Forensic Anthropology: Case Study

Details of the Case

In 2010, the police discovered the body of a 46-year-old mother who had been murdered. The body was later identified as belonging to one Deborah Applegate from Montgomery County. She had three children and was also disabled. The killer burned her body and left it in a wooden area to destroy evidence. Mrs. Applegate disappeared on the 5th of April 2010 and no one could trace her. She failed to appear in court to determine a case impacting her social security, which led to curiosity of her whereabouts among those closest to her. A man named Robert Hinton became an immediate suspect in this gruesome murder following a witness account of the presence of Mrs. Applegate at his residence (Houston, 2012). The witness said that Hinton stabbed the victim; hit her with a hammer (to the point of its being flat) and put her body in a garbage can. The witness further told the police that Mr. Hinton had proceeded to burn the remains of the body and even led them to the wooded area in which all of this took place. The investigators enlisted the help of Joan Bytheway who is a Forensic Anthropologist. The rationale was to verify the witness statement and find forensic evidence that would lead to a conviction. Most of the evidence could not be studied because of the burning, which meant forensic science was the only way to ascertain the witness account (Houston, 2012). The case also lacked an intention since investigators could not find any connection between Hinton and Applegate. They could not find motive and needed proof to verify the story brought forth by the witness. Through forensic anthropology, the investigators were able to find evidence to support the witness account and use it to find both a confession and conviction. The case is important because it sheds light on the role of anthropological evidence in burned victims. It set precedence in Montgomery County that begun employing more of such evidence in convictions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Forensic Evidence

Joan Bytheway is the head of the Applied Forensic Science Facility in Texas whose help was enlisted by the investigators in Montgomery County. She reconstructed all the bones recovered from the scene to formulate a skeleton that she studied for evidence. Her results indicated that the marks on the skull were consistent with blunt force trauma. She concluded that someone had bludgeoned the victim repeatedly by use of a deadly weapon. Further examination of the skull showcased that the weapon was most likely a hammer. There was a mark on it that illustrated that a tool of similar nature was one of the murder weapons used. Bytheway also confirmed that the bones reveal the victim had died before being set on fire. Her cause of death was not the fire in itself but the slitting of her throat and force to her head. The nature of the bones also indicated evidence consistent with the theory that the victim had been placed in garbage can prior to being burned and disposed. The rationale was the position in which the victim was placed in the garbage can before the killer tightly shut it. It caused some damage that affected the condition of the bones recovered from the crime scene. Joan Bytheway also asserted that the victim had been dead for at least a month, which was aligned to the witness account of the period of death. Lastly, the skull showcased a missing piece that was triangular in shape. If the victim had actually died in the fire or been burned at the time of death, the piece would have remained intact in the skull. Therefore, all the evidence presented by the forensic anthropologist coincided with what the witness said about this case.

Methods Used

The methods in this case were morphological in nature because they studied the remains of the bones and the changes in their structures when exposed to certain variations in the environment such as temperature (heat). Joan Bytheway studied burn patterns to decipher the evidence introduced to investigators. The patterns of burns on the bones provided a clear picture of the role that the fire played in this murder. The anthropologist and her team of students used gross observations and colored sketches to reveal the patterns on the bones that support the evidence. In this case, they placed the bones under microscopic examination and also keenly observed the colors they showcased. They used the concept of calcination to determine whether the body was burned before or after the murder (Steadman, 2015). The colors revealed that no burns happened to the point of calcination, which illustrates the presence of inorganic matter. In this case, some of the bones revealed discoloring and had no organic matter on them. Gross observation also highlighted the inconsistencies of the bone patterns when placed under extreme heat. The coloring similarly showcased decomposition elements in the bones and helped in determine what the patterns said.

The X-ray of the skull and a study of its fragmentation was a method used to highlight the cause of death. The skull was placed under magnified view to find any marks that would indicate the presence of trauma. Any force to the head would most likely leave a fragment on the skull' especially if it was strong enough to cause the death of an individual. The skull would have marks that could be apparent after an X-ray or even mere observation in some instances. In this case, both gross observation and an X-ray showcased the presence of marks consistent with those from a blunt took.

Recovery and reconstruction of the skeleton was very helpful in determining the events that took place before and after the death of the victim (Reinhard et al, 2013). The investigators worked closely with the anthropologist to present all the bones that were recovered from the scene. She then placed them in a pattern that reconstructed the skeleton and studied the inconsistencies with healthy bones to determine force, heat exposure, and damage. The reconstruction of the skull showcased that one triangular piece was not present and posed as additional evidence of what happened.

All these methods are quite common today even though the study of burn patterns is used selectively. Even so, it is quite common in arson cases because it helps to establish aspects such as the timing of the events. Most of the methods used in this case such as reconstructing, gross observation, studying coloration, and X-rays are also very widely applicable in criminal cases (Banks, 2017). They are quite accurate in determine the scope of events since they are easily interpreted when placed in context.

Interpretation

The coloring of the bones indicated that the victim had been killed and left to decompose for a considerable period (estimated at two weeks). She was then moved to the woods and burned. The rationale is that the bones did not look fresh. Freshly burned bones would have been whitish in color as opposed to being discolored when explored to immense heat. The same could be interpreted as the body having decomposed before it was subjected to the burning. The position was aligned with the witness account of the body being burned in the woods slightly more than a month after the murder. The interpretation is also consistent with the fact that the accuser's ex-wife told him to clean the backyard because something was very "smelly" just two weeks after the disappearance of the victim. Therefore, Hinton killed the woman, stuffed her in a garbage can, and placed it in his backyard for a while before moving and burning the remains in the woods.

The lack of the triangular piece in the skull upon reconstruction also showcased that the accused tampered with this part before burning the victim. Bytheway interpreted this as the triangular piece having been displaced as a result of the blunt force trauma. The tool marks on the skull demonstrated that the victim had been hammered to death. The marks were quite similar to those of a hammer as the blunt object.

The evidence from coloration, shape, and position of the bones after being exposed to heat showcased being placed in a tightly shut space and then burned.

There were no counterarguments in this case since the evidence was straightforward and prompted the accused to confess. However, other methods of analysis using technology should be employed in future cases. Technology can place more emphasis on the evidentiary elements of a case as opposed to concentrating on the story. Nonetheless, the evidence from this case was quite convincing because it was an exact match of the witness testimony. It corroborated the story in place to the latter and left no questions or doubts.

Impact of the Evidence on the Case and Broadly

The evidence on this case was quite straightforward but it had an invaluable impact on the confession and conviction. It strengthened the witness testimony since every detail matched the story provided. Therefore, even without the presence of DNA evidence (due to the burning), the investigators would be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hinton had committed this murder. The evidence also made him confess to the murder since the investigators described everything in avid detail. Seeing as he was cornered, he confessed with the hope of acquiring a deal.

On a broader spectrum, this evidence can be impactful on how investigators can determine the cause of death and find evidence when a victim has been exposed to immense heat. Most cases that involve burning of evidence are difficult to prosecute because of the many inconsistencies that emerge due to the loss of bones, distorted structures, and lack of DNA (Dirkmaat, 2014). The case showcases that using bone patterns and aspects like their coloring, the prosecution can still built a strong case when an individual is guilty. Most killers think of burning evidence as the first part of hiding their crime and make it difficult to prosecute them. Even so, with mere fragments of the bones, forensic anthropologists can paint a clear picture of what happened and meet the burden of proof. The results of this case were presented to the American Academy of Forensic Science and will be used in studies for the future.

The mistake made from this case was to fail to examine the texture of the tissues found in the bones. Texture is also an important component that can provide stronger evidence over what took place. The anthropologist concentrated on burn patterns and discoloration and failed to mention anything about the texture. For instance, bones that have been exposed to a certain degree of heat for a long time have a different texture.

Conclusion

All in all, the case and evidence managed to reassure the community of the power that lies in anthropological evidence.

References

Banks, P. (2017). Skeletal Blast Trauma: An Application of Clinical Literature and Current Methods in Forensic Anthropology to Known Blast Trauma Casualties. Mississippi State University.

Dirkmaat, D. (Ed.). (2014). A companion to forensic anthropology. John Wiley & Sons.

Reinhard, K. J., Welner, M., Okoye, M. I., Marotta, M., Plank, G., Anderson, B., & Mastellon, T. (2013). Applying forensic anthropological data in homicide investigation to the depravity standard. Journal of forensic and legal medicine, 20(1), 27-39.

Steadman, D. W. (Ed.). (2015). Hard evidence: case studies in forensic anthropology. Routledge.

Houston, S., & State University. (n.d.). Forensic Science Professor Solves Murder Mystery. Retrieved from http://www.shsu.edu/~pin_www/T@S/2012/murdersolved.html