4th Annual Cold Case Conference Wrap-Up

The 4th annual American Investigative Society of Cold Cases conference was once again a tremendous success, with guest speakers, all AISOCC members, and cold case experts from various disciplines. That is what makes AISOCC successful in solving the unsolved: we look at it from a multitude of lenses.

AISOCC President and Founder, Detective Kenneth L. Mains got the conference started with a passionate plea to the audience to remember the victims of these murders and not the people that took their lives.

AISOCC guest speaker Silvia Pettem (author/researcher) presented on her incredible successful search for the “Jane Does” of Colorado.

Dr. John Liebert (Psychologist) gave a psychological clinic on the Green River killings and the Atlanta child murders.

Suzanna Ryan (Forensic Scientist) presented to the audience the down-to-earth facts about DNA and the new technologies available to help police solve unsolved homicides.

Dr. Laura Pettler and Dr. Katherine Ramsland teamed up to talk about conflict resolution and psychological aspects behind sexually motivated equivocal deaths.

Joe Kennedy (Investigator) gave homicide investigators something to think about when he applied his cold case methodology to actual cold cases.

Of course, last but not least our keynote speaker was Dr. Werner Spitz (Forensic Pathologist). Even at the age of 90, his passion and vigor for solving cold cases is evident in every word he speaks.

Once again, the conference was a great success and a special thank you to Dr. Jean Curtit and Dr. Dan Robb for their unselfish dedication to making sure the conference once again, ran smooth.

Kenneth L. Mains Presenting Certificate of Appreciation to Suzanna Ryan

Mains presenting Certificate of Appreciation to Dr. Werner Spitz

Mains presenting Certification of Appreciation to Jared Bradley of M-Vac.

< Prev

Forensic Podiatry (Part Two of Two)

THE DISCIPLINE of forensic podiatry—or, in other words, the examination of pedal evidence—has progressed significantly over the past ten years. It is no longer a question of “What can you do with a footprint?” but rather, “Who can we use to evaluate the footprint?” Cases involving pedal evidence, especially bloody footprints and issues of determining shoe sizing or fit issues compared to questioned footwear, have become more common over the past two or three years.