that doesn’t narrow it down much.”

“Hey, I didn’t include African or Asian or Native American,” I said. “Give me at least a little credit.”

“Okay, I give you a little credit. Very, very little.”

“You sound just like Miranda, my assistant. Way too uppity.”

He laughed. “This Miranda, she sounds pretty smart. She single, by any chance?”

Sheesh, I thought. “Take a number,” I said.

For another sneak peek of The Inquisitor’s Key, grab 34 seconds worth of popcorn and watch the video trailer:

Also, you may now download the 99 cent e-story prequel to The Inquisitor’s Key entitled Madonna & Corpse, which came out today! Read an excerpt of Madonna and Corpse on Jon Jefferson's blog.

Jon Jefferson (left) and Dr. Bill Bass at the gate of the Body Farm.(Photo by Erik Bledsoe)

For more on Jefferson Bass, find them on Facebook, join them at the blog, and follow along at Twitter.

Pre-order The Inquisitor’s Key:

Amazon

Barnes & Noble

IndieBound

Books-A-Million

Forensics 101: The Body Farm

A research subject at The Body Farm (via Jefferson Bass)

Last week’s blog featured the case of Colonel William Shy and how a miscalculation of the age of the remains led Dr. Bill Bass to conclude that the scientific community simply didn’t know enough about human decomposition. Dr. Bass knew exactly what was needed – an outdoorlaboratory where the process of decomposition was allowed proceed uninterrupted under a variety of conditions while being scientifically observed and documented – but nothing like that existed at the time. He was fully aware of the biggest stumbling block: although he knew that any donated body would be treated with the utmost respect, by today’s standards such an experiment could appear gruesome and disrespectful to the dead. But Dr. Bass’ desire was clear: 'Anytime a real-life murder victim was found, under virtually any circumstance or at any stage of decomposition, he wanted to be able to tell police – with scientific certainty – when that person was killed.'1

Luckily, the Chancellor of the University of Tennessee was an open-minded man who could see the benefits of the research proposed by Dr. Bass, so he offered an acre of forested land behind the Medical Center. Dr. Bass jumped at the opportunity, and, in May of 1981, the University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Research Facility, quickly nicknamed The Body Farm, opened with its very first research subject.

The Body Farm blazed trails in forensic science, starting with documenting the most basic traits of decomposition before branching out into more complicated forensic experiments. Among their discoveries are:

• Decomposition rates – They determined that the sequence of decomposition doesn’t vary, but the timing can. A mathematical formula was derived to determine decomposition rates based on accumulated degree days allowing the accurate calculation of time since death.

• Differential decomposition – Armed with the knowledge of how decomposition normally progresses, a particular part of a corpse decomposing too quickly tells scientists that an additional variable is at play at that location (ie. trauma), even if no trace of it still remains.

• Decomposition variables – A multitude of studies were conducted to determine how different conditions affect decomposition – sunlight vs. shade, inside a building vs. outside, shallow vs. deep burial, submerged vs. surface burials, clothed body vs. naked etc.

• Forensic entomology – Some of the first research at The Body Farm involved pioneering studies of grave insects – which bugs were found on a corpse, and when. This data and knowledge of an individual inspect species’ life cycle can provide a separate method of calculating time since death.

• Burials – Many studies have been carried out to determine the characteristics of decomposition of a buried corpse. They found that, on average, decomposition progresses at approximately 1/8 the speed of a body that remained on the surface.

• Adipocere vs. mummification – Studies were conducted to determine what different conditions would lead to the very different results of either grave wax accumulating on the body or rapid drying leading to mummification.

• Chemical analysis of soil samples – Body Farm researchers discovered that certain biochemicals are produced in a predictable manner during the different stages of decomposition. By analyzing soil under an actively decomposing corpse, the time since death could be accurately determined.

Based on this and other research projects, the study of forensic science has progressed in leaps and bounds, providing criminal investigators with much more information concerning the fate of the victim. This, in turn, has lead to a higher conviction rate in murder cases.

Next week, we’re pleased to host Jefferson Bass, the writing partnership of Dr. Bill Bass and Jon Jefferson, as they highlight their newest ‘Body Farm’ novel, The Inquisitor’s Key. We hope you’ll stop by as they share a forensic-related excerpt from their novel as well as their new book trailer. See you then!

1Death’s Acre—Inside the Legendary Forensics Lab, The Body Farm, Where the Dead Do Tell Tales by Dr. Bill Bass and Jon Jefferson. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 2003.

Photo credit: Jefferson Bass

Forensic Case Files: The Strange Case of Colonel William Shy

Colonel William Shy, killed at the Battle of Nashville, Dec. 16, 1864.

The whole affair started as an exercise in grave robbing.

In late December 1977, forensic anthropologist Dr. Bill Bass was called in to consult when the disturbed grave of Confederate officer Lieutenant Colonel William Shy was discovered. The grave was dug down three or four feet, but, most shockingly, there was a headless body in a sitting position on top of the antiquated cast-iron coffin, dressed in what appeared to be a tuxedo jacket.

In his role as Tennessee’s forensic anthropologist, Dr. Bass did an initial examination of the body on site. It was in an advanced state of decay and partially disarticulated, but some of the remaining flesh was still pink and many of the joints were still intact. He collected the remains, recovering everything but the head, feet and one hand, which was not unexpected in an outdoor burial where animal scavenging is common.

However, when the remains were removed from the grave, the team working the investigation found a large hole in the top of the coffin, approximately one-foot by two-feet in diameter, made by the grave robbers with a pick axe or a shovel. Hanging upside down over the pit and using a flashlight, Dr. Bass peered into the hole and found precisely what he expected in an 1864 burial – nothing. From other Civil War era burials in the area, he knew that more than 100 years in Tennessee’s damp conditions would break down a corpse completely, even the bones, leaving nothing but the layer of goo he found inside Colonel Shy’s coffin.

After cleaning and examining the bones, Dr. Bass concluded that the extra body in the grave was that of a male in his mid-to-late twenties who originally stood between five-foot-nine and six feet tall. There was no obvious indication of what had killed the man, but he estimated the time since death to be between two and six months. As to his presence in another man’s grave, the team postulated that the grave robbers had opened the grave to remove any valuable grave goods they could find, and were in the process of secreting a body when they were interrupted and fled.

And then some strange facts started to surface.

In the new year, when the local sheriff’s deputy and the coroner went back to excavate the grave further, they found the skull inside the coffin. It appeared that the grave robbers had been interrupted in attempting to stuff the victim into the coffin, dislodging the head. The cause of death was no longer a mystery – huge gunshot entry and exit wounds had shattered the skull into seventeen pieces. But, curiously, the dead man had clearly never been to a dentist and had significant, untreated cavities.

When the state crime lab examined the clothes, they found that they were simply made from only natural fibers and were completely without labels. The pants were also an odd style, lacing up the sides. A technician called Dr. Bass, expressing some concern about the items, but the scientist was already one step ahead.

He wasn’t sure how it could be, but he was beginning to suspect that the body in the grave hadn’t been added by the grave robbers, but instead was Colonel Shy’s disturbed body, having lost his head after being pulled from the coffin. It was a known fact that Colonel Shy, 26 at the time of his death, was killed when he was shot at point blank range with a .58 caliber ball. The remains being those of Colonel Shy would explain the lack of modern dental work as well as the clothing artifacts, but how could a body that appeared to be less than a year dead be that of a fallen war hero, nearly 113 years in the grave?

In retrospect, the reasons were quite clear. Although, it was a rarity at the time, Colonel Shy’s body had been embalmed as befitting a man of his wealth and social status, and had been buried in his best suit, the same suit he is seen wearing in the portrait above. Also, the coffin was made of cast iron, and was so sturdy that it not only kept all moisture from the body, but it also kept out the insect life and oxygen that would have rapidly progressed the decomposition process.

The miscalculation was a watershed moment in Dr. Bass’ career. He’d been a forensic scientist for over twenty years at that point, but neither he nor anyone else in the field knew enough about human decomposition to accurately estimate time since death. He made the decision then and there to address that lack of knowledge.

In 1981, Dr. Bass opened the University of Tennessee’s Anthropology Research Facility (more commonly known as the Body Farm) and the world of forensic science was irrevocably changed for the better. Next week, we’re going to delve deeper into the Body Farm and how it’s been a crucial part of forensics and crime solving from the moment it took in its very first research subject.

The Importance of Perspective

We finished the first draft of A Flame in the Wind of Death last week. So is it really done? Should my critique team expect it this week and start sharpening their red pens?

No. (Sorry, critique team!)

I think one of the most important lessons I learned from writing Dead, Without a Stone to Tell It is the importance of perspective. When we’re drafting, we get close enough to our work that we’re nearly a part of the story. This is actually an important aspect of writing a first draft – that intense intimacy with our story helps bring it to life. But when we’re that intimate with it, we’re actually too close to look at our work with a critical eye.

A little separation is actually a good thing. To create a really polished draft, you need to stop looking at your manuscript as its creator and start looking at it from a reader’s perspective. The easiest way to accomplish this is to simply disconnect from your creation for a period of time, preferably up to several weeks, if not more. And it’s amazing what you find when you come back to it. Suddenly, your precious baby, which four weeks earlier could do no wrong, is a holy terror: Plot errors (you could drive a truck through that plot hole!), character motive missteps (why on earth would he/she ever do that??) and over-exposition (Jen, you’re the only one who cares about the fracture speed of wet vs. dry bone under different conditions; concentrate on the story!) just to name a few. Each individual writer will have their own typical issues.

So, for now, Flame has gone into the virtual drawer. And I fully expect to find these and other issues when I come back to it, and that’s okay. This is why first drafts exist – to get the story down; polishing comes later. Now, with that in mind, I did purposely overwrite some of the manuscript, especially the scientific sections. It’s always easier to remove information later than to have to do the research all over again to add in more science fact, so that was a practical choice. I know that some of it will need to be cut. And in keeping with Stephen King’s sage advice that ‘Second draft = first draft – 10%’, I’ve got room to trim.

I’m very happy with how our first draft of the manuscript turned out. The mystery is solid and has some very interesting aspects, the relationship between the main characters develops nicely and a new, continuing subplot is introduced. But I’m looking forward to the chance to make it even tighter and sharper with a little time and distance, and another run at the storyline as a whole.

For those of you who write, do you find this breathing space with your manuscript to be important?

Photo credit: hpaich

The #777 Challenge

I picked up the #777 challenge from Roni Loren who shared an excerpt from her current WIP, FALL INTO YOU on her blog. I’ve seen a handful of authors taking up the challenge and it’s fun to see their different styles and genres, even from only a short bit of WIP text.

Here are the rules for the #777 Challenge:

1. Go to page 77 of your current MS.

2. Go to line 7.

3. Copy down the next 7 lines/sentences, and post them as they’re written. No cheating.

4. Tag 7 other authors

Here’s my entry from my current WIP, A Flame in the Wind of Death, the sequel to Dead, Without a Stone to Tell It:

Matt picked up a straight, stainless steel probe from a nearby tray. “This is easiest to show on the sternum.” As Leigh leaned in, he slid the probe carefully into the nick in the heavy bone, holding it almost vertically. “Do you see this slight angle? This means that the knife strike came from slightly below the contact point."

Leigh straightened in surprise. “From below? How tall was she?”

"Initial estimate puts her at five foot five. Give or take two to three inches as we’re estimating based on bone that’s contracted and warped from the heat."

"That’s pretty short for the blow to have come from below. And the angle’s all wrong for an upward thrust.”

Now it’s time to pass the baton. I’m tagging a bunch of my agency sisters on this one — Marianne Harden, Amanda Carlson, Amanda Flower, Melissa Landers, Lea Nolan, Cecy Robson and Marisa Cleveland. You’re up, guys!

Photo credit: Velo Steve

The Power of Persistence

Late last week, I was happy to break the news that Ann and I were offered a two-book deal — our first novel, Dead, Without a Stone to Tell It will be released in May 2013 by Five Star Publishing. I’ve been thinking a lot over the week-end about the path we chose, how long that process took, and how glad I am that we stuck with it instead of taking shortcuts.

Now, first of all, let me say that I have nothing against self-publishing. It’s a fantastic venue for those that want more control of their own process and want to see their books published faster. Many authors are very successful in this forum because they are good authors who produce a well-edited, quality product. But self-publishing also provides an author with the means to knee-jerk publish a product that might not be ready, simply because they are impatient or want the easy road.

I queried agents for seven months before I found Nicole. It was only a month from first querying her to signing with the agency, but with the number of agents out there, it took me a while to find her to add her to my list. During those seven months, I also had the false start of an offer from an agent that made me uncomfortable, and which I subsequently turned down. Was I frustrated that I’d worked so hard to find an agent and had yet to find the right one? Yes. Was I tempted to self-publish at that point because I wanted to get my work out there? Yes. But I didn’t. I hung in and kept querying. And once I found Nicole, things moved quickly, and the next thing I knew I was signed.

Had I given up and self-published during the querying stage, the manuscript would have been full of passive voice and head hopping. It wasn’t ready to be published, and neither was I. Nicole saw the promise in the writer and the manuscript, but she wisely knew both still needed work.

Next, we moved into the submission process. After a lengthy edit, we sent out the manuscript. And for those who have gone through submission, you know how long this process can take. Then a few rejections started to roll in. And because you’re human, you start to think about self-publishing again. Maybe it would be easier to do it myself. If certainly couldn’t be as painful as these rejections. But, once again, I stuck with it.

A major concern we had from the start was the length of the manuscript — it was slightly long for a crime novel. Ann and Nicole had done their best to help me cut the manuscript back, but the real problem was me. I liked the scientific detail because that’s where my own interests lie. Why would I want to kill my darlings? Then word came back from Five Star. They’d be interested in seeing it again if I’d do a significant cut back — approximately 20,000 words.

20,000 words. That definitely doesn’t qualify as ‘slightly long’. But this time the message got through loud and clear.

So we settled into one last major edit of the manuscript and sent a significantly shorter and tighter version back to Five Star. That was the manuscript they offered on.

Had I given up and self-published during the submission stage, the manuscript would have been full of over-exposition and the writing wouldn’t have been as tight as it needed to be. It wasn’t ready to be published, and neither was I.

Looking back, I can see quite clearly the points where I was tempted to throw in the towel and how disastrous that might have been. I’m still learning how to be a better writer. With each edit, I would think There! Now it’s perfect! only to realize downstream that it still needed work. Had I given up and self-published at any of those points, the manuscript wouldn’t have been anywhere close to perfect. And that would have been reflected in flat sales and likely no interest in the continuation of the series.

Is the manuscript perfect now? Of course not. I’m looking forward to working with a professional editor to make the manuscript the very best it can be. Only then will it really be ready to publish. And in the process, I’ll be ready too.

For those of you who traditionally published, did you go through the same periods of temptation? For those that are still preparing your manuscripts and are considering your options, what are your thoughts on the path you’ll take?

*********************************************************************************

I'm happy to announce the winner of last week's Amazon gift card is Paulina. Paulina, I'll be getting in touch with you today. Congratulations!

Photo credit: alpiniste

We’ve Got A Publishing Contract!

Ann and I are thrilled to announce that we have our first publishing deal! Our forensic thriller, Dead, Without a Stone to Tell It, has been sold in a two-book deal to Deni Dietz of Five Star Publishing (an imprint of Gale) for release in May 2013.

Needless to say we’re very excited. It’s been a long journey and we couldn’t have done it without agent extraordinaire, Nicole Resciniti. Thank you, Nicole, for believing in us and for having the skill and patience to help us produce a manuscript that we absolutely love, and hope others will love too. Also to our crit team — Jen, Margaret, Sharon and Lisa — you guys have always been there for us and have challenged us to be stronger writers, and we’re so thankful for your tireless efforts. Finally, from a personal standpoint, a big thank you to my husband, Rick, and my two daughters, Jessica and Jordan, for believing in me and for giving me the time and space to pursue a dream.

So what’s the book about? Here’s our blurb:

When a single human bone is found on a lonely stretch of coastline, a determined homicide detective and a reluctant scientist risk their lives when they join forces to bring a serial killer to justice.

Massachusetts State Police homicide detective Leigh Abbot, the daughter of a fallen police hero, struggles to make her way as the sole female detective in a male-dominated department even as she stands in her father’s shadow. Dr. Matthew Lowell is a forensic anthropologist with a deep distrust of the police, a man who has turned his back on his traumatic past as a Marine medic in Afghanistan to focus on the study of sterile bones instead of bloody tissue. When human remains hinting at unnatural death are discovered on the Essex coast, Leigh and Matt form an uneasy alliance as they work to discover the identity of the victim as well as the killer who took her life.

Leigh and Matt’s teamwork and skills are put to the test when the evidence leads them to a burial ground of unidentified victims. To their horror, they also find the ravaged body of a fresh victim at the site, leading them to the hard truth that the killer continues to take lives. When they interrupt a brutal revenge slaying, they suddenly find themselves in the sights of an enraged serial killer newly focused on his pursuers. Now they must find and stop the killer before one of them becomes his next victim.

In celebration of our exciting news, I’m sponsoring a giveaway. I’ll use a random generator to pick one lucky commenter to win a $25 Amazon gift card to the international Amazon outlet of their choice (draw to take place Monday, March 19 at 10pm EDT). If you haven’t signed in through Twitter, Facebook or OpenID, please leave your email address so I can let you know if you won. I’ll also announce the winner in next week’s blog post (March 20) so you’ve got until then to sign up. Good luck!

Also, just to let you guys know, I’ve recently signed up on Facebook, so if you want up-to-the-minute updates and RSS feeds aren’t your thing, feel free to ‘like’ my author page.

Thanks again to all our supporters. We’ve got some exciting times ahead but we’ll be sure keep you all in the loop as updates arise!

Photo credit: hpaich and Jess Newton

Recognizing When Your Plot Is Drifting Off Course

About nine months ago, I wrote a blog post about the planning method we used to write Dead, Without a Stone to Tell It. In that post, I discussed that instead of using our usual detailed-to-within-an-inch-of-its-life outline, Ann and I attempted something different — more of a freeform approach where we planned the beginning in detail and left the specifics loose to allow for a little more creativity, while still having a rough idea of where we wanted to go. When it came to writing A Flame in the Wind of Death, the second book in our series, we used a similar plan. The beginning of the book was well planned out and we knew the details of the murders and who was committing them, but we left ourselves some room to explore as we wrote.

Every book is different, and where that freeform style worked well for Dead, I knew last week that I was having problems with Flame. The first 60% of the book was written and I know exactly how the last 25% was going to fall. The issue was the section in between. Not knowing exactly how to link those two parts of the story together was slowing me down. The plot line I was seeing for that part of the case was simply too straightforward for a mystery. I knew the waters needed muddying, but I wasn’t sure how to do it. It wasn’t that I had writer’s block, but I knew uncertainty was getting in the way of the words flowing.

So what do you do when your plot seems to be drifting away from you?

• Stop spinning your wheels: If what you’re doing now isn’t working, stop and step away from your manuscript. The longer you bang your head against it and the more frustrated you become, the less likely you’ll be able to figure out the real problem.

• Reread from the beginning: Go back and a review what you’ve written. It’s amazing the details you can forget in even a few short weeks. Makes notes as you go to strengthen your manuscript and be open to any plot points that leap out at you. The answer to the issues that blocked you may be contained in sections you’ve already written.

• Brainstorm with a crit partner: If you’ve got a crit partner who is willing to help out, bounce your plot and some potential ideas off them, and then be open to consider their suggestions.

• Go back to the outline (if you have one), re-outline if necessary: If not having a roadmap paralyzes you, go back and fill in the blanks in your outline. Sometimes it’s easier to deal in bullet points than scenes and chapters. When you can see where the plot is going directly, you can often see the holes in it.

• Up the stakes: Sometimes you’re not feeling the love for your manuscript because there’s simply not enough at stake. If you’re bored with your vanilla plotline, just imagine how a reader will feel. Remember that tension and conflict drive plot, so go back and crank up those aspects of your storyline.

• Re-evaluate character priorities: Do your characters’ motives seem out of sync with their own personalities? The disconnect you may be feeling with your storyline may simply be your subconscious recognizing that you’re not being true to your characters. Make sure that their actions and motives seem genuine and won’t yank your reader out of your prose simply because of out-of-character behaviour.

• If all else fails, give yourself a break from the project: Sometimes the best thing you can do for your own work is give yourself some perspective on it. Often the best way to do that is to put it away for a few weeks, if not longer. Sometimes we’re simply too close to our own writing to see its flaws and distance is wonderful for allowing you to view your own work with a critical eye.

So how did I get past this block in my work-in-progress? The first thing I did was stop writing new material and then I spent last week-end rereading the 60,000 words we already had down. A few things leapt out at me right away simply from that exercise. But then Ann and I went back to basics and really nailed out the last third of the book. We spent some time brainstorming and building off each other’s ideas. Together, we worked out the kinks and outlined the final section of the book. Now it’s full steam ahead and we should have the first draft completed within a few weeks.

For the writers in the group, how do you manage when your plot starts to drift or you lose the thread? I’d love to hear your suggestions in the comments.

Photo credit: bigcityal

Forensics 101: Victim ID Based On Antemortem Fractures

A few weeks ago, Ann broke her ankle in a mishap with her two large and loveable dogs – she was walking in the yard while the dogs were out playing; she zigged, they zagged, and they all ended up in a pile. Her tibia and fibula were fractured in several places, requiring surgery and the use of three screws to stabilize the healing fracture. But because we’re crime writers, the very first thing that occurred to both of us upon seeing her x-rays was a blog post on the possibility of skeletal identification based this type of injury.

Antemortem fractures are fractures that occur before the time of death (‘ante’ – before; ‘mortem’ – death) as opposed to perimortem (‘peri’ – at or near the time of) or postmortem (‘post’ – after) fractures. Usually, antemortem fractures are completely healed, but even well-healed fractures leave traces. When the healing process begins, the cells within the bone start to produce cartilage which forms a preliminary fracture callus between the broken pieces of bone. Shortly thereafter, that cartilage mineralizes first into weaker woven bone and then later into strong lamellar bone. If the break is well set, once healing is complete the resulting bony callus is only visible by x-ray.

Below are the bones of an adult male. The remodeled remnants of the bony callus can be seen mid-shaft in the left humerus:

If victim identification is required, post mortem x-rays can be compared to antemortem x-rays in patient medical files to confirm the location of known fracture points.

However, sometimes a fracture requires additional stability to heal, simply because of the type or location of the break. In that case, orthopedic implants may be used. Some common implants are pictured below:

Orthopedic implants also have the added advantage of often being inscribed with a serial number, allowing investigators to trace the implant directly to the hospital and patient in question. Victim identification can come from that single piece of information alone. But even if there is no specific information on the implant, the type and positioning of that implant will assist with identification.

Armed with this information, a forensic anthropologist can make or strengthen the case for victim identification based on these individual characteristics.

A special thanks to Ann for generously sharing her personal x-rays with us. Talk about taking one for the team!

Photo credits: Ann Vanderlaan, museumoflondon and MacQ

Forensic Case Files: 147 Years After The Battle of Antietam, A Union Solider Finally Comes Home

The young man was killed at the Battle of Antietam on the bloodiest day of fighting in American military history. Not yet out of his teenage years, he was struck down in Miller’s corn field on September 17, 1862, one of 23,000 men killed during a mere twelve hours of fighting. Hastily buried the next day, it was intended that his remains would be properly interred as befitting a soldier who died fighting for his country. But four years later, when the dead were collected and moved to the Antietam National Cemetery, his resting place at the edge of the corn field was missed. He lay undisturbed for another 142 years until his remains were discovered in October 2008.

It was a ground hog that made the discovery. As he tunneled under the corn field, he found human bones lodged in the earth and promptly removed them from his path. Luckily, a sharp-eyed visitor to the Antietam National Battlefield spotted a human jaw bone mixed into a pile of loose dirt beside the ground hog hole. Upon investigation, the National Parks staff discovered several more bone fragments, some scraps of leather and a Civil War era button in the same area. At that point, they knew they’d found an unmarked burial.

National Park Services’ archeologist Stephen Potter was called in to excavate the site.

Unfortunately, the ground hog had badly damaged the soldier’s bones as he gnawed on them for their calcium content. But along with the bones, Potter and his team found several items that provided crucial information about the missing soldier: A handful of buttons marked the solider as a member of one of the New York Regiments that fought at the battle of Antietam, and a cracked and tarnished belt plate bearing the stamp ‘U.S’ reinforced his identify as a Union soldier.

 

Forensic anthropologist Doug Owsley, head of the Division of Physical Anthropology at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, examined the recovered bones. Based on an impacted wisdom tooth in the jaw, lack of extensive dental wearing and an open suture in the skull, he judged the solider to have been between 17 and 19 years of age. But even for so young a man, he was clearly a veteran – mixed in among the New York regimental buttons were several general issue Union buttons, indicating that he’d been in the army long enough to require the generic replacement of his original buttons.

In the end, a final identification was not possible. Between the infantry, artillery and cavalry, 86 units from New York were present at Antietam that terrible day. Even when the list was narrowed to the 24 units fighting in the area of the corn field where the remains were discovered, there were simply too many men still listed as missing-in-action for a definitive ID.

He was brought back to New York in 2009. On September 17, 2009, on the 147^th anniversary of his death, he was laid to rest at the Saratoga National Cemetery with full military honours. His identity lost forever to time, he is now simply the Unknown Soldier, ‘known but to God’.

 Photo credit: The Washington Post and Bill Schaaf

Forensics 101: Victim Age Determination Based on the Adult Pelvis

In one of my earlier Forensics 101 posts, I gave an overview of the different ways to determine the age of a skeletal victim. This process is much easier in children and teens as most of the major skeletal changes that occur during growth are ongoing until the early 20s. However, there are several ways to estimate age at death in an adult, and one of the most reliable is analysis of the pubic symphysis.

The pubic symphysis is the joint where the two halves of the pelvis meet at the centerline of the body, joined by a layer of fibrocartilage.

The bony symphyseal surface that faces the cartilage changes over time, starting at about age 20 and continuing past the age of 65.

The below sketch, based on the Suchey-Brooks method of identification, outlines the changes that take place over those 45 years. There are minor sex differences between males and females; the below sketch outlines the progression of an adult male over 5 – 10 year intervals and progressing through 6 phases:

Young bone is very robust, with a series of horizontal ridges and grooves. Over time, the bone changes from ridged and furrowed to flat and smooth with a fine grained texture. Margins build up at the edges to form a rim and a plateau develops in the center of the symphyseal surface at approximately age 35 (phase IV). After this, the surface erodes to become pitted and porous, and the shape becomes irregular. For the majority of the population, these changes occur at predictable age ranges, allowing an osteologist to estimate the age of an adult victim at the time of death.

The photo at the top of this post illustrates the extreme differences in the symphyseal surface over time. The bone on the left is from a young person of approximately 20 years of age. The bone on the right is from an older person of over 60 years of age.

After the recovery of skeletal or badly decomposed remains, basic markers such as age and sex are crucial to victim identification. Pubic symphysis analysis is simply one way a forensic anthropologist can determine victim age. If a full set of remains are recovered, it is preferable to analyze additional adult characteristics such as skull sutures and medial rib ends for a more accurate estimation.

Next week, I’ll be back with a new Forensic Case File– the story of a Union solider, quickly buried after the Battle of Antietam and lost to history for 146 years until his remains were uncovered by an overly ambitious groundhog. I hope to see you there…

Photo credit: Medscape and J.M. Suchey

Guest Post - Cozy Mystery? Huh?

This week we've got a treat for you. Agatha award winner and agency sister Amanda Flower has a new book out tomorrow - 'Murder in a Basket', the second installment in her India Hayes series. As the cozy mysteries Amanda writes are so different from our forensic thrillers, I asked her to explain what a cozy mystery is. Take it away, Amanda...

****************************************

Invariably when people find out I’m an author they ask the question, “What do you write.”

“Cozy mysteries,” I reply.

Outside of the world of mystery fiction this response is rewarded with a frown, a confused expression, or blank stare because “cozy mystery” is one heck of an oxymoron.

“Don’t characters die in your books?” They may ask.

“Yes, they do. Sometimes more than one person per book.”

“Then how is that cozy?” The confused person asks. “Death doesn’t remind me of a cuddly blanket, which is what I think of when I picture cozy.”

That’s a great point, which is why I’m sharing the characteristics of cozy mysteries, using illustrations from my new mystery Murder in a Basket, the second in the India Hayes series.

The Characteristics of a cozy mystery

1) The death takes place off page. The novels include little violence. The heroes or heroines may be in jeopardy during the climax, but for the most part, they are not in any real danger.

In Murder in a Basket, India discovered the dead body of basket weaver Tess Ross. Tess has been dead for a short time when India finds her. The description of Tess’s body is minimal. India is in danger during the climax, but that’s all I’ll tell you about that. I can’t give the ending away!

2) The protagonist has an occupation other than police officer or private detective. The protagonist may be anything from a chef to an actor to a student.

India is a college librarian and aspiring painter. Her occupations couldn’t be farther from law enforcement.

3) The protagonist is pulled into the mystery because of his/her relationship with the victim or the accused. The protagonist is generally reluctant to solve the crime.

India becomes involved in the murder investigation because Tess is the mother of one of the student workers in the library. He asks for India’s help. India agrees, but she’s not particularly enthusiastic about it.

4) Minor characters (friends, family, coworkers) from the protagonist’s own life play significant roles in the plot.

Ahh well, I have many minor characters who like to take over my India Hayes stories from India’s hippy parents to her Irish-centric landlady to her super-mom older sister. They all help and hinder India’s investigation in their own special way.

Of course, these are just guidelines and not hard and fast rules. That’s what makes writing fiction fun. Guidelines are meant to be bent if not broken all the way through.

Jen, thanks for letting me stop by Skelton Keys!

********************************************************************************

Amanda Flower writes the India Hayes Mystery Series. The first novel in the series, MAID OF MURDER, was nominated for an Agatha Award. The sequel, MURDER IN A BASKET, releases February 8, 2012. A PLAIN DEATH, first in a new Amish mystery series, releases July 2012. To learn more visit Amanda online at http://www.amandaflower.com/. You can also follow Amanda at http://www.facebook.com/authoramandaflower and http://twitter.com/aflowerwriter.

The End of a Personal Era

Tomorrow marks the end of an era for me. After working for over twenty years at the university and over nineteen years with my current supervisor, my job is ending due to lack of research funds. It’s difficult financial times for funding currently, and many labs are downsizing in extreme ways. From a lab that consisted of twelve to fourteen staff and students for many years, mine will now be reduced to simply two.

There’s two ways to look at this opportunity. One is negative ― I’m out of a job, which was never part of my long term financial plan. But the other is twofold and purely positive: 1) this is an opportunity to try something new within my field, and 2) while I’m looking for a new position, I’ll have the luxury of being able to write full time.

If I’m honest, it’s the second option that gives me the most pleasure. Family responsibilities dictate that I go back to the working world, at least for now while I’m early in my writing career, but, if money wasn’t an issue, what I’d really love to do is write full time. The thought of being able to buckle down and work exclusively on my WIP brings me great joy. Instead of completing the first draft in three or four months, I could likely have it completed in six weeks, maybe less. I’d also like to spend more time cultivating my craft ― reading more widely, reading more craft books, and simply having the time to let the creativity flow instead of shoehorning it into free minutes and forcing its appearance. I think the quality of my writing will improve given more time to simply breathe. I’d also like to take some time for me and will use this opportunity to be more active, something I’ve had to sacrifice for my writing time for too long.

I’ve worked the same job for twenty years, so the thought of doing something different, while a little scary, is also refreshing. What will the future hold? I’m not sure. But there’s something to be said for an interesting and varied journey.

Photo credit: hpaich

Tools of the Trade - Scrivener

Up until a few weeks ago, I’ve always used Microsoft Word for both writing and editing. One of the things I like most about Word is the track changes function that allows me to incorporate edits from Ann, Nicole or my crit team with relative ease. I think Word will continue to be my go to program when it comes to late stage editing, but I’ve found something new that works much better in the drafting stage – Scrivener.

Scrivener is software specifically designed for writers by Literature & Latte. It comes with templates already set up for fiction, non-fiction and scriptwriting, or you can start with a blank project and build your own template. The program includes a very comprehensive tutorial to teach you in under an hour how to use every function in the program (it’s a self-lead tutorial, so if you just want the basics, you can cut the tutorial down to about 15 minutes).

While I was only a few chapters into my current WIP, I thought it would be a good time to try out the 30-day free trial. So I imported my .doc WIP file into Scrivener and then started to play with it. And I have to say, I really love it.

There are a lot of really great things about Scrivener, but, for me, the highlights of what makes it different from Word for drafting are:

• Having everything in one place: Scrivener allows you to import pictures, links, documents and papers right into the program so they are right at your fingertips. In subfolders under ‘Characters’ I have a detailed profile for each person; under ‘Research’ that same character has a folder with information on workplaces, houses, hobbies etc. complete with links and pictures. I don’t have to search through other Word or .pdf documents as I’ve always done before. It’s all right there. The below screen shot from my WIP is collapsed and only a portion of what it will look like by the end as I’m only a quarter of the way in, but it shows the organizational set-up. Another added feature is that you can drag and drop documents into the Document References section for each scene, so that relevant materials are right where you need them.

• Split screen: You can split the main desktop screen into two sections, either horizontally or vertically, keeping your writing window active in one section while displaying relevant research material (a document or picture) in the other. No more flipping between documents while you’re writing.

• Keywords for sorting: This is going to be a big one for me. As my series is written in the third person with two main points of view, I can catalogue each scene as I’m writing it for characters present, location, storyline aspect and POV. If I then need to evaluate how my split between the two POV’s is weighted, I can simply search for that keyword and those particular sections are selected. When I rewrote a good portion of Dead to balance out the POVs, determining who did what meant a lot of time-consuming flipping through pages in Word. This would have been MUCH easier.

• Use of the corkboard for quick review: One of the ways Scrivener allows you to view your document is as cards on a corkboard. From the Scrivener tutorial, we can see the first three ‘chapters’:

For the fiction writer, each card can be a chapter. If the icon in the top left corner of a card is clicked, that card will open into any cards lower on the hierarchy – i.e. scenes. For instance, under Part 1: Basics, are these three cards:

In a fiction document, these would be scenes within that particular chapter. At a quick glance, you can find any scene you’re looking for. The corkboard view is also very useful in synopsis writing because the corkboard is essentially a bullet point list of your plotline.

• Navigation is child’s play: In Word, if I wanted to get to the second scene in Chapter 7 from somewhere else in the document, I’d have to first find Chapter 7, and then scroll through to the second scene. In Scrivener, it’s a single click to the second scene in Chapter 7.

• The price: Scrivener is available for both Windows and Mac platforms for only $40 USD. For a program that a does so much from both a word processing and an organizational standpoint, this seems extremely reasonable to me.

For those who might be concerned about the fact that you don’t have your document in Word format to send to beta readers or your editor or agent, there is a very easy export function to export your document out to several different formats, Word included.

I know there are several writers in my circle that are just starting to use it or are thinking about trying it out. For those who haven’t tried it yet, I’d definitely recommend giving it a look. The thirty day trial period will certainly give you time to see if it suits your writing style. Setup can take a little while to get all your keywords set etc., but from that point on, you can really settle in and work on your word count. For those that are using it, what are your favourite aspects of the program?

*****

My apologies to anyone who had trouble with the commenting system last week. I had a few messages that readers were unable to post comments, and I also had intermittent problems with it. I've been working with Disqus and hopefully everything is back to normal now. If you have any issues, please don't hesitate to let me know.

One Scientist's View of 'The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks'

When I first started this blog, I have to admit that I never thought to do book reviews. While the material I tend to talk about has more to do with forensics, science and history, this particular review came as a suggestion by one of my crit team members. Following the post on the recovery of Tsar Nicolas II and his family, Jenny and I had a discussion about The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, the narrative non-fiction retelling of Henrietta Lacks’ life and the immortal cell line, HeLa, that arose from her cervical tumor. Jenny was curious about my impressions of this book, both from the standpoint of someone who writes science for the layperson, but also as someone who has personally worked with HeLa cells. I was happy to take up her challenge.

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks was one of the top non-fiction books of 2010 and was awarded the 2011 Best Book Award by the National Academies of Science. It tells the dual-track stories of Henrietta Lacks through the 1940s and 1950s, and her family through the 1990s and early 2000s, mostly through the experiences of Henrietta’s youngest daughter, Deborah.

Henrietta was born in 1920 to poor parents in Roanoke, Virginia. After her mother died in 1924 while giving birth to her tenth child, Henrietta and her siblings moved to Clover, Virginia, where they were split up amongst different members of the family. Henrietta was raised by her grandfather, alongside David Lacks, her first cousin. Henrietta and David had their first child together when Henrietta was 14 and they later married when she was 21. They had five children together, the last being born only four months before her diagnosis.

Henrietta was diagnosed with cervical cancer at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore when she was only 31 years old. She underwent the current cancer treatments of the day, but, in the end, they proved unsuccessful. Henrietta died on October 4, 1951, a scant eight and a half months later. An autopsy performed following her death showed that her very aggressive cancer had metastasized to practically every organ in her body.

The book documents a fascinating tale of historic doctor-patient relationships and ethics. While Henrietta was unconscious, about to undergo her first treatment where radioactive radium was packed into her vagina to deliver ionizing radiation directly to her cervix, two dime-sized slices of tissue were excised from the tumour and sent to the lab of Dr. George Gey. In the 1950s, patient consent was not required for sample collection or use, so it’s doubtful that Henrietta ever knew about the extra procedure.

From the point of view of a scientist, this is where the book really became interesting to me. I’ve worked with HeLa cells for twenty years; they’re a staple in any cellular biology lab. More than that, from a personal research standpoint, they played a crucial role in discovering how HIV infects human T-cells, opening up the possibility of treatments and vaccines based on that information. In a scientific world where everything arrives at the lab as sterile-packed and disposable plastic, the challenges of culturing cells in 1951 were fascinating. Up to that point, no one had been able to produce an immortal human cell line (cells that can live long-term outside the host; most died in only a few days), and all cell culture was done using autoclaved glass dishes and equipment. There weren’t even any commercially available culture media; Dr. Gey created his own, and had to regularly visit slaughterhouses to collect chicken serum for his homespun recipe.

Henrietta’s cells did something that no other human tissue cultures had done before ― they not only survived the culture process, but they grew and thrived. The cell line established from these cells was called HeLa, based on the first two letters of Henrietta’s first and last names (something that would never be done today as it violates patient confidentiality). In an effort to further scientific discovery, Dr. Gey sent samples of the cells to anyone who requested them. In very short order, HeLa was a worldwide phenomenon.  

HeLa has been used for some of the most important biological research of the past 60 years. In the 1950s, Dr. Jonas Salk used HeLa cells to test the first polio vaccine. Much later, HeLa cells were used in cancer research to discover telomeres, the repetitive sequences on the ends of chromosomes that in a normal cells shorten with each division and, when gone, signal cell death. Telomeres are maintained in cancer cells, allowing for out-of-control growth of those cells. HeLa cells have been used to determine the damaging effects of radiation, to establish procedures for in vitro fertilization, and were even sent into space to determine the effects of zero gravity on human cells. The HeLa cell line has been a crucial part of the scientific community since it was established, outliving Henrietta by twice her own life span so far.

Henrietta’s family was not aware that samples had been taken in 1951 and that her cells were still alive decades later. In 1976, after an article was published in Rolling Stone about the cells, they became aware that a part of Henrietta was still alive, 25 years after her death.

Ms. Skloot spends a large portion of the book detailing the family’s struggles with the existence of the cell line. While companies were selling the cells for hundreds of dollars a vial (current price is $279 USD from the ATCC), the Lacks family lived in poverty and couldn’t afford health insurance. It caused an immense amount of stress for the family once Henrietta’s name was released to the public, leading to ill health and finally a stroke in Deborah. To date, the family has received no compensation for any profits made from Henrietta’s cells.

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is a fascinating read. For me, the most interesting part of the book was the early days of cancer treatments, tissue culture, and the scientific progress that came from the cell line. In discussions with other scientists, I’ve seen a consensus of opinion ― that in long sections in the last third of the book, the storytelling dragged a bit when it centered around Henrietta’s family and their struggles. But I suspect for the non-science crowd that might be the part of the story they’d really connect with. Ms. Skloot does an excellent job of explaining the science of cell culture and research for the layperson, but kept the level advanced enough that those of us in the field stayed interested and involved.

There are some very complex issues that are brought to light in the book. Was it ethical to take Henrietta’s cells without her consent? Does the fact that these cells have been crucial in progressing scientific knowledge negate the fact the cells were taken without her knowledge or that her personal and family medical details were released as public information? Should the family receive compensation considering the current commercial value of the cells? It was many decades before consent was required for human sample collection, but ownership of those samples is now in question. So far, the courts have decided that once the sample is removed from a patient, it is simply medical waste and that a patient has no right to it or any monies that might arise from it. They are complicated issues in many shades of grey that even the highest courts still struggle with.

For those non-science based readers who have read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, what did you think? Were the scientific aspects of the book hard slogging and was the emotional struggle of the Lacks family the heart of the book for you? For any science-oriented readers, what was your favourite part of the book?

Photo credit: Nikon and the University of Arkansas

Forensic Case Files: Murder of a Colonial Servant

The Chesapeake Bay area was a hotspot of colonization in the 1600’s, giving rise to colonial settlements such as Jamestown, Virginia and Providence, Maryland. People journeyed from England in droves, leaving overcrowded Europe in hopes of a new life in the New World. Those who could afford it became landowners. Those who couldn't ― 70 to 85% of all immigrants ― were forced to take posts as indentured servants.

The life of an indentured servant in the colonies was hard. A contract was signed with a landowner, pledging seven years of service carrying out all the heavy work on the farm ― hauling, butchering, construction, harvesting and drying tobacco. In exchange for this labour, the landowner paid the servant’s way from Europe, and then provided food and shelter during the term of the indenture. At the end of the term, the servant was released from the agreement, given fresh clothes, several farm tools, three barrels of corn and the right to purchase fifty acres of their own land. For those that had nothing, indenture was the chance to become an independent landowner.

Archaeologist Dr. Al Luckenbach is the founder and director of the Lost Towns Project, a group dedicated to discovering and excavating lost Colonial towns of the 17^th century. In 2003, Luckenback’s project involved a small tobacco plantation owned by William Neale, built in 1662 and abandoned in 1677, following Neale's death. The footprint of the house still survives in the soil stains left from wooden posts driven into the ground, marking the foundation. But it was in the basement of this structure that the most startling discovery was made ― a carelessly and hastily dug grave.

The grave was dug using a broken pottery milk pan (a wide mouthed dish used to separate milk from cream in Colonial times), which was later discarded on top of the deceased and buried with him. Clearly no care was taken with the grave, not even ensuring the grave was long enough to lay out the body. Instead, the body was folded into the grave, bending the legs to fit it into the available space.

There were several possible explanations for the body in the basement. Funerals were expensive and landowners were poor. A law passed in 1661 prohibited the inappropriate burial of servants, so landowners were legally responsible to pay for a proper burial, and a clandestine burial would avoid those costs. However, another possible explanation for a secret burial is the concealment of a murder.

Luckenbach called in forensic anthropologist Dr. Doug Owsley to examine the remains. Those bones told the real story, a story of hardship and harsh abuse. The remains were those of a fifteen- or sixteen-year-old boy, so young that the epiphyseal fusion on his arms and legs was incomplete. The muscle attachment points in his arms and shoulders were very robust, indicating a life of hard manual labour with a lot of heavy lifting and carrying. There was a healed break in his right elbow. Multiple vertebrae in his spine were deformed by Schmorl’s nodes (depressions in the body of the vertebra, caused by compression trauma). His spine also showed signs of the early stages of tuberculosis. Nineteen of the boy’s thirty teeth had significant cavities, some large enough to obliterate the crowns of several molars; absesses from these cavities certainly caused severe pain and, likely, blood poisoning as well.

Worst of all, his right arm spoke of his death. One of his metacarpals, the narrow bones that connect the carpals in the wrist to the phalanges in the fingers, was fractured. A second fracture was found in the radius, one of the two bones in the lower arm. It was a longitudinal fracture that radiated down the shaft of the bone from the wrist, exactly lining up with the fractured metacarpal. Those combined breaks tell a sad tale of a sick and weakened servant who was likely beaten by his master, attempting to block a blow with his right arm, breaking both his hand and arm in the process. Owsley suspects that this altercation lead to directly to the boy’s death. In an attempt to hide the murder, the landowner buried the body in his basement, where the remains would lie for over three hundred years before coming to light.

This excavation, as well as many others from the Chesapeake Bay area, are currently on display at the Smithsonian Institution Natural History Museum as part of 'Written in Bone - Forensic Files of 17^th-Century Chesapeake', on display until January 6, 2013.

Photo credit: Chip Clark, Smithsonian Institution

Ode To A Keyboard

Just before Christmas, my laptop keyboard died. For months leading up to December, my ‘s’, ‘e’ and ‘r’ keys would only work once the laptop had warmed up. But when other keys suddenly stopped working altogether, I suspected the end was near.

Before breaking down and ordering a new keyboard, my computer-guy husband wanted to take one last crack at this one. He took it completely apart and individually cleaned and reset every key (let’s not talk how dirty the inside of that keyboard was, okay?).

It was two hours of patient work with tweezers and isopropyl alcohol soaked Q-tips, picking off bits and cleaning off gunk. And when it was all snapped back into place... it still didn’t work. A+ for effort, but it was still dead in the water. I ordered a new keyboard that day.

But it made me a little nostalgic. I bought this laptop with my husband’s blessing at a time when he was in school upgrading his certifications and we were running our family of four on only my income from the lab. I’d been writing for about 15 months at that point, but was starting to get really serious about it. About that time, I received a 50% off coupon from Dell. I was ready to walk away from it, but my husband wouldn’t hear of it. We weren’t really in a place to afford a luxury like a dedicated laptop for me, but he encouraged me to make the leap because he understood my need to write and wanted me to have the tools to be successful. So I bought this laptop in July 2008.

Looking back over the 3 ½ years I’ve had it, it’s been the most important possession I own, and certainly the most used. I work on it in the morning before work, on my lunch hour, after work and in the evenings. It goes back and forth to work daily, and on every car or air trip I’ve taken since its arrival. It’s even been dropped twice when my laptop bag strap snapped, and, miraculously, never blinked at the abuse.

But when I consider my writing, its importance really shines. Ann and I were still writing casually when I bought it, but over the years, it’s been a critical tool as we’ve moved from writing for us and our readers to writing with an eye towards traditional publication. I’ve logged about 700,000 words of fiction on this keyboard, not including revisions or deleted scenes and chapters. I’ve written almost a year’s worth of blog posts and just over 25,000 emails. When I look at it that way, I think it’s time for this keyboard to retire gracefully. It’s certainly served me well!

My new keyboard arrived and I installed it right away, being happy to give up the external keyboard I’d been using until it arrived (an external keyboard on a laptop makes it a LOT less portable, let me tell you). And suddenly my dependable old laptop feels brand new again.

New year, new keyboard, new opportunities. Let the fun begin! 2012 is going to be awesome!

Skeleton Keys Is Named A Top Forensics Blog

We were thrilled to find out yesterday that Skeleton Keys was named by ITSGOV as one of the top forensics blogs on the Web. ITSGOV is a comprehensive crime scene investigation resource, and they have compiled a list of the top blogs that cover forensic science in its many forms. From the point of view of anyone who writes mystery or crime fiction, it’s a terrific resource on multiple levels.

We were thrilled to be included in such an impressive list of coroners, criminal profilers, lawyers, and bioarcheologists as well as forensic scientists, pathologists, psychiatrists, artists and anthropologists. Their list of top forensic science blogs can be found here, where they describe Skeleton Keys as ‘the blog of Jen J. Danna, a Canadian forensic crime fiction author, who shares some remarkable insights in her musings.’

On behalf of myself and Ann, the partner behind the writer here on the blog as well as in our fiction writing, thank you to ITSGOV for including us!

Forensics 101: Epiphyseal Fusion

Last week, in an overview of how to determine the age of a skeletal victim, I mentioned a process called epiphyseal fusion. We’re going to delve into that topic in more depth today.

In the picture above, forensic anthropologist Dr. Bill Bass holds two bones ― an infant and an adult human femur. How do tiny infant bones mature to an adult size that could be as much as five or six times bigger? The answer lies in long bone growth.

Long bones have three distinct sections ― the diaphysis, or shaft; the metaphysis, or the flared end of the shaft; and the epiphysis, or end cap of the bone. Long bone growth takes place at the epiphyseal or growth plate, located between the metaphysis and epiphysis. In the picture below, all three sections of bone are clearly visible in a knee x-ray of a young person. All three bones, the femur above, and the tibia and fibula below, show the gap where the growth plate still exists.

The growth plate itself is made up of a scaffold of cartilage. Osteoblasts, the fibroblast-like cells responsible for bone creation, are laid down on this scaffold. The osteoblasts produce a collagen matrix that is then mineralized to become new bone. If growth is still ongoing, more cartilage is laid down on that bone as the growth plate moves farther away from the center of the shaft, and the process repeats. When maturity is finally reached, growth stops and the epiphysis and metaphysis permanently fuse together. The x-ray below shows a normal adult knee. As you can see, no trace of the growth plate remains and epiphyseal fusion is complete.

The key to epiphyseal fusion in a forensic setting is the information it can give about a victim’s age at the time of death. Each bone has a predictable age range when long bone fusion occurs; in fact, different ends of the bone each have their own individual range. The table below gives examples of five different long bones and the expected age where epiphyseal fusion occurs. Until that point, the end of the bone is a distinct and separate piece from the shaft.

As you can see from these examples, age determination is not an exact science. Ranges of fusion can span five, or even ten, years. If a full set of remains is available, a forensic anthropologist will use multiple bone markers to make his best age estimation; if only partial remains are available, then the best estimate possible will be made based on whichever bones are present. If the victim is an adult and even the medial clavicle ― the very last fusion point ― is fused, then an alternate method of aging must be used. We’ll look at one of those different techniques in our next Forensics 101 post.

Ann and I are going to be taking a few weeks off from blogging to enjoy the chaos of the season and to hopefully take advantage of the time to concentrate on our writing. But we’ll be back on January 3, 2012 with our first new blog post of the year.

From both of us to all of you, happy holidays!

Forensics 101: Determining Age of a Skeletal Victim

In our last few Forensics 101 posts, I covered two aspects of victim identification: time since death and sexing a victim based on the skull or the pelvis. In this post, I want to open the discussion on age determination of skeletal remains. This is a complicated topic so we’ll start with an overview first and next week we’ll start to get into the specifics.

A forensic anthropologist can use multiple skeletal characteristics to determine the age of a victim at the time of death. Some characteristics can only be used to determine the age of pre-pubescent victims, some apply to adult victims.

Let’s look at these two groups:

• Pre-pubescent: The skeletons of children and teenagers are in a constant state of flux.
  1. Infant fontanelles close with the union of cranial bones.
  2. Long bones are constantly growing, allowing for increased limb length.
  3. The growth plate of long bones is constantly laying down new bone until maturity is reached; at this point, the end of the bone fuses to the shaft, terminating growth.
  4. Teeth are lost and new teeth form and erupt in their place.
• Adult: Due to the lack of growth in the post-pubescent years, age determination of adults is slightly more difficult, but there are several very valuable characteristics.
  1. The surface of the pubic symphysis (where the two halves of the pelvis meet at the front of the body) changes significantly over time, with those changes continuing into the senior years.
  2. Similar changes are seen at the auricular surface of the ilium (the hip bone).
  3. The medial rib ends (at the center of the body, where the ribs join with the sternum) also change with age, both the surface of the bone as well as the shape.
  4. The sutures in the skull and palate finally fuse, and, with time, become completely obliterated.

All the above changes tend to occur at relatively predictable ages. Based on these characteristics, or, ideally, based on multiple characteristics combined, a forensic anthropologist can accurately estimate the age of a victim at the time of death.

Next week, we’ll look epiphyseal fusion in children and teens, showing how the fusion of the bone end to the shaft as maturity is reached can reveal the age of a young victim.

Photo Credit: fruity monkey