January 31, 1997



Reviewers' comments to submission to Forensic Sciences Research (my response in red):

Reviewer #1: The article about: Homicide detection in a cold case assisted by image processing" was written by the expert in charge of the case and his opinion must be qualified according to the forensic data. No, I am a forensic consultant who agreed to examine this case as explained in the text. This work was pro bono.

In fact, this article is based solely on an analysis of the scene by Adobe Photoshop software. No, Photoshop provides tools to assist image analysis. The comparison with the investigation reports and with the autopsy report is given step to step in this paper. A scientific approach should be observed in the analysis of this case in the findings during external examination and autopsy in comparison with the analyses of the photos. What BS, this does not make sense. I have more than 80 peer reviewed publications in ten fields of science over forty years and I do not know what he means by “scientific approach.”

Photograph n ° 1 A does not reflect the macroscopic aspects of the ballistic wound in order to state about an entrance or exit wound of a caliber 12 rifle. No, it was a shotgun. This firearms expert is obviously not qualified to comment on pathology, perhaps not even firearms.

Analysis of blood stains and broken glass should be carried out by another reviewer specialized in these fields. Bloodstain evidence is a core part of this paper; clearly this reviewer should not have accepted this review assignment since he, by his own admission, is not qualified.

Which techniques were used to show the absence or presence of tissue or blood traces on the barrel of the weapon? The resolution of most of the images is enough to be able to identify blood/tissue on the shotgun if present. No blood or tissue was described on the shotgun by investigators. Expertises [sic] have to be carried out at this level. This statement contradicts this reviewer’s admission he is not qualified to comment on bloodstain evidence, or the lack of it.

The victim's eyes should be obscured in photos 8 A and B. No, both of these images show bloodstains, some in proximity of the eyes. Obscuring them by covering with black bars would obscure the bloodstains referenced in the text.

The analysis of the blood flow must take into account the movement of the body during the investigations carried out by the investigators. What is this person doing reviewing this paper? This comment shows he has had no crime scene processing experience. A body is NEVER moved during the investigation at the scene. In addition, the images presented in the paper clearly show the body was not moved during the shooting scene processing. A body can be moved and examined on scene at the end of the scene processing to document features on or associated with the body. If this occurs, it is done just prior to the transport of the body to the medical examiner’s facility for autopsy which sometimes does not occur for several days. So, examination/moving of the body prior to transport to the medical examiner’s facility can reveal features important in the analysis which may be modified by the time of autopsy.

The abrasions seen in photo 9 would not have been noted in the autopsy report, it should be ensured that they are indeed such superficial lesions and not particles present at ground level which are stuck to the dorsal side of the hand. This doesn’t make sense – what do adherent particles have to do with lesions? Interpretations on images are always difficult in this issue. No, the image was shown to a forensic pathologist who confirmed the premortem abrasions. As an expert in digital imaging (publications), digital images now exceed the resolution (>12 MP) of film-back cameras (~4 to 6 MP). Many times in other cases I have found features important in the interpretation through careful analysis of images, as occurred in this case.

This article cannot be published as it is without clarifying the different points. ?

Reviewer #2: The author(s) present a case study where a old case from 2008 has been re-examined. Within forensic science, the experience acquired by doing case work is an important element to determine the experience of a reporting expert. Published studies of remarkable cases may contribute to this. As such, a case study contribution could be acceptable for publication in Forensic Science Research.

In this particular submission, there are a number of elements which not do satisfy the minimum criteria for acceptance on general (ethical) as well as on scientific grounds. For these reasons, I feel that this submission has to be rejected.

A. General (ethical) grounds

In the large majority of the case studies, it is not necessarily to know the details of the case, such as the name of the suspect or the victim. Removing these elements from a scientific publication is an element which contributes to the respect of the family of the deceased/involved persons. An exception to this rule could be the major incidents in which are people who belong to the public domain are involved, such as the shooting resulting in the death of JFK. The current case does not belong to the latter category. Consequently, the authors should remove the names of the people involved. This is ridiculous. 1) All the shooting cases I have published I have supplied the names of the victim(s). This is the first time out of all the peer reviews for those other published papers (see my CV) that this was present as an issue. 2) This is a cold case like most where this “rule” does not apply. By giving the name of the victim, it alerts the jurisdiction where the homicide occurred to (hopefully) reactivate the case upon review of the new findings.

Also, the pictures provided in the article have to be adapted in such a way that people appearing on them can no longer be recognized. It is also an important element of respect to the family members of the deceased. Publishing case pictures results in making them available in the public domain. No, all images are copyrighted. See answer to reviewer 1 on this issue.

B. Scientific grounds

1. The author(s) speak about the suicide of the victim in 2008. To cite their manuscript "The death of the victim was confirmed suicide by a Mississippi Grand Jury in a decision published February 12, 2009. The Grand Jury finds that Billey Joe Johnson, Jr. died from a single shotgun blast to the left side of his head entering at the approximately location of his left ear."

However, when reading the decision of the Mississippi Grand Jury, one reads (reference 3 of the submitted manuscript): "The Grand Jury finds from the forensic scientists' testing and the testimony of the witnesses, including family members, that Billey Joe Johnson, Jr. did not intentionally shoot himself on the morning of December 8, 2008 and therefore eliminates suicide as a cause of death. The Grand Jury unanimously finds that the only plausible and scientific explanation for this incident is that the Sears and Roebuck 12 gauge shotgun accidently discharged as Billy Joe Johnson, Jr. was attempting to move the shotgun in the cab portion of his truck."

The premise, the author(s) are starting from, is wrong. The Grand Jury has never indicated that the cause of death would be suicide. True, I revised the manuscript. It has excluded this possibility on the basis of their hearing and found it important to mention this in their decision. In the later letter [4] to the parents of the deceased, the possibility of suicide has been left open. It is not clear why the opinion from the Civil Rights Division deviates from the decision of the Grand Jury. The Civil Rights Division does not have the authority to change the decision of the Grand Jury. A misleading and remarkably ignorant statement showing this reviewer has a lack of understanding of legal process. The case would be filed in Federal Court with the presentation of support evidence. It is odd that this reviewer spent so much time on this review and did not explain just how the victim committed suicide or accidental considering all the irrefutable evidence I present in my analysis, which he does not address. Neither the suicide or accident determinations are supported by the scene evidence.

No suicide has been detected, an accidental discharge has probably occurred. I don’t get this. If this reviewer had read the entire paper, it would be obvious the body was twice moved immediately after the shotgun discharge. Not only that, this reviewer has failed to consider the angle of the shotgun discharge and location of the backspatter on the window which would put the breech of the shotgun when discharge on the other side of the truck window. These letters and rulings with erroneous, baseless and likely racist determinations are a historical point and are presented for background to the homicide.

2. Being a firearm expert myself, I would expect to have more details about this particular incident. More specifically, what type of ammunition was discharged. It is important to know the charge of the cartridge case in order to understand what type of injuries can be expected. A different injury can be expected when the cartridge case contains a (12 gauge) slug or just birdshot. Apparently, the author(s) have not take the time to investigate this crucial element further… If the reviewer looked at the x-rays (Figs. 1B and 1C) he would see that it was slugs. This is in the discovery and can be added in the revision (if requested). A minor point and in my view not necessary because such information adds nothing to the evidence of homicide or the paper.

Also the list with the recoil energies of different calibers indicates that the author(s) do not have experience in this area. The recoil energy of the firearm will also depend on the type of cartridge case / load used. This is not discussed in the article. Just what does the cartridge case have to do with recoil? Is this guy saying that if you have two different brands of 12 gauge cartridges with the same powder load and projectile mass the recoil will be different between them? Apparently he is. Sure, powder load will factor into recoil, but this is not at issue in this case. The contact or near contact shotgun discharge backspattered tissue 47 feet! The gunpowder charge to project tissue that far was certainly normal and the recoil from that discharge would be normal for a 12 gauge shotgun.

Additionally, in one reference, I read that "I did see in the firearms report that it was discharged when it was dropped, look at page 2 of the lab report, where it says that the firearm discharged with the manual safety disengaged and dropped on the muzzle end of the barrel. A gun shouldn't fire when it dropped this was a defective weapon". This is also crucial information. Why was the report examining the firearm not included in the discussion ? No, it is not crucial. Because it didn’t pertain to the location of the shotgun when it discharged (see above and is described in the paper). I viewed that exercise as ridiculous and was used to obfuscate the weight of the other evidence in this homicide. Yes, I am familiar with 12 gauge shotgun deaths from several previous cases. Yes, I have fired 12 gauge shotguns and am quite familiar with their substantial recoil regardless of the ammunition used.

Is the firearm still available for analysis ? Has it been subjected to a second opinion ? A firearms toolmark analysis was not performed. Of interest would be if the spent cartridge in the victim’s shotgun was actually fired by it. No, the shotgun is not available.

Also the allegation that another firearm was used to kill the victim was not further investigated. This is particularly compelling as this would be a key element in confirming the scenario of the author(s). How can it be “further investigated?” The lack of blood and tissue on the victim’s shotgun and its position on the body, which had been staged by placing it on top of the body, show it was not the shotgun used in the death of the victim.

3. While there are some elements in the blood spatter analysis that require additional investigation, the author(s) have not considered a possible impact from emergency response teams. Where they questioned regarding this case ? EMT was there and there was no interaction with the body that required moving of the body. The massive hole in the side of the victim’s head was obvious. Is their any information available on how we could expect their intervention to occur in a similar situation ? This question makes no sense. Did they move the body ? Of course not. The bloodstain evidence shows the body was moved immediately after death. Did the author(s) consider the dynamics of a collapsing body to explain the blood trail (numbered "1" in the article) ? Of course. Did the reviewer actually read the paper? Dirt on the hands and forehead indicate along with the bloodstain evidence the body was repositioned two times after the shot.

The remarks concerning the blood spatter pattern are difficult to understand. I suggest the author details the different steps of how these originate in a set of additional pictures with a stand-in and/or using Photoshop to demonstrate the different positions of the victim. Indicating the position of the body by representing it by ovals as in Fig. 12 is not very demonstrative. This could make it easier for the reader to understand the origin of the bloodstains on the face of the victim. Obviously this reviewer has no experience with bloodstain analysis and is not qualified to review this paper. The arrows show blood flow and the blood smears on the victim’s face which could only have occurred immediately after the shotgun discharge with the moving of the body. It is that clear and irrefutable. I have been publishing bloodstain interpretation (peer reviewed) papers since 1997.

4. The author(s) have indicated that a major contribution lies in the treatment of the original photographs by Photoshop. I do not see where such adaptions [sic] have been made that are not already part of the common practice (not only within the forensic community, but even within the general public). In social media, Instagram allows e.g. to make such modifications before publishing them on the internet. Really? This guy has no understanding of criminal court. In the hundreds of cases I have worked over more than thirty years I have seen only one crime lab-associated criminalist do such a manipulation. Criminalist gather evidence an present to court, they are not permitted to modify evidence including images. A court-qualified crime scene reconstruction expert takes the unmodified images and with manipulation shows critical features to a jury. I am aware of only one forensic scientist/criminalist who has skill with Photoshop, but he has never published images that have been adjusted in Photoshop. He gave a presentation at a professional meeting where he presented some images that had been transformed in Photoshop.

5. The author(s) fail to demonstrate the fourth element in the abstract : "The staging of the crime scene continued into the scene processing". On the contrary, the author(s) specified the contrary in the manuscript (citation) "This death scene was processed as a homicide or suspicious death. A probable suicide scene would have limited documentation, usually a short report with a small number of scene images and an autopsy report if performed with perhaps a few additional images." Hence, the crime scene was NOT examined as a suicide or an accidental discharge. Incredible! How does the scene being processed as a homicide and then illogically, without any evidence, determined to be a suicide change what has been presented shows the original scene processors were correct in documenting a homicide.

6. The interpretation of the position of the glass fragments on the road is insufficiently or even not supported in the submission:

a. (citation) "This shatter/fracture event to the window occurred prior to the shotgun discharge to the victim's head." Why is there a difference in timing ? How can you deduct this from the traces found at the crime scene ? No explanation to substantiate this is given. Yes, there was – the body did not have glass on it, save for one fragment and the body was on top of the glass fragments as described.

b. Similarly (citation) "Upon the victim's death, he fell onto the glass shards and his body was moved to a different area of the pavement already covered with glass shards". What evidence do you have for this? Figure 4A.

c. in Fig. 4A (citation) "Graphic demonstrating the direction of breakage of the window based on the glass shard distribution". Did the author(s) consider that the door is a object which may have been reoriented or even that was moving at the time of the shooting? Extensive backspatter as a result of blowback as well as the earring base embed in the truck’ window sill and its jewel behind the truck show the track door was open when the shotgun blast occurred.

d. in Fig. 4D (citation) "The inset of the armrest glass shards shows little change from A" Did the author(s) consider the opening in the armrest, which is right under the area where the second section of the glass collapsed ? The handle part of the armrest was open at the bottom. The two sides of the armrest where glass is shown before and after the second tempered glass collapses were sufficient to make this determination.

7. In a case like this, one would expect some tissue/blood particles on the firearms (citation) "But, the images of the shotgun (e.g., Figures 5A and 5B) show it has no associated tissue contamination. The Figure 5B inset shows no blood or tissue within the bore of the shotgun". I would like to make two remarks concerning this: First, could his hand be in the way so that the backspatter would be blocked by his hand ? Good grief. Look at Figure 3. Blowback was massive. The victim’s hand did not intercept. Bloodstains can be found on the right hand of the victim. Yes, but only a few spatters. Not surprising, considering the massive blowback that some spatter would hit the window glass and deflect. Secondly, this is not a way to analyse [sic] the bore of a shotgun for the presence of blood particles. I would not dare to deduct any conclusions from the mere analysis of a picture of a firearm. I sure would and have. As a defense expert I rarely have access to a firearm. In one case that involved an intraoral shotgun discharge, an image of the bore showed likely blood and tissue in it. It appeared this reviewer just does not have the experience to make this statement.

8. In Fig.11, the author(s) talk about a secondary blood transfer which happens from the paper card to the instrument surface. As paper is more porous than the glass/plastic from the dashboard, I suppose that the transfer more likely happened in the other direction. If that were the case, then there would be more blood on the source surface than card. The card was manipulated: 1- removing the fold (Fig. 10A), 2- smearing the surface blood, a transfer bloodstain (Fig. 11) and 3- adjusting the cards position of the truck’s dash during the scene processing (Fig. 10).

In summary, there are not sufficient arguments to come up with the scenario as presented by the author(s).

These reviewers ignored the evidence upon which this submission is based:

1) Massive backspatter on the interior door window; the earring Jewel base embedded in the door sill and then the jewel bounced off the window sill to the back of the truck. The angle of the barrel to the victim’s head, considering the heavy backspatter on the truck door window, would put the breech of the shotgun on the other side of the truck door. There was no comment by the reviewers of this key evidence placing the shotgun at discharge.

2) The body was moved immediately following the shotgun discharged. Changes in the direction of blood flow on the face show the body was moved reflected by changes in head position. No mention by reviewers.

3) The body was heavily bleeding from the massive head wound, which spilled when the body was moved within seconds of the body collapse in position 1 to position 2.

4) The body was moved a second time as shown by the bloodstains to the third and final position.

5) The love card was moved during the scene processing. But most importantly, both reviewers failure to recognize that the bloodstain on the card was a transfer which could not have been made by the victim.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download