|
Rod Englert
Crime Scenes: How We Can Tell What Isn't So
By Heather Lamson
Associate Features Editor
FILE PHOTO
|
Crime Scene Analyst Rod Englert began his lecture giving the audience several means by which to understand how much crime costs the United States, in excess of $400 billion dollars a year. “If you were allowed to spend what crime is costing us at $10 million a day, you could not do it in your lifetime. It would take 109 years,” he said, then quipped, “but my wife could do it.”
For the rest of his lecture, Englert described several cases, showing photographs of actual evidence and displays created for juries. The goal of the lecture, rather than to inform, was to include the audience in the crime-solving process. Englert was highly complimentary of the audience, repeating several times, “More minds working together are smarter than one mind working alone.” Though usually armed with the minds of many professionals and experts, Englert this time invited the audience to use “common sense” to understand the cases he presented.
”A lot of times all we see is the tip of the iceberg. ـWe never look underneath. Today I’m going to take you to the underside,” he said. “Any criminal is vulnerable to an intelligent investigation. We often overlook and miss the subtle.”
Englert returned often to his specialty, showing how blood spatter interpretation helped to solve two rape and murder cases, as well as the O.J. Simpson case (for which he was a consultant), despite the lack of a conviction. Asked how confident he is of Simpson’s guilt, Englert said that he is “one hundred percent confident. There is absolutely no doubt. Not a doubt.”
Englert also presented evidence for the audience’s perusal of the “Green Thread Mystery” in New Albany, Ind. In this case, Eric Humberg was reported missing in January 1992. However, three months later his vehicle was found with blood stains in peculiar patterns both inside the car and in the engine. A bullet hole was in the front of the car, and fragments of a bullet were still lodged in the engine. In addition, pulverized green threads were found dispersed throughout the engine and interior. The prosecution was given the task of proving Humberg was dead (since no body has ever been found,) how he was killed and who committed the murder based on nine pieces of physical evidence. The primary suspect had given the police a laughable story upon the discovery of the car: there had been a struggle, and Humberg had accidentally cut his own throat. Englert took suggestions from the audience as to what really happened, and the audience guessed right: Humberg had been shot while wearing a green snow hat, dispersing green thread everywhere. The prosecution proved that he was dead although there was no body by analyzing the tissue found, proved to be brain tissue. The killer was convicted in 40 minutes. “And today,” Englert said, “if Eric Humberg walks into this auditorium, it’s my last case and my last lecture. But he won’t. He’s dead.”
During the question and answer period, Englert was asked his opinion of the Chandra Levy case. “I’m not involved in the Chandra Levy case,” he said, “although I have a knowledge of it. But that’s one that’s so touchy right now, that’s one that I’m not going to talk about. Is that okay? It is
touchy, let me tell you there have been lawsuits over statements that have been made, and, ah, your idea of what happened is correct.”
Another question posed was whether all the money spent on crime detection is worth it. “Yes it is, and it becomes very, very valuable if a member of your family or a friend becomes involved in a crime and you become intimate with it, and you appreciate how much [it matters] that people are working together and developing new techniques to be able to solve that particular crime. Yes it is worth it.”
|
