Hands-on forensics to solve a murder mystery

Catherine de Lange, contributor

(Image: NHM)

Last Friday, an important-looking email landed in my inbox. The day before, a box of human remains was discovered in a cupboard at the Natural History Museum in London. Initial investigations suggested that they belonged to former Botany Collections Manager, Dr Theo Baroma, who was last seen in 1956.

The email summoned me, as a trainee crime scene investigator (CSI), to a briefing at the museum. There, Detective Inspector Ajoy Gosain from New Scotland Yard filled me in - along with about 100 other trainees - on the mysterious circumstances of Dr Baroma?s disappearance over fifty years ago. Apparently he had gone off on a field trip, never to return.

As part of the museum?s Crime Scene Live event, our job was to investigate whether the remains truly belonged to Dr Baroma, where the victim died, and who might be to blame.

I was pleased to hear that, as trainees, we weren?t expected to get everything right. Because to be frank, until that moment my CSI training had pretty much consisted of watching the first series of Dexter.

Before we began, Detective Gosain reminded us of the vital ABC of crime scene investigation: Assume nothing, Believe no-one, and Check everything. With that advice in mind, we all headed off to the crime scene, kitted out in our protective gear so as not to contaminate any of the evidence.

Cameron Richards and Martin Hall - both forensic entomologists at the museum - chaperoned us into the herbarium where the box of bones was found, and we each collected a dehydrated maggot pupa for examination under the microscope.

Identifying which maggot species were present on the body could help us determine the location of the crime. My maggot was of the Calliphora Vomitoria variety, which is found widely around the UK, although others had identified C. Loewi, found predominately in Northern Scotland. Could it be then, that the victim was in Scotland at the time of death, and the pupae had been carried back hidden in the corpse?s clothes?

Next up we met staff from the London laboratory of the Forensic Science Service, who talked us through fingerprinting methods we could use to try and match some of the prints found on the evidence with those of our suspects.

Using magnetic powder to find fingerprints looks easy on TV, but I found it surprisingly hard to believe that these supposedly unique, but very similar looking, patterns would be enough to help us identify a possible murderer. Debbie, one of the real CSIs on hand, told me that additional patterns can be identified with the help of microscopes, but I was beginning to think forensic science might not be the career for me. The responsibility of being absolutely certain felt huge, and there was so much potential for mistakes.

(Image: NHM)

Finally, we ventured down to the museum?s genetics labs to carry out a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) - a way of comparing small sections of DNA to see if they come from the same person. Here, we compared DNA from a piece of Dr Baroma?s appendix with that from bones found at the crime scene. As we wielded our pipettes, lab manager Alex Aitken answered our questions: Does the method really work? Could this type of DNA profiling be used to clone dinosaurs? She explained that there?s a 1 in 10 billion chance of two unrelated people having the same profile, and that, potentially, yes, the technique could be used to clone dinosaurs ? though she pointed out that old DNA samples are often fragmented, and it?s harder to clone things without genetic defects, like Dolly the sheep.

Before we knew it, the results were in: the appendix sample matched the bones, and I was confident we?d identified our body - the corpse really did belong to Baroma.

After two and half hours of exhausting forensic inquiry, it was time to take our evidence to court. Dr Hall, one of the forensic entomologists, was called to the witness stand as barristers battled over the evidence. After quite some deliberation, the judge decided there was insufficient evidence to convict and the case was dismissed.

The whole evening had the feel of a high class murder mystery dinner (only without the dinner, which didn?t go unnoticed - tickets to the event cost ?40 and after hours of intense investigating, our trainee CSIs still had to pay for all their own refreshments).

And despite being told off several times for handling evidence without gloves on, I loved how accurate and immersive the whole event was. Some punters even seemed let down that their evidence didn?t lead to a conviction in court.

But that was part of the point. Real CSI doesn?t match up to what we see on TV. When real people face serious punishments, you can?t take any chances, and although modern science brings us ingenious ways of analyzing a crime scene, things are rarely as clear cut as we?d like them to be.

Then again, there?s a reason why some of the details are cut on CSI TV shows. While Hollywood could learn a thing or two from the forensic staff at the museum, perhaps the museum could make the informative event just a little bit more fun too.

The next live science event will be held in 2012. Details will be made available on the Natural HIstory Museum website.

Follow @CultureLabNS on Twitter

Like us on Facebook

Source: http://feeds.newscientist.com/c/749/f/10897/s/1a8a9339/l/0L0Snewscientist0N0Cblogs0Cculturelab0C20A110C110Chands0Eon0Eforensics0Eto0Esolve0Ea0Emurder0Emystery0Bhtml0DDCMP0FOTC0Erss0Gnsref0Fonline0Enews/story01.htm

coraline coraline wedding crashers jacqueline laurita mcfadden mcfadden ponder