Kelly Pyrek reviews Voice for the Dead in Web Mystery Magazine, Summer 2005

A Voice for the Dead:
A Forensic Investigator’s Pursuit of the Truth in the Grave
by James E. Starrs with Katherine Ramsland
reviewed by Kelly Pyrek

Glowing back-of-jacket endorsements by renowned forensic professionals Henry C. Lee, Michael Baden, and Cyril Wecht create high expectations for the readers of A Voice for the Dead: A Forensic Investigator’s Pursuit of the Truth in the Grave by James E. Starrs with Katherine Ramsland. These expectations may or may not be met, depending upon one’s tolerance for a slightly chatty narrative style. If the reader is not easily distracted by the author's small forays into personal anecdotes, Voice is a fascinating exploration of the exacting science of exhumation and the search for the truth behind suspicious deaths. Starrs is no slouch; he is a professor of forensic science at George Washington University and a distinguished fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Science. He also is the co-author of the respected text Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases.

Because Starrs presumes his readers possess the most elementary understanding of the concept of exhumation and does not address the basics, a quick primer for the purpose of this review may be in order. The word “exhumation” comes from Latin words “ex” meaning “out of” and “humus” meaning “ground.” In the simplest terms, exhumation refers to the removal from the ground of an interred body or cremated human remains. It also addresses the disturbance of remains within a grave, particularly when a grave is re-opened for burial. Exhumations are driven by both criminal-related and/or civil-related issues that need resolution. Criminal-related reasons include establishing the cause of death or retrieving some kind of trace forensic evidence that may reveal new information on the case, such as retrieving a bullet from the body if the individual were killed by a firearm. In civil-related cases, exhumations provide identification of the deceased in order to settle disputes relating to fraud or the settling of inheritances, or establishing generational disease patterns. Exhumations are also required when graveyards are moved because of new development, or when bodies are moved for reburial, such as in times of war.

Part archeology, part forensic science, the act of exhumation is still shrouded in mystery for most laypersons who shrink from the thought of disturbing the dead from their final resting place. Starrs treats exhumations with great respect, acknowledging that they are events to be handled with kid gloves. He comments, “Exhumations, don’t you know, resemble parades. Both happen infrequently and both occur only as a very special event for a very special purpose. They differ in that the prominence of exhumations nowadays has far outpaced the appeal of parades.” Indeed, exhumations are hardly greeted with enthusiasm; many exhumations trigger a great deal of resistance from local, state or federal government authorities, or the decedent’s family members. There are occasions, however, when it is actually a decedent’s relatives who enjoin Starrs to jump into a political hotbed for the sake of investigating cold cases and giving a new voice to the dead. No matter if an exhumation is fought or welcomed, the very act of disturbing the dead can create a media frenzy, as Starrs so frequently documents in the cases he presents in Voice. He notes, “Like parades, there are good exhumations and there are bad exhumations, as viewed from the historical controversy surrounding them and the scientific values in conducting them. But regardless of their merit, exhumations, like parades, are spectacles, occasionally even extravaganzas, which captivate the public and become conversation pieces. But exhumations cannot be all high-flying batons and gaudy floats if they are to prove their scientific mettle.”

That Starrs elevates exhumations beyond the sensational “grave-robber” picture the public holds, is a credit to his academic background and scientific sensibilities. After all, exhumation is a serious tool of discovery for scientists intent on finding truth beneath the time-hardened layers of sand, silt and soil. Starrs writes, “The apparent voguishness of exhumations of late has failed to distinguish between exhumations that are justifiable and those that are not. Or, to put it in unvarnished terms, some exhumations are unwarranted while others are entirely proper and scientifically supportable. The rub lies in making the sometimes thinly lined distinction between exhumations for just cause and those that have no such legitimacy.” He continues, “I’ve seen some exhumations that are irresponsible attempts to disturb the dead for the sake of proving a harebrained theory, and I’ve seen others that are scientifically worthy. Some notable people die surrounded by legends and half-truths, making it legitimate to exhume their remains in an age where science can supply answers to the cause and manner of death, especially if the person has historical significance.”

Starrs shares his set of conditions for exhumations: there must be a significant dispute to which science can make a contribution; some type of new scientific method must be available that was not present at the time the issue to be resolved arose; and there must be more than a likelihood that the remains will be in sufficient condition to be analyzed. Armed with these criteria, Starrs is able to hold the line against unwarranted exhumations. He writes, “… the decision to exhume should not be a slapdash judgment without the seasoning of intense aboveground investigations and deliberations.” In Voice, Starrs reveals the extensive legwork required to conduct legal, formal exhumations, and the processes involved can be eye-opening – as are the hoops that must be jumped when faced with opposition, controversy, or sensationalism … or sometimes all three factors at the same time.

Starrs explains his burning passion for finding the truth. “The dead can have no voice, I have sometimes learned to my regret, unless they are fairly given the chance to speak,” Starrs writes. “I tremble at the thought and the knowledge that the dead can be denied this ‘last right’ by the cold, calculated, or curious attitudes of those who control the decision to grant such a last rite. The reasons the living present in opposition to hearing the voice of the dead are multifarious, some masking the true motives that the objectors dare not articulate openly. It is one thing to be forthright and admit to an unshakable resolve against disturbing the dead, although, being of a practical mind, I have never understood how people who are dead can be disturbed by an exhumation, except possibly through the emotional attachments of the living to the dead.” Starrs adds, “In all of my efforts in seeking to provide a voice for the dead, I have been guided by the words of Voltaire, who said, ‘We owe respect to the living; to the dead we owe only truth.’”

Conspiracy theories aside, Starrs examines a handful of the most celebrated, controversial and puzzling cases he has worked, including the “Colorado cannibal” Alfred Packer, the “Houdini of Western outlaws,” Jesse James, and strangling victim Mary A. Sullivan. Of Lesser known but equally intriguing is the story of Frank Olson, a government scientist who fell 13 stories to his death. Starrs also touches upon the deaths of ax-murderer Lizzie Borden and famed explorer Meriwether Lewis.

In each case, Starrs thoroughly lays out historical backgrounds, details specific to the mysteries surrounding each person’s untimely demise, and chronicles his team’s efforts to bring justice to light as they carefully unravel a tangled web of fact and fiction. So many questions have swirled around these individuals. Did Robert Ford betray and kill Jesse James with a shot to the back of his head? Was Mary Sullivan really the Boston Strangler’s final victim, and did Albert DeSalvo, reputed to be the Strangler, really commit those crimes? Did Olson jump, or was he pushed?

You will have to read the book to find out, and along the way, you will become convinced that, as Starrs argues, forensic science is superior to confession and eyewitness accounts in criminal cases, and that it is the most empirical and objective of all medico-legal methods of searching for and finding the truth.