Major Crime Unit : NH State Police Summer Internship | Heating up: Cold Cases | Meredythe Leonard |

|

Heating Up: Cold Cases
Countless developments in police science have occurred in the past decade or so. Many of these improvements can be seen as small, but imagine the challenges faced by crime scene investigators 50 or more years ago. The law enforcement agencies of the past did not have routine access to the amount information that officials today can gather and analyze from a crime scene. Current day crime scene investigation can range from the downright tedious to the technologically astounding, but they have all greatly impacted how evidence is collected, documented, and analyzed.
There are around one hundred unsolved homicides in New Hampshire alone, dating back to the early 1960’s. (Department of Justice, 2015). Evidence from those crimes could quite possibly be the golden ticket in solving the wrongdoing, but with outdated techniques and capabilities, the answer will remain a mystery. If the state makes older evidence testing a priority, cold cases could finally find the justice deserved with the help of current day technology.
Throughout the rest of this discussion, the call for new evidence testing in cold cases is examined while highlighting the need and importance for skilled investigators. Determination and patience, in the advancing field of forensic testing, have unlocked numerous cases not only in New Hampshire, but also across the country.
One of the most under-appreciated, yet most important developments in the crime scene investigation field is protective gear. Items such as protective gloves, shoe booties, and full body suits are now mass produced and inexpensive providing affordable protection to anyone at a crime scene. These items will be the first line of defense in protecting the individual, and possibly people he/she comes in contact with, from biohazards and diseases. Also, it allows for personal artifacts like hair and fingerprints to not be transferred from the detective to the scene.
It is important to preserve evidence from cold cases because of the possibility of future forensic techniques that could help solve the incident. Even the smallest amount of evidence could be crucial to putting the guilty criminal behind bars. Law enforcement however, doesn’t need to preserve all evidence it collects. The duty to preserve extends only to the evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense. Material evidence is important because it is directly relevant to an issue in the defendant’s case. Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in that it can possibly clear him from a guilty verdict. (Bacchi, 2013).
Exactly what evidence is material and exculpatory depends upon the circumstances of the case. But, alibi evidence is nearly always material and exculpatory. It includes witness statements that place the defendant somewhere other than the scene of the crime and forensic evidence that tends to show that the defendant couldn’t have committed the crime. When law enforcement does not have clear alibi evidence, investigators must search for other kinds of material and exculpatory evidence. Different types of evidence include crime scene evidence, tape recordings and videotapes, investigative notes and even in some instances, emergency call recordings.
One of the worst situations for detectives is the possibility of the evidence being lost or destroyed. Even the smallest miscommunication on Evidence Examination Request forms can leave room for reasonable doubt on the validity of a piece of evidence. Evidence Examination Request Forms list all the evidence in order for a particular crime, and lists the chain of custody of who has made contact with the evidence. (Wickenheiser, 2013).
Proving the legitimacy of an item can be tough if there is an inaccurate form. There are several possible remedies for defendants who learn during trial that the state violated the duty to preserve evidence. They can ask the court to suppress related evidence, exclude or limit testimony about the missing evidence, or dismiss the case all together.
This places a huge burden on cold case evidence, because with years of it being stored, its personal validity goes down. Many different people or instruments could have possibly come in contact with it, also after years of testing; the evidence may even be used up. It is extremely important to destroy as little as the evidence as possible during testing because there will come a time where it is completely unusable.
The fingerprint is still the best evidence for placing an individual at a crime scene. Individualization potential of fingerprints was recognized in the 19th century, but the practical application of this information has only been realized in the last 20 years with the invention of the Automated Fingerprint Identification System. AFIS can automatically compare a latent print from a crime scene to a databank of known fingerprints in a short period of time. Before AFIS, fingerprint examiners would have to do everything manually.
Another important advancement in fingerprint technology was the development of the magnetic fingerprint brush. The wand is dipped into magnetic fingerprint powder. The powder adheres to the wand. The powder can then be brushed onto the print without any mechanical contact between the wand and the print. With this there is no danger of brushing the print away. Also, there is little danger of overdeveloping the print. From here, investigators can pick up the print and scan it into the system. (Stouder, 2002).
Another crucial group of evidence next to fingerprints is DNA or blood evidence. The most common form of DNA typing is known as restriction fragment length polymorphism. The process involves several stages. First, lab technicians extract the DNA from the cells of a sample and purify it. Second, technicians mix the strands with restrictive enzymes that cut the strands into fragments. The cut does not however break up the specific repetitive DNA sequence. It is important not to break that sequence because it specifically correlates to the makeup of the DNA print. The technician then places the fragmented DNA into a gel and introduces an electric current into the gel, which positions the fragments according to size because the shorter fragments move across the gel faster. Finally, the lab, using radioactive probes, develops a piece of X-ray film, which shows dark bands representing the position of certain fragments. Basically the end result resembles a “bar code” that can be compared to a suspects “bar code”. (Albert, 1992).
A newer form of DNA testing is known as polymerase chain reaction. The procedure uses the enzyme polymerase to amplify target DNA sequences by creating a million or more copies of them. A machine called a thermal cycler amplifies the DNA, which is then spotted on a filter to be tested with gene probes. By comparison to the restriction fragment length polymorphism technique, this test requires less biological material, but with it also being a new technique, it is not as widely accepted. (Albert, 1992).
Various different DNA procedures have been created in order to help solve cases quicker and more efficiently. The recent success of Touch DNA has brought the technique to the forefront of DNA technology. Over the past decade the procedure has been used and with time been able to aid many different cases including the exoneration of Timothy Masters in the JonBenet Ramsey homicide. Touch DNA simply refers to the “collection of skin cells which are subsequently typed for DNA in the exact same manner as body fluids using standard laboratory procedures.” (Williamson, 2012).
Each day humans shed thousands of skin cells and these cells may be transferred to surfaces one touches. Individuals involved with a crime could be unknowingly leaving their skin evidence on a weapon, in a car, on anywhere on scene.
Crime scene investigators test for Touch DNA using either the swabbing or cutting method. During the swabbing method, the surface of the item is rubbed with a wet cotton swab, followed by a dry cotton swab in an effort to collect possible skin cells. The best surfaces for this method are hard, non-porous items such as metal, glass or plastic. This method is superior for the fact that there is a smaller risk of contamination with exogenous DNA. The cutting method is more suited for soft items, such as clothing. Investigators would have to cut the piece of evidence for testing and place it in a DNA processing tube for the lab to continue testing on. In addition to these methods, different labs also use a scraping and tape lift method. (Williamson, 2012).
When examining a scene it is advantageous to wear gloves, face masks, hairnets, and sometimes even whole body suits. Touch DNA wholly relies on skin cells not seen by the naked eye, so investigators must try to limit the possibility of contamination. It is not uncommon to detect DNA profiles from detectives, paramedics, and medical examiners on evidence from cold cases and it is important that extra precautions be taken. (Bacchi, 2013).
DNA testing on cold case evidence can brake open the truth and finally put families at ease. On July 20, 1987, Judith Whitney was reported missing to the Amherst Police Department in Amherst, Massachusetts. Investigation revealed that Judith, age 43, was last seen alive in Keene New Hampshire on July 2, 1987. Four months later, a hunter discovered Whitney’s body buried in a shallow grave in Winchester, New Hampshire. The last person seen with Whitney was Edward Mayrand, then aged 40, and he was soon found to be in possession of Whitney’s car and handgun. However with the lack of forensic technologies, decomposition of the body, and not enough overall evidence pinning Mayrand to the crime, the case eventually became inactive. (Foster, 2014).
In 2010, the Massachusetts State Police asked for assistance from the New Hampshire Cold Case Unit and members of the Worchester District Attorney’s Office to revive the investigation. By this time Edward Mayrand had a long criminal record and was serving time for another murder. Massachusetts State Police also had reason to believe that Mayrand was the person behind another one of their cold cases in 1983.
In November of 1983, Kathleen Daneault was with Edward Mayrand at a restaurant in Gardner, Massachusetts. A few days after the meeting, Daneault’s body was found near the restaurant and an old place of employment of Mayrands', strangled. Mayrand flatly denied even knowing Daneault, but after witnesses placed them together at the restaurant he changed his story. He admitted to investigators that he had met Daneault and had drinks with her, but then left her at the bar and headed home. There was no other way to connect him to the body, so he was allowed to be released.
Maynard was incarcerated a month later for a parole violation until May of 1986. In a strange, but revealing connection, Maynard was transitioned to a halfway house where he would eventually meet Judith Whitney in early 1987.
During the years that followed the murder of Judith Whitney, Edward Maynard would be imprisoned for a felon-in-possession charge at the New Hampshire State Prison. After his release in 1994, Maynard met Patricia Paquette in Providence, Rhode Island. Similar to the witness reports in the Whitney and Daneault cases, Maynard was the last person see with Paquette after they were drinking together at a neighborhood lounge. Her body was found dismembered and stuffed inside several garbage bags. The difference between how each body was found was shocking, and definitely showed an escalation in his violent behavior and extreme effort in concealing his criminal acts.
Because of a large amount witness testimony, and the location of Paquette, Edward Mayrand was arrested in 1995 for the murder. Mayrand made several admissions to murdering Paquette and pled guilty to Second Degree Murder. He received a sentence of thirty-five to sixty years in prison. Maynard refused to speak to any other law enforcement authorities and was never interviewed about the death of Judith Whitney.
With the re-vamp of the case in 2010, investigators from New Hampshire and Massachusetts began intensely working together on the Whitney and Daneault cases. Witnesses were located and re-interviewed, and surprisingly most of the persons involved were local and had vivid recollections of Edward Mayrand and his victims. By June of 2011, the New Hampshire Cold Case Unit and Massachusetts State Police were creating a search warrant to obtain a sample of Mayrand’s DNA when told his health was deteriorating fast due to metastatic lung cancer. The search warrant was finished and authorized, and a sample was acquired. Edward Maynard died later that month.
In the years to follow the two units continued the investigation and were finally able to test Edward Mayrand’s DNA using newer and accepted forensic technologies that were not available or reliable in court back in the 1980’s. The two pieces of evidence tested for DNA were Kathleen Daneault’s torn blouse that had been tied in a knot to strangle her, and Judith Whitney’s sweater and drawstring that was also used for strangulation. Unfortunately for Whitney, the degradation of the DNA on her clothing due to exposure to the elements made them unusable for testing. It was left up to Daneault.
In late 2014, Touch and biological DNA testing revealed the presence of Edward Mayrand’s DNA throughout the piece of torn blouse used to strangle Daneault. Mayrand denied having any physical contact with her on the night of her death. These DNA results left no possible innocent explanations for why Mayrand’s DNA would be present on the ripped piece of blouse. In addition, Mayrand’s DNA was found on Daneault's underwear.
Edward Mayrand was the only person with the motive and opportunity to kill Judith Whitney. He was found in possession of Whitney’s personal items, made inconsistent statements about her whereabouts and her relationship with him, and her clothing was torn from her body and utilized in a similar manner as that used by Mayrand to strangle Kathleen Daneault. With all of these items in play, the two agencies decided that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mayrand murdered Judith Whitney. The Whitney case is a great example of a horrible and bloody crime that was solved with biological DNA testing and forensic Touch DNA testing. All of this was done with great communication between two different state agencies. (Foster, 2014).
Another local case that shows the reason why cold case testing should be made a priority is the John Pond case of 1990 in Salem, NH. Dennis Razis, a close friend of Pond’s, made his way over to the young man’s residence on a chilly September night to pick up a stereo that was promised to him. As Razis walked up the runway, created to accommodate for Pond’s wheelchair, he could hear a struggle going on inside of the small trailer. As he tried to enter, a heavy-built man stopped him and said “you don’t want to see him like this”. Ponds’ scared pleas with the man were the last thing that Razis heard as he quickly ran out of the house. Thinking that Pond was only going to receive a harsh beating from a drug related fight, Razis did not call the police.
John Pond had always has trouble with the law. The reason he was confined to a wheelchair was from a bullet in the spine during a shootout with Lawrence Police when he was only 19 years old. Salem PD learned Pond had been teaching the dubious art of burglary to kids who lived in his trailer park. They’d bring him hot TVs or stereos and Pond would trade them for cash or drugs.
The body of John Pond was found next to his wheelchair the morning after with 26 stab wounds to his torso and shoulders. The entire inside of the trailer was covered with blood. Along with the body there was numerous items that Pond had stolen and kept hidden in cabinets and under the bed. With this evidence, police had many different places to start in search of a suspect.
Ten minutes south of the crime scene, on the day John Pond’s body was found, the landlord at 9 Kirk Street in Methuen, Mass., got a complaint of water leaking through the ceiling from an upstairs apartment. He let himself into Paula Gauthier’s unit and found her waterbed had burst, the mattress slashed open with a knife. Gauthier was not home the night of the murder because she was in a relationship with John Ponds older brother, Michael. She had also had a history of dating a man named Mark Craig. When Craig realized that Gauthier was going back to Pond, he threatened to harm him. Despite the motive pointing at Craig, there was no evidence pointing to him and Razis failed to identify him. Also, forensic labs in New Hampshire were not advanced enough to handle testing the DNA of Craig against the blood from the scene. The case remained cold until the start of the Cold Case Unit in New Hampshire in 2009. The unit slowly received funding and was able to finally test Mark Craig’s DNA against the blood from the scene. For weeks, the detectives were on the edge waiting for the lab report. When it arrived, it proved their suspicions: the blood co-mingled with John Pond’s was Mark Craig’s. The story was finally making sense. Craig had attempted to harm Paula, but he could not find her, so he slashed her waterbed. Knowing where John Pond lived, he threatened him with a knife in search for the location of Michael Ponds whereabouts. When John would not give up his brothers’ address, Craig viciously murdered him. (Flynn & Lavoie, 2013).
Not only in New England, but also across the country, advancing forensic techniques are shedding light and heating up numerous cold cases. Just last year a cigarette butt proved to be the key in unlocking the mystery of a 19 year-old homicide. The body of Krystal Lynn Beslanowitch, a Salt Lake City, Utah native, was found December 6, 1995, along the Provo River near Midway. With no suspects, and limited DNA, detectives had nowhere to turn in order to close the case. “It was haunting me my whole career,” Wasatch County Sheriff Todd Bonner stated in an interview with The Associated Press. “It doesn’t matter that she was a street girl, this is a 17 year-old girl – a human being. I could care less what she did for a living. She was doing what she had to survive.” (Campbell, 2013).
Krystal Beslanowitch had a troubled upbringing surrounded with drugs. She was often a found on the streets as a runaway leading for her to sell her body in order to acquire money. After the case went cold, and years of dead end leads, improved DNA technology let investigators finally get a full match on Joseph Michael Simpson. Wasatch County Sheriff Todd Bonner stated Simpson was “never on our radar” until earlier this year when a forensic lab extracted Touch DNA from the granite rocks used to apply blunt force trauma to the young teens skull. (Campbell, 2013). After the rocks connected Simpson to Beslanowitch, authorities followed him around and collected a used cigarette butt for further testing.
Another great advancement in crime scene investigation has been the easy accessibility of tools to document the scene. Crime scene reconstruction is a labor-intensive but essential task of police investigation. Currently, the police spend a lot of time at the crime scene taking many measurements and photos, but now with new and upcoming software techniques, police will have the ability to capture 3-D images of the crime scene for later use. Automatic generation of photo-realistic three-dimensional documentation is desirable because the photos will visually preserve the evidence so that it can be presented to attorneys or juries many years after the crime has actually been committed. Equipment such as the instant Scene Modeler (iSM) and Faro equipment are becoming rapidly more popular in everyday scene investigation. (Jasiobedski, 2005).
By allowing investigators to freeze crime scenes in 3D, the Faro Scanner provides an exact record of the entire area at the touch of a button and allows for the site to be returned to normal use a short time later. For example, if a homicide was to occur in a Walmart, the scanner would allow for the Walmart to continue with business at a quicker pace. With 3D pictures replacing crime scene sketches, the crime scene reconstruction can be visited multiple times to verify witness testimony or evaluate hypotheses. Forensic scientists can accurately analyze line of sight, blood spatter, and bullet trajectories to complement other techniques such as offender’s height estimation from video surveillance. Although its many pro’s, 3D imagers are still in their beginning phases with law enforcement. (Gill, 2014).
Another important progress with the coming of time is the digital way of life. Nearly two-thirds of American adults own a smart phone. (PRC, 2013). Most of these phones carry Internet capability, as well as a global positioning system. With the unseen web of wireless network and GPS, phone owners may be unknowlingly leaving a digital fingerprint of ones location.
Also with the electronic age comes cyber crime. Online hackers can steal precious information for unknowing victims about personal information, bankcards, and passwords. No fingerprint system can solve this form of crime. This brought to light a new form of forensic technique, computer forensics.
Computer investigators often use proprietary forensic applications and software programs to examine computer hard drives, extract certain types of data from files and folders, and also to recover information from encrypted files, even on a cell phone. From there, the experts can clone the information for further study, and to also show it in court. Unfortunately, if any crime happened before the dawn of the cyber age, there would be no digital evidence to test.
With all of these doors opening for forensic testing, it leaves an exciting possibility for the future. What is going to be the next new exciting technique? There could possibly be crimes of this decade that can’t be solved until another form of testing arrives.
This is why it is crucial to save, preserve, and monitor cold case evidence as well as keep up with new technological advances. The atrocious murder of Krystal Beslanowitch may never have been solved, if the evidence was not preserved. Her family may have never known who did this to their daughter, sister, or friend. The same goes for Judith Whitney. “It was the greatest Christmas present we could ask for,” said Jeannie Graveline, Whitney’s younger sister by 22 years. “It’s confirming what we already know. We knew in our hearts that he had taken her life, but it’s comforting that it’s come to an end.” (Everett, 2014).

Citations
Albert M.T. Finch, III, Oops - We Forgot to Put It in the Refrigerator: DNA Identification and the State's Duty to Preserve Evidence. 25 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1992:5, 809-836

Bacchi, C. "Preservation of Evidence in Criminal Cases | Nolo.com." Nolo.com. Nolo: Law for All, 2013. Web.

Campbell, A. "Joseph Simpson Arrested After Cigarette DNA Solves Cold Case Murder Of Krystal Beslanowitch." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.

Cold Cause Unit. “Victim List.” Victim List. Department of Justice.

Everett, R. "Family Finds Some Closure in Resolution of 1987 Homicide of Judith Whitney of Amherst." GazetteNet.com. Daily New Hampshire Gazette, 14 Dec. 2014.

Flynn, K., Lavoie, R. “The Coldest Cut – The John Pond Cold Case Investigation.” The John Pond Cold Case Murder Investigation in Salem, New Hampshire. NH Magazine, Nov. 2013.

Foster, J. Judith Whitney: News Release. 2014, 1-9
Gill, C. “News” Police Join 3D Technology Revolution with Crime Scene Scanner. Faro Corp, 27 June 2014.

Jasiobedski, P., Instant Scene Modeler from Crime Scene Reconstruction. Computer Vision and Patter Recognition – Workshops, 2005. 25.

“Mobile Technology Fact Sheet.” Pew Research Center Internet Science Tech RSS. PRC, 21 Dec. 2013

Schiro, G. Forensic Science and Crime Scene Investigation: Past, Present, and Future. American Lawman, Spring 2000.

Stouder, S., Reubush K., Hobson D., Smith, and J. Trace Evidence Scrapings: A valuable source of DNA? Forensic Science Communications. 2002:4, 1-6.
Wickenheiser, R. Trace DNA: A review, discussion of theory, and application of the transfer of trace quantities of DNA through skin contact. J Forensic Sci. 2002:47, 442-450.
Williamson A., Touch DNA: Forensic Collection and Application to Investigations. J Assoc Crime Scene Reconstr. 2012:18, 1-6.