Recent Advances in Fingerprinting

While we were on writing hiatus over the summer, several stories made the news concerning advances in the forensic field of fingerprinting. Since they included several new techniques, I thought it would be good to cover them in a single post here on Skeleton Keys, where we always try to stay up to date with the newest in forensics.

Fingerprinting involves identifying an individual by their unique pattern of arches, loops, and whorls on the ridges of the fingertips. Invisible oils and other biomolecules are laid down on a surface, and crime scene techs visualize those scant traces through a number of methods. Those prints are then compared to a local, national or international database and, hopefully, a match is made and a perpetrator is identified.

But a person’s identity may not be the only thing revealed by his fingerprints, as was recently announced:

1. Determining the use of illegal drugs: Researchers from the University of Surrey in England have developed a method to test the residue left in a fingerprint for cocaine using mass spectrometry. More importantly, based on the drug metabolites, it can be determined whether the cocaine was ingested, or whether the suspect simply touched it and traces of the drug remained on his fingertips. New portable mass spectrometers are being developed to make this a technique that can be used in the field at actual crime scenes.
2. Fingerprint Molecular Identification (FMI) technology to identify gender, narcotics and nicotine: North Carolina’s ArroGen Group has developed FMI technology, again using mass spectrometry, to identify gender biomarkers, as well as metabolites of nicotine, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, temazepam, ecstasy and even some legal medications. This panel of distinctive chemical substances could lead to suspect identification as well as criminal convictions.
3. Determining the age of a fingerprint: Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology have developed a method to approximate the age of a fingerprint. This has always been a problem using fingerprints as criminal evidence—a print might prove an individual was in a particular location, or touched a particular object, but was it at the time of a crime, or the week before and therefore possibly insignificant? Scientists have tried to develop a method to date fingerprints based on the breakdown of the biochemical products in the fingerprint, but to no avail. However this method is different and depends on the movement of biomolecules from the ridge to the empty valley sections of the print. Essentially the clearly defined lines in a fresh print will blur and become indistinct with time. How much so will help scientists date an individual print. So far, scientists have been able to distinguish between a day and a week old, a week and a month old, and a month and four months old. This is still a proof-of-concept method, but researchers are working to fine tune the technique, which could be incredibly useful in criminal investigations.
4. Determining race of an individual: We’ve previously discussed how to determine race from a victim’s skull, but researchers from North Carolina State University recently announced a technique to determine race from the minutiae of the fingerprint. In a nutshell, there are three levels of examination for a fingerprint. The first level is the one most people are familiar with—those ridge formations called arches, loops, and whorls shown in a standard ink print. The second level is the minutiae—the deviations of those arches, loops, and whorls—where a ridge ends, when it splits in two at a bifurcation, or where the ridge makes a U-turn in a loop or whorl. In comparing those from African-American and European-American backgrounds, researchers found significant differences at the minutiae level, enough to be able to determine from which group the individual came. The study only involved 243 subjects, so these are very preliminary results, but so far the data appears promising.

It is early days so far for many of these techniques, but, with additional study, hopefully they will develop into full-fledged tools for investigators, providing them with more information and hopefully leading to more definitive suspect and victim identifications.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Word on the Street Toronto 2015

This past Sunday, I once again attended The Word on the Street Toronto, the free annual festival celebrating the best of Canadian writing and reading. This year, for the first time, WOTS took place at Harbourfront Centre, right on the shore of Lake Ontario. A beautiful venue, a stunning day and books for any and all tastes - it was guaranteed to be a good time!

The ride in the on the train proved to be quite rowdy as it was full of Blue Jays fans headed to the Rogers Centre for the final game in a weekend series against the Tampa Bay Rays. The Jays are currently in first place in the American League East Division and have their sights set on the League title and then the World Series. It's been 22 years since they made the playoffs (when they last won the World Series) and Toronto has been in a sports drought for a very long time (the Leafs last won the Stanley Cup in 1967) so fans are extremely excited to have an successful home town team. Did I mention the trip in was rowdy?

A beautiful day at Harbourfront Centre, more reminiscent of summer than fall:

The festival at a glance - so much bookish awesomeness all squeezed together in one park:

All aspects of publishing and reading were represented at WOTS. There were publishers and presses, both large and small in attendance.

The Harlequin tent was always hopping:

HarperCollins:

Penguin Random House with Ben McNally Books:

Dundurn Press, the largest Canadian owned publisher:

Montreal comic publisher, Drawn and Quarterly:

And many more...

Both the Toronto Public Library and the TPL workers had booths:

Several bookstores were in attendance, including Mabel's Fables, a well-known local children's bookstore:

Many writing associations and organizations attended, showcasing their authors and their books, as well as their services. I helped man the Crime Writers of Canada booth for part of the day.

The Writer's Community of York Region:

The Writer's Community of Durham Region:

 The Ontario Writers' Conference and The Writers' Union of Canada:

Toronto Sisters In Crime and the Toronto Romance Writers:

Canadian Authors Association and the Science Ficton Writers:

There were even some other tents that made for a nice eclectic mix.

The theater crowd with Mirvish Productions, the biggest theater production company in town:

The Royal Ontario Museum was on hand with several centurions, promoting their terrific Pompeii exhibit:

And Amnesty International had a tent showcasing some of the many ways they work to expose and prevent human rights abuses:

There were a number of tents with presentations ranging from live readings to discussions of current events to awards:

We had a very good crowd pretty much the whole time, but I took advantage of a quick break at one point to grab a picture of the Crime Writers of Canada booth. Lovely authors Sharon Crawford and Caro Soles were signing with me.

 

Thanks to the Crime Writers of Canada for organizing our part in WOTS and thanks to the many readers who came out to meet new and favourite authors and purchase their work. We all had a great time and are looking forward to next year!

Medieval Skeleton Discovered After Irish Tree Falls

Most weeks this story would be considered firmly based in the past, but compared to our last story concerning possibly three million year old skeletal remains, this archeological find is practically modern. Last week a story appeared on media outlets detailing a 215 year-old beech tree felled by a storm last May in the town of Collooney on the northwest coast of Ireland. Not such a remarkable story (although a shame to lose such an old tree), except for the fact that when the tree uprooted, it revealed a 1,000 year old skeleton beneath. Even stranger, when the tree fell, it ripped the skeleton in half, leaving the lower body still in ground, while the upper body and skull remained wrapped in the roots.

Ireland’s National Monument Service hired the newly formed Slig-Leitrim Archaeological Services to excavate and date the remains as their very first project. Archeologists from Slig-Leitrim determined the remains belonged to a young Gaelic man between the ages of 17 and 20 who died a violent death—sharp force kerf marks were found on the hands and ribs, likely from a sword or knife. While the hand wounds certainly indicate the young man attempted to defend himself, it’s unclear at this time whether he was murdered or died in battle. What is clear from the grave, however, is that it was a formal Christian burial. While there don’t appear to be any other remains in the vicinity, historical records of the area indicate there might have been a church and graveyard in that area long ago.

A human spine tangled in the roots of a felled beech tree.

Radiocarbon (C-14) dating places the bones between 1030 and 1200 A.D., so the young man was buried more than 800 years before the tree sprouted. As the tree grew, the remains of the man’s upper body were ensnared in the roots, so when the tree blew over centuries later, the bones of the upper body were raised into the air, leaving the legs below, still embedded in the ground.

The lower legs and feet still in the ground.

Further analyses of the remains are ongoing, but, once complete, the skeleton will be sent to the National Museum of Ireland, Dublin to be added to their collection.

Photo credit: Thorsten Kahlert

A New Ancestor for Homo sapiens

There’s a lot about human history that modern man doesn’t understand yet. When I was doing research for our story last spring on the oldest known murder, research on Homo heidelbergensis led to somewhat murky conclusions as to its place on the evolutionary timeline. H. heidelbergensis is related to us enough to share the same genus (Homo), but whether we evolved from them or on a completely separate, parallel branch of the ancestral tree is unclear. But last week, a new piece of our ancestral puzzle slid into place when a huge story broke about the discovery of yet another human relative.

Two recreational cavers, Steven Tucker and Rick Hunter, were exploring a cave called the Rising Star, located thirty miles northwest of Johannesburg, South Africa, in an area called the Cradle of Humankind because of the sheer number of fossils of early man discovered there during the early twentieth century. Chances of finding new fossils a century later were minimal, but they were willing to give it a try.

The Rising Star is known for its accessibility only to the most slender and wiry of cavers. It has several passages that narrow to a mere seven and a half inches in width, so exploration of the cave is somewhat restricted. But when these two men passed beyond these significant hurdles and found themselves in the final chamber, they discovered a scattering of ancient bones lying on the sedimentary surface of the cave.

Dr. Lee Burger, a paleoanthropologist working at University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, had asked area cavers to watch for fossils since he lacked the skills for extreme caving. His work involved the mysteries surrounding the evolution of the genus Homo two to three million years ago. Our most distant known relative is Australopithecus afarensis, of which Lucy is the most well-known example. Homo erectus is our nearest relative, but it is within the span between these two species that much of the murkiness, including Homo heidelbergensis, exists. Dr. Berger was convinced that missing pieces to the puzzle were still out there, just still hidden from view. When Tucker and Hunter showed him pictures of the Rising Star cavern, Berger knew that he had to act quickly before any other amateur cavers discovered what he knew to be primitive bones.

Knowing that Tucker and Hunter didn’t have the skills for an excavation, and that he lacked the skills and physique to enter the cavern himself, Berger put out the call for scientists experienced in both excavation and caving, and with a body form that would allow them entrance into the cavern. He chose six young women from nearly ten times that number of applicants. Over the next four weeks, as Berger and a team of scientists looked on from above with the help of over two miles of data and power cables, the women worked in rotating teams to excavate and remove more than 1,550 bones from fifteen individuals ranging in age from infant to adult.

Dr. Berger called in established scientists from all over the world to help with the skeletal analysis. As an aside, the scientist in me was thrilled to see that he also invited newly minted Ph.D. graduates to participate in what will likely be the find of their lives. The skeletons were divided into ‘workstations’ for each speciality—skulls, teeth, peripheral bones etc. And what they found was remarkable. The specimens were a bizarre combination of humanoid and primitive structures. While the finger bones were curved, indicating tree climbing was a crucial part of their existence, the opposable thumb, palm and wrist bones looked nearly modern. The shoulders and hip bones of the pelvis resembled Australopithecus afarensis’s Lucy, but the bottom of the pelvis and the lower legs and feet resembled modern man. While this was a species with bodies meant for climbing, they also had the long limbs and appropriate muscle attachment points for a bipedal gait.

But, the skulls were significantly different. Four skulls were found—two males and two females. The most notable difference is the size of the braincase—only 51 – 62% of the size of the modern braincase—with an accompanying tiny brain. This alone marks them as non-human since the human brain in all its wonderful complexity is what makes us the species at the top of the food chain, not by sheer strength, where we would not win, but because of our reasoning skills. Dr. Berger dubbed the species Homo naledi as naledi means ‘star’ in Soltho (a local South African language), a reference for the discovery in the Rising Star cave.

The mixed soil composition at the site of the dig has made dating the bones difficult, but researchers have hope that more complex methods may still be used to determine their age. As a result, scientists propose three different niches where H. naledi might have existed:

1. If the bones prove to be older than three million years, then H. naledi would have co-existed with Australopithecus afarensis’s Lucy, perhaps negating the current theory that Lucy is our oldest relative.
2. If the bones are between two and three million years old, then H. naledi is likely to be a transitional species between Australopithecus and our own genus Homo.
3. If the bones are shown to be less than one million years old, then H. naledi may have co-existed with H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, and even possibly with the very first Homo sapiens.

Another interesting facet of the discovery of the bones was their location in such a difficult to reach site. The distribution of the bones suggested they were deposited there purposely, and over a long period of time. The lack of animal tooth scoring on the bones indicated that their deaths were not due to animal attack. There was also no trace of ocean sediment to suggest the bodies might have been washed there accidentally. In the end, researchers concluded the bodies were placed there on purpose as part of a primitive funeral ceremony, unexpectedly advanced behaviour for such a species, and possibly the oldest known example of that behaviour in the ancestral human record.

Dr. Lee Berger is a remarkable scientist, more interested in his own research than the celebrity it might bring him. He involved other scientists whose specific knowledge exceeded his own in the interest of the best possible analysis, and he included junior scientists so they learned from the best and could share new out-of-the-box ideas. He waits patiently for the dating results to coalesce instead of jumping to headline-worthy conclusions, and he doesn’t seem interested in overturning current paleoanthropology as we know it. Instead, he pursues science for science’s own sake, and lets the truth of the data lead the way. Among the astonishing data he has presented to us, he may be the most impressive part of this new discovery. As a scientist myself, I take my hat off to you, Dr. Berger. Well done, indeed.

Want more reading? See the original scientific publication here, or the excellent National Geographic article of the discovery here.

Photo credit: Berger et al. in eLIFE

International Literacy Day

Hi all! Sorry to have been away so long, but we've literally just yesterday finished the first draft of LONE WOLF and I've been head down writing like a fiend all summer. We'll be back next week again with our normal blog posts, but this infographic came into my inbox this afternoon, and I thought it would be great to share it. Literacy is such a fundamental skill and the stats outlined certainly show that as a global population we have a long way to go. Take a look...

See you back again next week when we're back and rolling on Skeleton Keys as usual!

Biosecurity Incidents In Top U.S. Labs—What, Me Worry? Smallpox Edition

Smallpox is one of the few diseases that modern medical science has managed to eradicate. Believed to have emerged around 10,000 B.C., the disease first appeared in historical documents in the 15^th century. The disease is estimated to have killed 300 to 500 million people in the 20^th century alone, having a fatality rate of 20–60% in adults and 80% in children.

Smallpox is widely taught in university immunology classes as the world’s first vaccine. Edward Jenner noticed in 1798 that milkmaids who developed cowpox seemed to be immune to smallpox infection. In a stunningly unethical, off-the-cuff experiment, when a milkmaid came to him for treatment, he ran a thread through one of her pustules, coating it with pus. He then inoculated the eight year old son of his gardener by making a small cut and running the pus-coated thread through it. Shortly after, the boy became symptomatic for a mild case of cowpox. Several months later, Jenner took pox scabs from someone with small pox and similarly inoculated the boy a second time. The boy was immune to smallpox and remained healthy. This was the beginning of the vaccine revolution.

In 1967, the WHO mandated the eradication of smallpox, using newer, modern vaccines based on vaccinia virus, a virus related to both smallpox and cowpox. The last known case of smallpox occurred in 1977, and the WHO considered it eradicated in 1979.

This left the world with only laboratory strains of the virus. Following a breach of containment, resulting in the death of a lab worker in 1978, any labs with remaining virus either destroyed them or transferred them to safer labs. Currently, only the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the Russian State Research Center for Virology and Biotechnology still retain samples. The argument has been made that all remaining virus should be destroyed, but the existing aliquots are retained in case any other stocks arise leading to a dangerous bioweapon in the wrong hands. At this point, decades after the final vaccinations, essentially everyone except military personnel (who continue to be inoculated with the vaccinia vaccine for out of country work) would be susceptible to a fresh onslaught of smallpox. But with only two stocks of the virus in the world, we’d like to believe that we’re safe.

So it was somewhat of a shock in July 2014, when the National Institutes of Health reported that six glass vials of freeze-dried smallpox stock had been found in a long forgotten box in the back of a cold storage room. I remember hearing the news and being stunned for several reasons—glass vials to store a biosafety level IV pathogen (of course, there was no sterile, disposable Nalgene polypropylene cryovials back then, but glass? So incredibly dangerous…), no security, and no inventory so no one even knew they were there. The stock was estimated to have been there since the 1950s, even though the building didn’t open until the 1960s, and from the 1970s on was used by the Food and Drug Administration. A further investigation reveals twelve boxes in total containing smallpox, dengue, influenza, Q fever, and rickettsia, all previously unknown to be stored there, and all with no security precautions (proper security precautions would involve a minimum of two locked doors between the pathogen and the public, detailed inventories, and full biosafety training of all personnel). The FDA immediately mandated a full review of all cold storage spaces to ensure no other pathogens were present.

The glass vials were immediately transferred to the CDC to undergo testing, where it was determined that two of the six vials contained viable virus. Had the tubes broken, the world could have seen a smallpox pandemic the likes of which it hadn’t seen for decades and for which we are entirely unprepared. Luckily for all of us, the vials remained intact. All the vials were destroyed following testing.

---

Ann and I are going to be taking some time off for summer holidays and to really concentrate on drafting LONE WOLF, book one of the new FBI K-9 Mysteries with Kensington Books. So we look forward to coming back fresh and with a lot of solid writing behind us in September. See you then!

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Biosecurity Incidents In Top U.S. Labs—What, Me Worry? Influenza Edition

In the same report published by the CDC in July 2014 that discussed a laboratory incident concerning anthrax, an incident concerning influenza was also revealed. In August 2014, a full report detailed the cross-contamination of a non-pathogenic H9N2 strain of avian (bird) influenza with the highly pathogenic H1N1 strain (remember the 2009 flu pandemic? That’s the one…) which then sent it out to a U.S. Department of Agriculture lab that had no idea what they were dealing with. Fortunately, the Department of Agriculture lab is also a biosafety level III (BSL III) lab, so the samples were handled under BSL III containment procedures. As it turned out, no workers were infected with the pathogenic strain, a very lucky break as the story could have ended very differently.

As a scientist, the moment I heard this story, I knew exactly what had likely happened and it’s a big no-no in working with cells and viruses. Keep in mind, the error wasn’t identified until six months after the fact, so the worker couldn’t recall the day like it was the previous week, but reported working with then non-pathogenic H9N2 virus, decontaminating the biological cabinet and the working with the pathogenic H1N1 virus. However, of the 1.5 hours required to do all of this, key card access indicated the worker was only present for 51 minutes and that also included time to shower out of the facility and dress in street clothes. Clearly, the full protocol was not carried out. The scientists admitted that they were under pressure at the time to complete work for an upcoming WHO vaccine conference, and, that day in particular, the scientist in question was rushing to get to a lab meeting. Corners were clearly cut.

There are two scenarios that could have happened:

1. Considering that each infection should take 30 minutes, it is possible the scientist did both infections in the biological cabinet at the same time. To put it plainly, this is NOT done. One of the first rules of tissue culture is that products are kept separate to ensure purity of the product and safety of the current and any future lab worker. I’d like to think this isn’t what happened.
2. Instead of following protocol and working with the less pathogenic strain first and then the pathogenic strain, the scientist may have mixed up the order, working with the more pathogenic strain first and then not decontaminating afterward before moving onto the second, less virulent strain. Personally, I think this is what happened. Also, as PCR testing of the H9N2 strain doesn’t indicated H1N1 contamination, it’s likely they weren’t used concurrently.

One other concerning incident happened in association with this cross-contamination. When the receiving lab started to use the virus, chickens in the experiment started to unexpectedly die. Upon testing their virus, they determined that their H9N2 was contaminated with the deadly H1N1. When they informed the CDC, the lab team tested their stock of H9N2 to confirm that it was indeed contaminated with H1N1. But they did not report the incident at the time. It wasn’t until a second CDC team found atypical results with their stock of H9N2 virus that the original team reported the incident. At that time, all connected stocks of H9N2 were destroyed. Luckily all work done by the second team was conducted under BSL III containment, so there was no risk to any of the lab personnel.

For a group that is considered by most scientists as the gold standard, this incident combined with the anthrax incident is quite distressing. Scientists did not display good laboratory practices, training, communication skills, and in many cases, common sense. As a scientist myself, especially as one trained in BSL III procedures, many of these errors would simply not be acceptable or expected at our facility. Protocols and training are already in place to avoid this and a detailed incident reporting procedure is in place (and let me assure you, I’ve used it for BSL III incidents twice). After all this, I know I certainly look at the CDC differently, and I’m sure many other scientists do as well.

Next week we’ll be back with our last installment in this series. What happens when a virus that is nearly eradicated pops up in someone’s freezer? Come back next week and we’ll tell you all about it…

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Biosecurity Incidents In Top U.S. Labs—What, Me Worry? Anthrax Edition

Today we’re continuing on with our series on laboratory biosafety and how it’s gone wrong lately in places you would think would be immune to such incidents. But it just goes to show human error can trump every precaution you put in place and that hopefully your people would follow to the letter. Especially when lives are on the line. But not so much, apparently…

In July of 2014, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) held a press conference to discuss two different incidents that had taken place the previous month. We’re going to showcase one incident this week and one next week.

The first incident involved a CDC lab preparing extracts from anthrax, a biosafety level III (BSL III) pathogen. Their usual protocol involved chemically deactivating the pathogen for 24 hours, but they learned of a new protocol that only required a 10 minute deactivation. Now, this protocol was not for anthrax, but was instead for Brucella, another BSL III pathogen. However, they elected to try this new protocol on anthrax. This method also included a double check—after the pathogen is deactivated, some of it is plated onto agar plates and incubated for 48 hours to ensure there is no growth, and all the pathogen is dead. The CDC first attempted this protocol in June of 2014, sampling the extract to agar plates after 10 minutes, but leaving the rest for the full 24 hours.

However, due to a misunderstanding during a phone conversation and a lack of follow-up with the actual printed protocol, the scientist responsible only left the agar plates for 24 hours post deactivation, at which time, the plates were determined to have no growth. The scientist intended to autoclave the plates and discard them that day, however he could not open the autoclave door, so the plates were returned to the incubator. At this time, the anthrax incubated for 24 hours was distributed as deactivated pathogen to biosafety level II (BSL II) labs. Eight days later, the agar plates were removed from the incubator for disposal and, to their surprise, anthrax growth was observed. Scientists realized the 10 minute procedure was not sufficient to kill anthrax, but were unsure if the 24 hour procedure (from which anthrax had been sent out to BSL II labs and their lower level of containment) was sufficient. At that point, it had to be considered that they had a breach in biosafety containment and all the labs had to be completely decontaminated. Later tests showed that the 24 hour procedure was sufficient to kill most of the anthrax, but not all. As a result, while it was unlikely that infection would occur, it was not impossible.

Upon closer examination, there were a number of issues that led up to this incident:

1. Use of unapproved techniques—there were several related to filtering of the extract, but this also included observing the plates for sterility at 24 hours instead of the required 48 hours.
2. Transfer of material not confirmed to be inactive—based on the error made in point 1, this also involved a lack of written protocol of what was required to ensure that pathogens were truly deactivated.
3. Use of pathogenic strains of anthrax to test out a new protocol when non-pathogenic strains would have revealed the same conclusion with none of the risk. This was an extremely unwise decision.
4. Inadequate knowledge of peer-reviewed literature by both the laboratory scientist and his supervisor—papers already existed outlining that this method was not sufficient for absolute sterility of infectious anthrax.
5. Lack of standard operating procedures to document pathogen deactivation.

Fortunately, no staff member ever presented with symptoms of anthrax. But the laboratory in question was closed pending a number of assessments, the establishment of new procedures, and until remedial action was taken with the staff involved. This was not a shining moment for the CDC, the institution we scientists like to consider the gold standard in biosafety. This is the group you call when something goes wrong and this is what their own people are doing?

In the last month, a new anthrax story surfaced concerning an Army lab at the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. It creates anthrax test kits and sends them out to numerous laboratories for local testing. Contained in the kit is a radiation-killed sample of anthrax to use as a positive control for testing. However, in May, a Maryland biotech company identified that live anthrax was present in the samples. Upon closer inspection, it appears the samples were not sufficiently treated to kill all the spores. The test kits were packaged and sent out, many by regular FedEx delivery, to 69 labs around the United States, but also in Canada, Britain, Australia and South Korea. The CDC has confirmed that all kits shipped between 2004 and 2015 contained live anthrax.

Even more disturbing information surfaced this past week. It appears that from 2007 onwards, the lab was aware that their deactivation process (chemical deactivation at the time, and later irradiation) was not sufficient to kill all the anthrax, but they ignored the issue. At the time, federal regulators at the Office of the Inspector General were aware and recommended further investigation and potential enforcement action, however nothing was ever done. Furthermore, the information was never reported to Congress—the group responsible for oversight of this lab—so they were completely unaware of the situation. No laboratory workers have shown symptoms of anthrax; however 31 workers are receiving antibiotics as a precaution.

Next week, we’ll be returning the CDC as we discuss a serious mishap concerning a highly pathogenic strain of influenza.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

A New Publishing Contract and Format For TWO PARTS BLOODY MURDER

We’re very happy to announce today that TWO PARTS BLOODY MURDER will be joining the ranks of DEAD, WITHOUT A STONE TO TELL IT and A FLAME IN THE WIND OF DEATH as part of Harlequin’s Worldwide Mysteries in mass market paperback format. We’ve been very pleased with our sales through Worldwide and are looking forward to our continuing partnership with them. Currently the projected publication date is spring 2016, but I’ll post the exact date on the website when we know it.

The deal was announced two days ago on Publisher’s Marketplace:

June 21, 2015 - TWO PARTS BLOODY MURDER by Jen J. Danna with Ann Vanderlaan

Jen Danna with Ann Vanderlaan's TWO PARTS BLOODY MURDER, the third novel in the Abbott and Lowell Forensic Mysteries, where a body discovered in a long-forgotten speakeasy proves to be ground zero for a cascade of murders through the decades, to Laura Barth at HQN Worldwide Mystery, for publication in spring 2016, by Nicole Resciniti at The Seymour Agency.

One of the fun aspects of working with Harlequin is that they always do their own back cover blurbs and cover art, so it’s always interesting to see their take on our series. As you can see above, they do an excellent job with series branding, so we can’t wait to see where they take TWO PARTS BLOODY MURDER. So we’ll be back with more on this release in the future as we have more information to share.

Biosecurity Incidents In Top U.S. Labs—Biosafety

This post may be a little off the beaten path for some of our blog readers, but it’s a story I’ve been watching over the past year or more. And when a new twist on the story hit the news in the last week, I thought it might be a good blog topic, even though it doesn’t have anything to do with writing or forensics. In this case, I’m looking at something near and dear to my day job—infectious diseases research.

In July, 2014, several alarming announcements came out of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) involving potential and proven accidental exposures of lab personnel to extremely infectious pathogens. Then, that same month, the NIH announced the discovery of an even more dangerous pathogen found forgotten in FDA freezers. Just last month, the Pentagon admitted that one of its Army labs sent live pathogen out to as many as 69 different labs in a number of different countries. And now, this past week, it was revealed that same lab was secretly sanctioned for those actions eight years ago, but this information was hidden from Congress, which is responsible for oversight of the lab.

It’s enough to give a person nightmares about biological disasters.

Before we get into what went wrong with labs the world considers the gold standard in biosafety, let me give you a little bit about my background. I’ve worked at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario for nearly 25 years. I sat on the university’s Presidential Biosafety Committee for 5 years, making decisions on how to implement government standards for the safe use of pathogens, and how to rectify procedures that resulted in accident. I’ve worked nearly 25 years with biosafety level II pathogens (herpes simplex viruses I and II, vaccinia virus, Adenovirus, influenza, dengue virus and many others), and for over 15 years with biosafety level III pathogens (HIV and herpesvirus saimiri). Biosecurity has been my life for my entire adult working career.

What exactly does ‘biosafety level’ mean? The biosafety level of a pathogen is based on a number of factors: infectious dose (i.e. how much is required to contract the disease), mode of transmission (i.e. blood borne vs. air borne), host range (i.e. human vs. animal or both), the availability of effective treatment (i.e. pharmaceuticals), and the availability of preventative treatment (i.e. vaccines)

There are four internationally recognized biosafety levels for pathogens:

• Biosafety level I—an organism unable or unlikely to cause disease in healthy individuals. May cause disease in immunocompromised individuals.
• Biosafety level II—infectious organisms that cause disease, but are unlikely to make an individual seriously ill under normal circumstances. Effective treatment and preventive measures are available, and the risk of spread is limited. Example: herpes viruses, including those that cause mononucleosis, chicken pox and roseola.
• Biosafety level III—infectious organisms that cause serious disease, but do not spread by casual contact. Organisms that cause diseases treatable by antimicrobial or antiparasitic agents. Example: HIV, anthrax.
• Biosafety level IV pathogens—infectious organisms that cause very serious disease, often untreatable and leading to death, and are spread by casual contact. Example: Ebola virus.

Different containment levels are required to study pathogens at different levels.

• Biosafety level I pathogens, like many strains of non-infectious E. coli, can be used on the open bench in the main lab.
• Biosafety level II pathogens must be used within a separate level II room in a biological safety cabinet. Air is drawn into the cabinet away from the user and only exhausts into the room after HEPA filtration, thereby keeping any infectious particles trapped inside the cabinet. The user only interacts with the pathogen after donning a lab coat and gloves and by remote access i.e. using a pipettor to actually contact/transfer the pathogen.
• Biosafety level III pathogens are used in an isolated, approved access-only laboratory with negative pressure similar to a biosafety cabinet—air is drawn in from outside the laboratory and only exhausts from a laboratory through giant HEPA filters in the ceiling. Workers inside the facility must wear rear-closing gowns and double gloves at all times. In the case of airborne pathogens, workers must also wear respirator hoods with a powered air purifier worn on the belt. A safety shower must be located in the laboratory in case of spills and pathogen appropriate disinfectants must be available at all times. In case of incident, detailed reporting and follow-up is mandatory.
• Level IV pathogens can only be used in biosafety level III style labs situated in an isolated building. Work will involve all the requirements of biosafety level III work, but over and above that, the use of a positive pressure personnel suit (which pushes air out of the suit and away from the user) is mandatory at all times. Multiple showers (both in-suit and out), a vacuum room, and a UV room are required for clean exit from the facility.

Specialized training for each specific biosafety level is required by all personnel, often with annual updates and review. As you might imagine, the complexity of the training increases in orders of magnitude as the biosafety level increases.

Another aspect that is crucial to biosafety work, especially at upper levels, is tracking—where pathogen is stored, how it is treated, when small volumes are removed, how they are used, and how they are destroyed. There are strict guidelines concerning any transfers outside the laboratory as well—how it can be removed and who is allowed to receive it based on their facilities and training.

So now that you understand some of how this work is done, next week we’re doing to look at what went wrong (when it absolutely shouldn’t have) and what’s being done to safeguard workers and the public. See you then!

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Trials and Tribulations of Starting a New Series

It’s been a while since I did an update from the writing trenches. As I’m now back into the writing of the first book of the FBI K-9 Mysteries, LONE WOLF, I thought now would be a good time.

After recently completing the fifth book in the Abbott and Lowell series, I’m finding it interesting (also, just a little frustrating) how difficult writing this new book is. Stepping into a Matt and Leigh book is like meeting up with old friends and, in a lot of ways, the characters write themselves. The setting is established, minor characters get the opportunity to grow, and the science is familiar and comfortable. It’s up to us to find interesting cases with a twist, but a lot of the backstory is already in place. There’s no mental gymnastics to get rolling, not at this point, as the time when they were new and shiny seems a long way back (2009 to be exact).

So here I am—new location, new law enforcement setting, new characters, forensics I’m not familiar with, technology I need to get up to speed on, new research contacts to make, and a whole field to become familiar with (dogs) so I don’t drive Ann-the-dog-expert completely insane correcting my every small error (let’s try to cut it down to the big errors alone because there’s no way I’m going to get this 100% right). As a result, when I sit down at the keyboard, it’s hard to get in the zone and get writing as fast as I’d like. Yes, we have wiggle room in the schedule for me to stumble a bit now, but I hate doing that. I like having a schedule and sticking to it. On the bright side, I look at what I’m writing and I can see it’s not garbage, so what is going down is working, it’s just a little like pulling teeth at this point. But we’re just past the 20% mark now and only slightly behind my self-imposed schedule with an end of August deadline, so all is not lost.

It doesn’t help that the day job has never been crazier; in fact, I suspect this has a lot to do with the writing not flowing so easily. My extremely competent and bench-savvy co-worker was recruited out of the lab to work in a downtown Toronto biotech company. I couldn’t be happier for him and he well deserves the position, but man, oh man, I want him back! In the meantime, we’re wrapping up multiple projects (one, a five year international clinical study which is HUGE) and, with the help of three fantastic students—one of whom is my own daughter—we’re going to survive this summer and get the work done. All while completing a draft of the first book in a brand new series and essentially not seeing more than 2 days of vacation until the fall.

It’s at moments like this that I remember Nora Roberts’ famous quote: “Every time I hear writers talk about ‘the muse,’ I just want to bitch-slap them. It’s a job. Do your job.” I think I need that on a poster to hang near my laptop. Nora, you’ve got it absolutely right. Butt in chair, hands on keyboard, do the job, and this book will get written on time!

Photo credit: Jeroen Bennink

Forensic Case Files: The Oldest Known Murder

There’s a lot we’ve learned about our distant ancestors, the many species that dead-ended or contributed to the evolution of Homo sapiens. But there’s a lot that skeletal remains and fossil records don’t contain—direct evidence of interpersonal relationships, for example. This past week, a team of Spanish, American, French and Chinese scientists was able to shine a light on our long past ancestors when they revealed the oldest murder victim yet on record dating from 430,000 years ago (the original open access paper can be found here).

If you’re like me, that’s such a long time ago that it’s almost impossible to wrap your head around it. 430,000 years ago, we didn’t exist as a species. That was during the Pleistocene epoch, a geological age that lasted from 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago and included the last of our recent ice ages. The particular species in question, Homo heidelbergensis, is from the same genus as us (Homo) but differs at the species level (heidelbergensis vs. sapiens; although to be more exact, modern man is considered a more specific subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens). Scientific opinion on our relatedness to Homo heidelbergensis differs, with some scientists considering us to have evolved from them, while other theories place them on another branch of the evolutionary tree altogether. Either way, these were people who roamed northern Spain approximately 230,000 years before we first appeared on the African savanna.

Researchers discovered a mass grave when they were excavating a cave named Sima de los Huesos, Spanish for the ‘Pit of the Bones’, in the Atapuerca mountains in the north of Spain. This mass grave represents the earliest known funerary rights of early man.

The cave is located at the bottom of a 43-foot vertical shaft and contained a mixture of animal bones and the remains of 28 individuals. At first scientists questioned if some of the remains in the cave were the result of a catastrophic fall; some may have been, but overall antemortem vs. post-mortem bone damage of the remains contradicts this theory. However, the presence of one individual leads them to believe that many of them were deposited there after death by their fellow hominins.

Cranium 17 (pictured above), belonging to a young adult, was found within that cavern. Exhibiting two distinctive penetrating and fatal wounds above the left eye, it is clear that this individual did not die of natural causes. Due to the placement and pairing of the wounds, researchers theorize that a face-to-face encounter of ‘interpersonal violence’ occurred leading to the death of one of the two combatants. They also theorize that due to duplicate weapon strikes, either of which would have been fatal, the intention was clearly to kill and the second strike was simply a safeguard in case the first was insufficient to cause death.

Researchers have studied the wounds both microscopically and via CT scan. Measuring nearly an inch across, both wounds appear to have come from the same weapon as a similar notch appears in both defects (the black arrow marking T1 and T2 below). One aspect of the CT scan that struck me is that the weapon created a similar oblique fracture angle on the underside of the skull (see the red box in the scan below) that forensic anthropologists note when describing bullet injuries to the skull.

It is possible that the injury may have been accidental, but the mechanics of such a front-facing injury imply that it was likely intentional. The theory is supported by the presence of two identical weapon strikes. You might accidentally hit a person or be hit by something once, but twice is likely an intentional act. Furthermore, a wound on the left side of the body in a front-facing attack implies a right-handed attacker using a standard tool. In fact, the authors suggest a wooden or stone-tipped spear or a stone axe handle might have been the weapon of choice.

While interpersonal violence has been well documented since Neolithic times (10,200 to 2,000 B.C.), it has always been assumed to exist in earlier man’s interpersonal relationships. However, this is the first documented case of direct trauma responsible for an intentional death in one of modern man’s earliest ancestors.

Photo credit: Javier Trueba

How to Identify a Suspect… By His Microbes?

There are many established ways to identify a criminal suspect after the fact—DNA or fingerprints, for example (but not bite marks). But in 2010, a theory was introduced that a person could be identified by the bacteria they carried on their skin. The idea is that each person’s specific mix of microbes (called their ‘microbiome’ in scientific circles) is so individual that it could uniquely identify them.

Let’s back up a step because some of you are probably thinking Yeeeccccchhhhhhhh! I’m carrying WHAT on me? Actually, the bacteria that we always carry on us are an important part of our biological stability and are genuinely good for us. While the microbes that live on us make up only approximately three to five pounds of our total body mass, because they are so much smaller than our somatic cells, they actually outnumber our cells by approximately 10:1. In fact, there are enough bacteria that live on us that if we could collect them all, they’d fill a large soup can.

We’re born essentially microbe free, but breastfeeding is the first important transfer of good gut bacteria to newborns. By the time we are adults, it’s estimated that well over 500 species of bacteria live in our gut. These are symbiotic bacteria, meaning they live off us, but we reap the benefits of them in return. We provide a food source for them, but they help us digest our food and better obtain nutrients from our meals. Gut bacteria also help maintain our mucosal immune system making us healthier. Just look to your nearest grocery story or pharmacy for probiotics or probiotic yogurt sold to supplement your natural gut flora. This is exactly why it’s become a significant industry in recent years.

But what about the bacteria that live on your skin? The skin is the body’s largest organ and is our first line of defense against pathogenic invaders. But we’re not alone in the fight—a diverse panorama of bacterial flora live on our skin. Some bacteria help protect us by producing antimicrobials to kill pathogenic bacteria, while others work with our cells, actively using substances we produce to kill invaders. Because the skin is a varied environment with a multitude of cells, glands, follicles, natural moisture levels, and layers of epidermis, we are host to a wide range of bacteria that each live in their own preferred environments. It is these bacteria that give us a unique microbial fingerprint.

This fingerprint is analyzed by identifying the DNA sequences of the bacteria an individual carries. Most individuals host a similar complement of types of bacteria, but it is the relative amounts of these hundreds of strains that constitutes a fingerprint. So each time you touch an object and leave an oil and amino acid slurry fingerprint, you also leave a microbial fingerprint behind. The more commonly used the item, the stronger the microbial fingerprint, with cell phones, keyboards, and shoes bearing the strongest signal. A theory exists that since we leave a bacterial trail behind as we move through the environment, it might be possible to trace a suspect by the trail left by his shoes. It’s even been suggested that a forensic trail left at a crime scene might remain intact for up to two weeks, a very significant period of time in any investigation.

Much study must be done before an individual’s microbes could be used as a forensic tool during a criminal investigation. Previous experiments have been done on groups between two and one hundred and twenty individuals, so the power of this technique can only lie in a specificity that could eliminate millions of individuals to match the power of DNA profiling or fingerprinting. But it’s an intriguing possibility and one that can only expand as studies on the human microbiome, a relatively new field, expands into new and exciting territory.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Forensic Case Files: Medieval Cemetery Discovered Under a Parisian Supermarket

Recently, a surprising discovery was made in the basement of one of Paris’ Monoprix supermarkets. During some renovation work to lower the level of the basement (two full floors underground) to create additional storage space, a number of human remains were discovered beneath the floor, previously undisturbed since medieval times. Inrap, the French Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives, was called in to examine the find and then to do a full excavation before any renovation work would continue.

But how did so many human remains come to be found under an ordinary supermarket? In the end the answer was a simple one of land usage: the supermarket was built on the site of the cemetery of Hôpital de la Trinité. Trinité was established in the 12^th century, but was destroyed at the end of the 18^th century, allowing the land to be repurposed following the hospital’s demolition.

As the excavation space was cleared, eight separate graves spread over three parallel rows were discovered. Seven of the graves held two to five bodies, and one grave held over one hundred and fifty. Each grave was layered in five or six levels and part of the excavation disappears under the existing building wall, out of reach of archeologists.

The remains comprise a diverse group of male and female, children and adults of all ages. The skeletons are laid very closely together, arranged in alternating head to toe pattern to maximize the number buried in a small space. From this arrangement, Inrap archeologists propose that a ‘mass mortality crisis’ occurred, requiring a rapid and common burial. There are no injuries on any of the bones to explain any kind of violent death, implying that disease is responsible. The Bubonic plague epidemic of the late 1340s is one of the suggested causes; large-scale famine is another. Scientists are conducting DNA tests on the remains as well as carbon dating to obtain a more complete picture of catastrophe.

Inrap archeologists excavated the more than 1,000 square-foot site for two and a half months to remove all the remains. They hope to continue their study of the dead following the excavation with the hope of learning more about past burial practices―how the dead were added to the grave, the spatial and chronological organization, and sanitary criteria during an epidemic.

Much of Paris has been occupied since the Middle Ages, but due to dense population and building within the city, it is only when construction or renovation work reveals the city’s hidden dead that archeologists can shed light on Paris’ distant past. As a result, the Monoprix site is a wonderful opportunity for French archeologists, having only had twelve previous sites with which to study early funereal practices. Archeologists feel that work on this site could shed much light on not only how the Medieval French lived, but also how they died.

Photo credit: Denis Gliksman, Inrap

Forensics Under the Microscope: Bite Mark Analysis

In our continuing series on forensics run amok, we’re going to look at the trials and tribulations of bite mark analysis as a forensic tool.

What is bite mark analysis? It’s the comparison of a suspect’s dentition (teeth) to a bite mark found at a crime scene in human flesh or another solid substrate. This type of analysis tends to be associated with rape, murder, child abuse, and animal-related infractions because of the nature of the crimes involved. The underlying assumption of bite mark analysis is that human dentition is unique and human skin (or other material) can be imprinted in a way to reflect that uniqueness. The analysis depends on imperfections and deviations such as tooth alignment, chips and broken teeth, tooth wear, dental work, braces, and ethnically-correlated tooth shape to make each set of teeth unique.

How is bite mark analysis done? The first thing any bite mark analyst must do is ensure that the bite is human, and not left by an animal. Measurements are taken of the wound to mark orientation, depth and size of the bite, and then photographs are shot to preserve the bite before any degradation or alteration (decomposition in deceased victims, or wound healing in live victims). Plaster casts can be made of the impression for later comparison with a suspect’s dentition. Sometimes the skin containing the bite mark is excised from deceased victims and fixed in formaldehyde for long term storage and/or later analysis.

How is a match made? When a suspect is apprehended, a plaster cast is made of their teeth for comparison with the bite mark. A forensic dentist will attempt to compare the suspect’s dentition to the bite mark or a photo of the bite mark.

Why is bite mark analysis not a reliable science? The first thing to note here is that many of the scientists doing bite mark analysis are excellent forensic dentists truly trying to assist in case investigations. But the biggest strike against this kind of pattern matching is that there is no scientific proof that the guiding principal―that each person’s dentition is truly unique―is correct. No large population studies have been conducted to answer this question, as opposed to fingerprints or DNA profiling, where the results are truly individual. Therefore, the guiding principle of the technique is based upon an assumption. In actuality, the analysis is the subjective opinion of the technician, based purely on his or her own experience. To make matters worse, the shape of each bite depends on multiple circumstantial factors that can heavily influence the analysis―the force applied during the bite, the substrate, if the subject or substrate is in motion, and the angle of the bite.

What are the problematic technical issues of the analysis itself? There are many technical issues which can influence analysis, such as:

• Tooth wear patterns that change over time—in older cases, current dentition might not reflect dentition when the crime was committed.
• Unlike fingerprints or DNA, there is no dental database for reference.
• Bite marks change significantly over time and decomposition following skin slippage/desiccation.
• Sometimes bodies are exhumed months after burial, producing an imprint that is not identical to the fresh bite. Several of these cases have resulted in convictions.
• Some analysis is done using photos of the bite. Once such analysis noted a gap in the dentition that matched the suspect. The forensic expert recanted a decade later, saying the gap was a flaw in the photo. Nevertheless, this conviction was not overturned.

What are the judicial ramifications? In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences made the damning statement that the forensic science of bite marks had “no evidence of an existing scientific basis for identifying an individual to the exclusion of all others.” According to the Innocence Project, there have been twenty-four people exonerated by other evidentiary means (usually DNA, often not a tool available at the time of the trial). It is estimated that there are hundreds of other prisoners, including fifteen persons awaiting execution, who could be exonerated if bite mark evidence is overturned.

The science of bite mark analysis remains a controversial one, and current forensic investigators always try to find another way to use bites as evidence, i.e. swabbing for the presence of DNA. It is worth noting that not all forensic dentistry is questionable; using dentition to identify human remains is a well-established and successful method in the eyes of both the scientific and forensic communities.

Photo credit: Surlygirl

Authors for Indies Day!

This past Saturday, May 2^nd, was Authors for Indies Day in Canada and Independent Bookstore Day in the U.S―a day when authors spent time visiting local independent bookstores, not to talk up their own books, but to talk up everyone’s books and to support local bookstore owners. I took part in Author Day at my favourite local bookstore, A Different Drummer Books. Joining me was an impressive roster of local authors: Linwood Barclay, Rebecca Bender, Melodie Campbell, Gillian Chan, Jill Downie, Bonnie Lendrum, Sylvia McNicoll, Janet Turpin Myers, John Lawrence Reynolds, Gisela Tobien Sherman, and Joyce Wayne.

The crowd of authors and readers milling around as we were starting:

Fellow Crime Writers of Canada writers Jill Downie (left) and Melodie Campbell (right) with Jill’s husband, actor Ian Downie. Yes, that is TWO PARTS BLOODY MURDER that Melodie is holding:

Brilliant Canadian thriller writer (and hometown boy), Linwood Barclay:

Our host, the wonderful Ian Eliott, welcoming us to the store and the event:

 

The crowd listening to Ian. It was only when I lowered my phone and looked at my picture that I realized who’d snuck in when I didn’t even know she was coming:

A lovely display of visiting authors’ books. If you look hard, you’ll see I didn’t do a good job of capturing all three of our novels on the far end of the table (we’d sold a bunch so the piles were low, always a good thing…):

Hopefully some of you heard about it and got out to support your wonderful local independent booksellers. Thanks to the national organizers of Authors for Indies Day! It was a roaring success and we’ll all be back to do it again next year!

Forensics Under the Microscope: The FBI and Hair Analysis

Ann and I are in the process of switching writing gears from our current Abbott and Lowell series to our new FBI K-9s series. So when a story recently broke that combined the forensics of one series and the organization of the other, it caught our attention. And what a story it turned out to be. We’re going to be starting a new series of blog posts this week as a result: Forensics Under the Microscope—what happens when the science of forensics goes wrong. Needless to say, the ramifications are enormous.

The FBI story concerns their use of hair analysis in criminal investigations and prosecutions. But before we get into that, let’s start with the technical basics—what is hair analysis and how is it used as part of forensics?

What is the structure of a strand of hair? Hair is actually made up of a number of components, but we’re going to look at the main three: the medulla—the middle or marrow of the shaft; the cortex—the thickest part of the shaft which also gives the hair colour; and the cuticle—the scaly outer layer comprised of dead cells.

What is compared? When crime techs go through a scene, they collect trace evidence, including hair and fibers. When a suspect is arrested, investigators will take various samples from the suspect, including strands of hair. The hair is first examined macroscopically for colour, coarseness and curliness. It is then examined microscopically at up to four hundred times magnification, and the structure and characteristics of the hair are compared side by side in the same field of vision as hairs found at the crime scene (see above photo).

How is a match made? Microscopically, the crime scene hair and the suspect’s hair are compared to match diameter, characteristics of each structural section, and colour variations. A match upon several criteria may be considered a positive result. But unlike fingerprinting, which in its early days had a set number of points that had to match to be considered a positive result, hair analysis depended more on the analyst’s subjective opinion about colour and texture with no minimum number of matching characteristics. Worse still, two examiners might not come to the same conclusion about a single comparison, but the testifying analyst would still have the final word. Finally, the science of hair analysis came into question since there was very little population-specific data about hair traits—i.e. how often a certain trait could be found at random in the general population. As a result, outrageous probability claims (i.e. a one in a million match) were declared during court testimony with absolutely no supporting data.

What happened at the FBI? It was recently reported that the FBI admitted to twenty years of overstated hair analysis evidence in favour of the prosecution. During the 1980s and 1990s, 26 of 28 analysts from the microscopic hair comparison laboratory gave erroneous statements concerning evidence, often overstating the reliability of the technique and the probability of accurate matches. Out of a possible 2500 cases spanning 46 states during that time period, 268 convictions involved hair analysis. Of those convictions, 257 or over 95% of the cases are affected by these erroneous or exaggerated analyses. Of those 257 convictions, 38 suspects were sentenced to death and 9 of these individuals have already been executed, while 5 more died during incarceration. In addition, 13 crime lab examiners mishandled these cases, often not informing defendants that their convictions might be in question.

Is hair analysis still used today? The FBI recognized more than a decade ago that there were problems inherent in the technique, and stopped using it early in 2000. At the time, FBI Unit Chief Douglas W. Deedrick said that the “experience, training, suitability of known hair standards, and adequacy of equipment” could all affect the reliability of the analysis. Another issue raised was that some analysts considered certain microscopic characteristics so unique in hair samples that if the sample partly matched only on these microscopic characteristics, that would be considered a full positive match. Yet there was no population data to support this opinion.

Some consider fingerprinting to be too subjective and prefer definitive evidence such as DNA identification. Yet hair analysis is even more subjective and, as an identification tool, was compared by Deedrick as being no more useful than the ABO blood matching system. A match might steer the investigation towards a group of people, but it should never identify a specific suspect.

What’s the bigger picture and the result of this reveal? Does this mean that all convictions affected by this flawed analysis will be overturned? Of course not; other evidence in the cases may have been strong enough to have convinced the jury without the additional hair evidence. But every case must be individually re-examined.

It’s a story we’ve seen before and that we’ll look at more closely in the future—departments that are part of, or associated with law enforcement organizations, whose employees feel obligated or are externally pressured to support that organization, despite the actual laboratory findings. For any scientist, this is a horrific thought. As I’ve often told my graduate students, your results are your results; they’re not wrong, they simply are. And you shouldn’t bend them to fit your hypothesis. If they don’t fit, then your hypothesis is wrong.

The larger picture here is not scientific results per se, but rather their downstream effect and the lives changed, often forever, because of them. For those looking for more specific information, the Washington Post has published a detailed breakdown of the cases involved.

The U.S. federal government has made the decision to waive the statute of limitations in all of the involved cases and will do DNA testing (not available at the time) in the hopes of conclusively confirming or overturning the convictions. For many involved, it’s much too little, much too late. But hopefully for some, it will be a chance to try to pick up the lives stolen from them so many years ago.

Photo credit: University of Rhode Island

Coming up on Saturday, May 2nd, it’s the inaugural Canadian Authors for Indies Day! I will be appearing on Saturday at 4:30pm at A Different Drummer Books in Burlington, ON (address below) with a roster of very talented authors. So if you’re in the area and would like to stop by and show a great indie bookstore how much we still need them and how important they are in our community, I’d love to see you that day. And if you’re not local to me, but still want to show your supports, please stop by one of the participating indie bookshops listed on the website!

A First Look at LAMENT THE COMMON BONES

Ann and I have just recently finished the fifth installment of the Abbott and Lowell Forensic Mysteries, LAMENT THE COMMON BONES. As we’ve been getting lots of questions about this book—what it’s about and when it’s coming out—we thought we’d give our readers some upfront information now so they know what to expect.

When we left Matt and Leigh at the end of TWO PARTS BLOODY MURDER, they’d just finished solving a trifecta of murders—one from eighty years ago, another from forty years ago, and one where the blood wasn’t even dry yet. On top of that, the subplot that started in A FLAME IN THE WIND OF DEATH continued: a mysterious figure was attempting to besmirch the name of Leigh’s father, a well-respected cop, killed in the line of duty. In TWO PARTS BLOODY MURDER, the case surrounding these deliveries grew more complicated, implicating a person of authority in Leigh’s life, putting her in grave danger.

In LAMENT THE COMMON BONES, we’ll not only see a brand new murder case for the team, but we’ll also see the resolution of this subplot:

When death hides in plain sight, only the most discerning eye can see the truth.

Forensic anthropologist Dr. Matt Lowell and his team of grad students don’t go looking for death—it usually comes to them. But when one of Matt’s students suspects the skeleton hanging in a top competitor’s lab is actually from a murder victim, Matt has no choice but to sneak in to confirm a suspicious death. Once the case comes to Massachusetts State Police Trooper Leigh Abbott, the team is back together again.

While trying to handle a new murder case, Matt and Leigh also uncover new evidence behind the mysterious deliveries intended to smear the name of Leigh’s father, an honored cop, fallen in the line of duty four years before. When the person behind the deliveries is finally uncovered, it becomes clear that lives are in jeopardy if they attempt to thwart him. At the same time, as the murder case delves into underground societies and grows complicated when the killer himself becomes a victim, it will take all of Matt and Leigh’s teamwork to solve both cases and escape with their lives.

LAMENT THE COMMON BONES will release in 2016. When we have more specifics on it, we’ll announce it here and you’ll also find the details on the Abbott and Lowell book page.

Like all the other Abbott and Lowell books, I’ve started a Pinterest board for LAMENT THE COMMON BONES which can be found here. If you’re curious about some of the themes in the book and some of the real locations used, stop by for a look at Matt and Leigh’s upcoming journey.

Photo credit: University of Liverpool, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences

Skeleton Keys Archives - Forensic Case Files: The Strange Case of Colonel William Shy

Things have been a little crazy lately. Not only is it tax time on both sides of the border, but Ann and I are working on two manuscripts simultaneously right now. So instead of missing a week at the blog, I thought I'd pull one of the most popular posts out of the archives - the case that set forensic anthropology pioneer Dr. Bill Bass on the road to completely change the science to become an invaluable forensic tool. So relax, settle back, and let's revisit the very strange case of Colonel William Shy, originally posted on April 10, 2012...

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.

Forensic Case Files: The Final Journey of Richard III

We’ve been covering the fascinating story of England’s King Richard III for two and a half years now here on Skeleton Keys, so it only seems fitting to cover the last stage in his journey as well. The modern portion of Richard’s story started in August of 2012, when it was announced that the combined forces of the Richard III Society, and the University of Leicester Archeology Department had discovered very old remains under a parking lot in the City of Leicester. The remains were discovered under the posited historic location of Greyfriars church, where King Richard was supposedly buried in 1485 following his death at the Battle of Bosworth Field. The church was demolished in 1536, and its exact location lost to time in the following centuries, but meticulous research and many man hours led the combined team to this location.

Archeologists were hopeful that they had indeed discovered the remains of Richard III due to the conformation of the buried remains—the spine of the buried man had a significant curve or scoliosis. Over the centuries, the Tudor family, with the help of Shakespeare, had maligned Richard, turning the memory of a once-favoured king into that of a hunchbacked monster, and a man responsible for the death of his two nephews to ensure him the throne. But contemporary reports from Richard’s own time had simply reported him having one shoulder higher than the other, a common occurrence in those with scoliosis. Certainly, his curved spine didn’t prevent him from sitting a horse or fighting in battle. The skull also showed that the man had died a violent death, likely through battle.

In February of 2013, the University of Leicester released the news that the parking lot remains were indeed that of Richard III. Using mitochondrial DNA and tracing his line from his sister down through all the female relatives, as well as carbon dating, age and sex estimation of the remains, and analysis of the wounds to match with the account of Richard III’s death, it was determined they had a positive identification beyond any reasonable doubt.

On March 22^nd, 2015, Richard III’s coffin, topped by a wreath of white roses, was transferred by horse-drawn carriage from the University of Leicester to Leicester Cathedral. Hundreds of people lined the route which passed the site of the Blue Boar, the inn he possibly stayed at during his last night; the Guildhall, built in 1390 and one of the last remaining buildings in Leicester Richard III might have seen; and the Newarke Gateway, through which his body was likely carried on its way back into the city following the battle. His body lay in state at the cathedral for the next three days as thousands came to pay tribute to the fallen monarch.

On March 26^th, following more than a year of DNA testing, facial reconstruction, bone analysis and historical research, Richard III was finally laid to rest in Leicester Cathedral. Richard’s coffin, crafted by his decedent, carpenter Michael Ibsen, was carried into the cathedral by ten decorated Army soldiers and the service was presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury. His coffin was lowered into a tomb topped with a plinth of Kilkenny marble and will be closed with a massive block of Swaledale stone, incised across the top with a cross. Ironically, his final resting place is only forty yards from his original burial beneath Greyfriars church.

The service was attended by members of the royal family, including the Countess of Wessex, and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. Queen Elizabeth II did not attend but sent a message that was read at the beginning of the service.

Benedict Cumberbatch, who will play Richard III in an upcoming BBC production, and who is a third cousin, sixteen times removed, of Richard III, read the poem Richard by Poet Laureate Carol Ann Duffy (the video can be found here, for those of you who like me would listen to him read anything, including the dictionary).

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons  and The University of Leicester