Forensic files is an American documentary series that unravels how forensic science is crucial in solving violent crimes, mysterious disasters, as well as epidemics of illness. Smoking out a killer is one of the episodes of the documentary serious, which is revealing a heartless sequence of rape cases and murders of innocent college girls were murdered. Three college students had been murdered. A college senior by the name Susan was discovered having been raped and killed close to an unpaved track that the students used to get to one side of the campus. Five years before this, a student had been mugged and murdered in her apartment that was outside the campus. The subsequent year, another student had been killed in almost a similar manner. Police realized that there was a serial murderer in the place and they determined to establish this personality (Bright & Petricevic, 2018) . Forensic scientists are keen on various forms of skeletal properties in the skull that can help law enforcement department identify with precision the cause of death as well as smoke out a perpetrator of the act.
Scene processing and identification of other related remains
Evidence that was left by criminals unconsciously at the crime scenes are very significant for forensic anthropologists in determining their case. The experts have the ability to detect this evidence and collect it carefully so that the courts can depend on it to execute their cases. The case on the Smoking out a killer episode involves the death of three college girls who seem to have been killed by one perpetrator. Police immediately has a suspect but have to authenticate precisely if he is the one responsible for the killings. The input of forensic anthropologists become crucial at this point since not all people in the region were convinced he was the one (Bright & Petricevic, 2018) . For 20 years, questions remained for this long until an old evidence revealed the whole truth.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Susan Schumake had been beaten, strangled and sexually assaulted. She was abducted and attacked in the middle of the day. The police investigated friends of Susan and suspected that a stranger could be responsible for this attack. The police learnt of a coincidence whereby a subcontractor working at the campus gymnasium had employed a man who was a suspect in two murders of students of the university. With many days of investigation, John Tom Philips was the top suspect. Philips have been accused of raping and murdered two ladies in a university 5 years earlier. According to Verma (2015), the immediate friends and colleagues of a victim can come in handy in tracing the offender. Philips could not be detained on this because of lack of witnesses. Even the murder of the second lady who Philips was a neighbor too could not be established because of insufficient evidence.
In the murder of Susan, the police were a bit relieved because they were certain of getting evidence against Philips. In Susan’s autopsy, the medical examiners found a clue. First, they found Susan’s yellow bag thrown behind the dormitories. Her wallet was missing and the friends reported that she usually carry about 10 dollars. A campus worker also found a small red bag with some toiletry items not far from where Susan Schumake was murdered. Inside the bag, the found some identification. They found a bottle that had the name Daniel Woloson, who had been convicted two times earlier. He was working at the campus at the time of murder. Woloson cooperated with the police shortly until after few days he vacated his room. In his room, they found a torn note, and some other pieces were on the toilet and the rest were in a trash can. Police continue to search for Woloson until they examined their hair sample, which was not consistent to the hair that was attached to Susan’s body (Forensic Files, 2008). Thus, he was eliminated from the list of suspects. The case went silent until John Philips bragged about his crimes to his prison mate, providing details about how he raped and murdered victims. He bragged about killing three ladies but never mentioned about Susan, who could easily be the fourth one that he killed. The police suspected that it could be so, and if he had then the murderer was still outside.
In November 1986, John Philips went on trial for the murder of John Wetherill, one of the victims he confessed of murdering during their conversation with the prison cellmate. On the day he was sentenced, Phillip addressed the court and confessed not to have killed Susan but he was ready to face the death row (Forensic Files, 2008). Phillip died of a heart attack at the age of 40 before he could serve the sentence. Even with such confessions, Susan’s family believed that Philip was responsible. Others were not sure because the situation of Susan’s death was different from the circumstances of the other three Philip had confessed to have murdered.
A great development might have been very significant in giving clues to the case in this episode. Today tools to document the criminal scene are easily accessible to the investigators. The 35mm cameras and programmed color film processing are not so expensive and can be availed to most people. With appropriate training, any law enforcement agency can comprehensively and appropriately document evidence in a timely way (Siegel & Mirakovits, 2015) . Documentation of the crime area reserves the evidence on the scene visually so that it can be given to attorneys or adjudicators even several years after the crime has been done. When the police investigators were denied the warrant to take the DNA of the suspect, they could have used the photographs of the crime scene to convince the jury.
In last two decades, video cameras have also been utilized in the documentation of the crime scene. The video offers a distinct perspective that accompanies the photos from the crime scene. Videos are another lasting, archival technique for documenting a crime scene. In the future, foreign scientists will benefit form a widespread utilization of photography and videography as technology advances (Bright & Petricevic, 2018) . Ultimately, the utilization of film will essentially be substituted with high resolution, inexpensive digital technology. Presently or even at the time the event in the case occurred, inexpensive digital resolution cannot compare with the cheap high resolution of 25-100 ISO film.
Scrutiny of the evidence to get the leads
The evidence as collected and analyzed by the forensic anthropologists who are deemed expert witnesses are presented to judges and adjudicators for the determination of the cases. Forensic scientists help to solve crimes from rape, murderer and assault as it is occurring in the scenario of this campus. Daniel Woloson was sentenced for committing first degree murder. Almost two decade years, a new DNA process called PCR made it possible to test the small biological sample of the Susan Schumake further and give some clues whereas in the past, large samples were needed. The experts analyzed the biological autopsy, which were taken for Susan, and they were able to identify the DNA profile of the killer. The homicide investigator could now figure out who killed Susan. At this moment, John Phillip’s DNA sample was not on file. Therefore, the experts took the extraordinary step of requesting state to exhume his body (Siegel & Mirakovits, 2015) . A DNA sample was taken from Phillip’s bone marrow; it did not match the sample from the crime scene. The DNA sample that was unraveled from the victim did not any of the states’ offenders.
Again, the police resorted to trace Daniel Woloson, who had run because of the questioning of the police, as a fresh suspect. Woloson refused to cooperate this time round claiming that he had given his hair sample from the original investigation. The hair was available but they could not be used to establish the DNA profile. Investigators decided to use an unconventional method to get Woloson’s DNA. Michigan police department decided they take his DNA in a legal manner. The police decided to trace him in his work place, which was so difficult. They later learnt that he had recently sold his car and that Woloson smokes cigarettes. They traced so much cigarettes on the side of the car and at least one was Daniel Woloson’s. They gave the evidence to DNA analyst, Jenifer Andrew. Andrew cut the cigarettes filter one by one to get the evidence of DNA. Gowrishankar and Nandineni (2016) established that saliva and skin cells deposited on the cigarette filters are often a good source to establish DNA. Samples were treated with a solvent that separates the DNA. A profile was generated from to establish Daniel’s Woloson DNA profile. Profile was sent to Illinois for comparison with the 20 year old genetic material left at Susan Schumake’s murder scene and it matched Daniel Woloson. Woloson was arrested and was forced to produce another sample of DNA. This confirmed that he was the person whose DNA was found on Susan’s murder scene.
The forensic scientists missed out an opportunity to get to the offender of that grisly crime. For instance, an analysis of the stab wounds may show whether the wound is because of murder or recklessness. Bite marks are significant in 8 out of 10 sexual attacks and several homicides in the United States (Gowrishankar & Nandineni, 2016) . The forensic scientists could have traced any of the teeth marks and matched them to the suspect’s teeth to establish whether they were responsible. In the contemporary times, there is a new animated technique of creating 3D recreations of marks in the body to so that it is precisely established. Forensic scientists could have also been involved in examining the semen stains to get to the suspect. Currently, a washing machine sieves out forensic evidence from the ground. Therefore, the crime scene could be a great place to gather evidence.
The police investigator who questioned Daniel Woloson before he was incarcerated may also have done a similar thing all these years. This trick could have worked at the initial time Woloson was being suspected. Criminal profilers today effectively attempt to get through the minds of villain killers to trick them in confessing the truth (Siegel & Mirakovits, 2015) . In fact, the police investigators could have not spared the suspect at the point when he escaped, as this was a suspicious move.
DNA profiling has undergone revolution and the case could better be improved today that it could happen sometimes back. It is now overriding the ancient fingerprint matching. The forensic scientist could utilize DNA fingerprinting rigorously in criminal investigations. Several people have been matched to crimes since 1995 through their DNA profiles (Verma, 2015). For instance, in this case reflected in Smoking out a killer, for the suspect to have attacked, raped and murdered Susan who was the victim, he must have left many fingerprints that could be utilized for investigation. The fingerprints on the victim’s body and clothes would have been matched with the suspects to unravel the perpetrator.
The forensic scientists extract a single from either blood, semen, hair, saliva or tissue cells. This is analyzed in the lab to obtain a characteristic fingerprint, or sequence of repetition, for some bits of non-coding recurring DNA. The results are then matched with DNA profiles available in the databases. Any match of the sample is probably from the perpetrator or a relative of the person (Gowrishankar & Nandineni, 2016) . Therefore, the fingerprints that the perpetrator left of Susan’s body could have been instrumental in giving the police some clues. Presently, forensic experts can date DNA samples to identify the time that the crime occurred. For instance, in the case, Daniel Woloson would have been implicated on these grounds. The police would have established the place he was when the crime was being done. Forensic scientists have to conscious of contaminating the evidence. So many unsolved crimes have not been solved yet because of contaminations. However, forensic scientists may employ a new supersensitive technique of computer analysis to work through these contaminations.
Conclusion
Forensic anthropologists are play a critical role in helping to improve forensic science methods and technologies. After almost 20 years, the input forensic scientists helped in bringing justice to families that had experienced loss of a loved one in a dreadful attack. These practitioners harmonize their efforts to come up with conclusions from evidence, majorly by using their knowledge of DNA profiling to understand and guide a case or subject at hand. The major focus of a forensic anthropologist is to facilitate the processing of the crime scene, examination and processing of the remains, establishment of the biological profile, offering proper documentation of their conclusions, and appearing before the court of law on this. The determination of the DNA profiling from the crime scene and that of the perpetrator is what gave the law enforcement agencies precise solutions that led to the incarceration of the criminal.
References
Bright, J. A., & Petricevic, S. F. (2018). Erratum to “Recovery of trace DNA and its application to DNA profiling of insoles”[Forensic Sci Int 145 (1)(2004) 7–12]. Forensic science international .
"Forensic Files" Smoking Out a Killer (Episode 12) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBVRtiJt-n4
Gowrishankar, J., & Nandineni, M. R. (2016). Forensic science: Why India is rooting for its DNA identification Act. logy , 29.
Siegel, J. A., & Mirakovits, K. (2015). Forensic science: the basics . CRC Press.
Verma, S. (2015). Emerging technologies and their applications in the Indian criminal justice system with special reference to DNA profiling narco analysis and polygraph test an appraisal .
