Criminology

Reconstruction involves the use of scientific method, logical reasoning, sources of information on people, criminology, victimology, and experience or skill to interpret the events that surround the commission of a crime                                

Crime reconstruction challenges standardization, according to the article, Crime scene reconstruction (2006).  Crime scene reconstruction, also referred to as crime reconstruction depicts a fairly new area of study that became popular in the 1990s which many people loosely associate with profiling, psychological autopsy, or equivocal death analysis (Crime scene reconstruction,  1). Rather than standardization, crime reconstruction primarily depends on situation and logic.  During this report, albeit, the researcher consults Twelve Practice Standards for Crime Reconstruction (N.d.) with information previously used for Project One crime reconstruction as background information to review Brent Turveys Equivocal Examination and Psychological Profile of Case Evidence the Robin Hood Hills Murders aka West Memphis Three (WM3).  The researcher also analyzes how closely Turvey followed the twelve practice standards for crime reconstruction for his analysis of the WM3 murders.

Turvey, a forensic scientist and criminal profiler in private practice, reviewed the WM3 murders case and all reports from law enforcement, corners office and interviews (Equivocal examination..., N.d.).
In the book, Crime Reconstruction,William Jerry Chisum and Brent E. Turvey (2006) assert the a number of primary published works covering both forensic science and crime reconstruction may be aggregated to assist in defining basic yet essential practice standards that apply to forensic practitioners of almost every kind (Chisum  Turvey, p. 116).  The following Twelve Practice Standards for Crime Reconstruction, comprise 12 generally accepted practice standards for crime reconstruction
Reconstructionists must strive diligently to avoid bias.

Reconstructionists are responsible for requesting all relevant evidence and information in order to perform an adequate reconstruction.

Reconstructionists are responsible for determining whether the evidence they are examining is of sufficient quality to provide the basis for a reconstruction.

Reconstructionists must, whenever possible, visit the crime scene.
Reconstruction conclusions, and their basis, must be provided in a written format.

Reconstructionists must demonstrate an understanding of science, forensic science, and the scientific method.

Reconstruction conclusions must be based on established facts.  Facts may not be assumed for the purpose of analysis.

Reconstruction conclusions must be valid inferences based on logical arguments and analytical reasoning.

Reconstruction conclusions must be reached with the assistance of the scientific method.

Reconstruction conclusions must demonstrate an understanding of, and clearly distinguish between, individuating findings and all others.

Reconstructionists must demonstrate an understanding of establishing the conditions of transfer (Locards Exchange Principle and evidence dynamics).

Any evidence, data, or findings on which reconstruction conclusions are based must be made available through presentation or citation. (The Twelve Practice, N.d., p. 1).

The homicides of three white males, James Michael Moore, Steve E. Branch, and Chris M. Byers, all eight years old white, occurred on May 6, 1993 behind the Blue Beacon Truck Wash, also known as the Robin Hood hills in West Memphis Arkansas.  Officials found the three boys in a drainage ditch with their wrist bound to their ankles with shoe laces.  All three victims attended Weaver Elementary school and after being released at 300, all were thought to have gone directly home.   Pamela Hobbs, Steve E. Branchs mother, reporting Steve missing at 330  p.m. on May 5, 1993, to the West Memphis police department.  Pamela stated she had not seen Steve since he left for school early that morning.

Mark Byers, Chris Byers adoptive father stated to Detective Brian Ridge of the West Memphis police department that he arrived home at 310 p.m. to discover Chris was not waiting outside as expected.  Because Chris did not have a key to the family home, he had to wait on his father, or brother, Ryan to let him in.  When Ryan arrived home at 330, he and his father, Mark left at 400 to go to the courthouse, as Ryan was a witness for a trial.   After dropping Ryan off at the courthouse, Mark reportedly left to pick up Chriss mother, Melissa, from work.  They arrived home at 520 and noticed Chris had tried unsuccessfully to go inside the home.  Mark reported Chris missing at 530 on May 5, 1993.  
Michael Moores mother, Diana Moore, reported Michael missing at 600 p.m. on May 5, 1993.  She told police that the last time she saw Michael he was riding bicycles with Steve Branch and Chris Byers, friends from school friends.  When the three boys drove out of her sight, Diana sent her daughter to look for them however, Dianas daughter did not find Michael, Steve or Chris.  At approximately 800 p.m. on May 5, 1993, each of the three boys was officially reported as missing.  Family members, with police officers begin to futilely search for the three boys.  At one point in the beginning of the search, Mark Byers left the search effort to return home and change clothes from shorts and flip-flops to coveralls and boots.  After changing clothes, Mark phoned the Crittenden County Sheriffs department and asked Denver Reed, the leader of the departments search and rescue team, to also assist in the search for Michael, Steve and Chris.
After an exhaustive search by many family members and law enforcement, the first body was found on Thursday, May 6, 1993 at 145 pm, by Sergeant. Mike Allen.  The official police report did not give the exact location of the body, but the report did indicate that the childs body was in a creek.   Detective Ridge found the second body 25 feet south from the first body at 245 p.m., the third body was found at 259 p.m., five feet south of the second body.  Kent Hale, coroner, pronounced all three boys dead at the scene as follows  Steve E. Branch 5-6-93, 358PM  Chris M. Byers 5-6-93, 402PM  James M. Moore 5-6-93, 402PM (Crime scene reconstruction, 2006, Established timeline of events Section,  30).  Stidham Law Firm contracted with Turvey to examine the evidence regarding the deaths of Steve, Michael, and Chris.

Most forensic examiners allege they remain completely objective when they perform their analysis, or that they exert every effort to be objective.  The researcher contends that Turvey, even though under contract for the lawyers defending the accused murderers, exerted extreme effort to adhere to the first standard of crime scene reconstruction that he diligently strived to avoid overt and covert bias as it may taint the most impartial scientific examination  (Chisum  Turvey, 2006, p. 55).  Turvey found that Steve Branch, found nude with his hands tied to his ankles with shoelaces, died of multiple traumatic injuries to the head, torso, and extremities with drowning.  Turveys report indicated that the first victim, Michael Moore, may have been sexually assaulted disagreeing with the corner, Dr. Peretti, who stated that Michaels body did not reveal signs of a sexual assault.  Turvey also noted that Michael Moore had abrasions on his hands, with a few defensive wounds, meaning that he was alive and fighting but quickly restrained with shoelaces.

Turvey noted that Michael also had unexplained abrasions, with a directional pattern right below his right anterior shoulder area, inconsistent with that of the crime scene, meaning that this particular injury occurred at a different location as there surface or area at the crime scene could have caused those abrasions on his right shoulder.  One well established principle of cognitive psychology asserts that a persons desires and expectations can influence their perceptions, observations, and interpretations of events.  The results of ones observations and dependent on at least two things  (1) the object or circumstance being observed and (2) the person state of mind (p.  53). This point, however, does not appear to contribute to bias in Turveys findings.

Regarding the second standard, Reconstructionists are responsible for requesting all relevant evidence and information in order to perform an adequate reconstruction, Turvey, in the researchers opinion, effectively completed this task.  Turvey found that Michael experienced fewer injuries than the other two victims reporting that no signs of strangulation, signs of sexual assault or bite marks existed all of these signs, however, were found on the other two victims.  Turvey also noted that Michael did not have mosquito bites like the other two victims.  He concluded that Michael was assaulted at a different location and later brought to the crime scene where he ultimately drowned.  Turvey noted that fluid was found in Michaels lungs indicating that he was alive and breathing when put in the creek.  

In the researchers opinion, Turvey also successfully completed the third standard, Reconstructionists are responsible for determining whether the evidence they are examining is of sufficient quality to provide the basis for a reconstruction.  Turvey challenged evidence he did not perceive to be of sufficient quality arguing that the corner did not fully investigate the bite marks on the two victims, Steve Branch and Chris Byers.  Dental impressions taken from each of the offenders, Turvey found indicated it was not possible for any of the offenders to make the same bite marks.  Ones bite and the pattern it leaves, like ones finger prints, are unique.

With regard to the fourth standard, Reconstructionists must, whenever possible, visit the crime scene, the information the researcher reviewed does not confirm whether or not Turvey actually travelled to and examined the crime scene.

Turvey did an excellent job in adhering to the fifth standard, Reconstruction conclusions, and their basis, must be provided in a written format.  The researcher contends that Turvey provided sound, critical evidence that ultimately raised a number of credible questions about the guilt of the accused individuals.  One example involves Turvey raising the question of why the corner did not further analyze many aspects of the second victim, Chris M. Byers that may have helped solve the case.  Chris Byers, the most brutally attacked victim, had numerous stab wounds to his face and the back of his neck.  He also had bite marks on his inner thighs and his genital area was completely cut off.   Mr. Turvey also noted that Chris did not drown at the crime scene as no fluid was found in his lungs.
In complying with the sixth standard, Reconstructionists must demonstrate an understanding of science, forensic science and the scientific method, the researcher perceives that Turvey went above standards when completing this task.  In his report, Turvey related detailed scientific information regarding the time of death for all three victims.  He also questioned forensic science points about different stages of rigor mortis for each of the victims and detailed how the time of death, in his educated opinion, may have differed.

The seventh standard, Reconstruction conclusions must be based on established facts, facts may not be assumed for the purpose of analysis, the researcher again contends Turvey exceeded standards in completing this task.  For example, in regards to the victim, Michael Moore, Turvey noted reports provided limited information on Michaels background, e.g., friends, family members, medical history, school records.  Turvey determined the need for further investigation to establish what occurred  to Michael 24 hours before he was reported missing.

The researcher asserts that Turvey again exceeded standards when completing the task of the eighth standard, Reconstruction conclusions must be valid inferences based on logical arguments and analytical reasoning.   Turvey found it significant to note that the drug, Carbamazepine, found in Chris Byers system, constitutes a drug used to treat individuals with seizures.  As noted in Turveys report, Chris Byers adoptive father, Mark Byers, claimed to have a brain tumor, the reported reason he sometimes slurred speech and experienced blackouts, which also depicted the reported reason he took the drug Carbamazepine.  This drug, however, had not been prescribed for Chris.  Turvey also noted that Chris Byers, the victim most brutally attacked, had many facial wounds which would be consistent with the fact the offender personally knew the victim.  Turvey also pointed out that Mark Byers, an undercover drug informant for the police department, was on a first-name basis with most all of the detectives.   In the researchers opinion, Turvey carefully considered and evaluated facts when writing his report, whether or not he was on a first name basis with those involved.

In regard to the ninth standard, Reconstruction conclusions must be reached with the assistance of the scientific method, Turvey adequately completed this task.  The researcher perceives Turvey did this by thoroughly explaining and utilizing the scientific method and means for estimating the time of death.
The tenth standard, Reconstruction conclusions must demonstrate an understanding of, and clearly distinguish between, individuating findings and all others.

The article, Locards exchange principle (N.d.), contends that each and every contact leaves a trace that whenever any two objects come into contact with one another, they affect one another in some way ( 2).  

The article also stresses  The second principle is the Principle of Individuality which acknowledges two objects may be indistinguishable but no two objects are identical (Locards exchange principle, Principle of Individuality Section,  1).  Turvey exceeded in his attempts to comply with this standard as he argued that clothing found in Michael Moores right hand was not correctly analyzed.  Turveys consideration of bite mark evidence, as noted earlier, critical in any criminal case demonstrates behavior as it lends itself to individuation depicts another confirmation of Turveys adherence to the tenth standard.  

The eleventh standard, Reconstructionists must demonstrate an understanding of establishing the conditions of transfer, also relates to Locards Exchange Principle and evidence dynamics, noted in the reference to the tenth standard, which the researcher contends Turvey excelled in as he demonstrated an extraordinary understanding of transfer conditions.  Trace material of interest may have been found if Turveys questions regarding clothing found in Michael Moores right hand had been addressed.

The researcher questions if perhaps Turvey could have extended additional effort to comply with the twelfth standard which purports that  Any evidence, data, or findings on which reconstruction conclusions are based must be made available through presentation or citation.  Although Turvey offered an excellent presentation, the researcher contends that additional citations could had strengthened Turveys presentation and perhaps made his excellent investigation, even more powerful.  During the examination of the WM3 murders, Turvey used scientific methods, logical reasoning, sources of information on people, criminology, victimology, and experience or skill to interpret the events that surround the commission of  a crime (Crime scene reconstruction, 2006,  1). The researcher contends that overall, Truvey demonstrated excellent compliance with the Twelve Practice Standards for Crime Reconstruction.