“Areas of void” is a term I first became familiar with while learning how to interpret bloodstain patterns. In that context, it meant that if there was an area where there was no blood when the pattern was made where there should have been, something had been there to block the blood from its expected path.

For instance, in the case of blood spatter, it may mean the expected trajectory of the blood was actually blocked by the attacker’s silhouette, a piece of furniture or the corner of a wall. So “areas of void” are basically what isn’t there that should be.

Sometimes in investigations what is not present is more important than what is. For instance, in the case of a homicide, if while looking around a room a detective notices a picture frame missing because of the dust patterns, that is very significant. What picture belonged there? Why did the killer take it? That picture or photograph was important to the killer. Was it taken as a souvenir in order to relive the murder or was the murderer actually in the photograph?

Another “area of void” in a homicide investigation is when the murder victim’s face is covered with a pillow, towel, or blanket. In this case my use of “area of void” refers to what cannot be seen on the victim, which is the face. This is significant because the killer probably knew the victim and does not want the victim “staring” or “looking” at them. It may also be a “de-personalizing” or “de-humanizing” of the victim depending what else is at the scene.

In interviewing people many times an investigator finds “areas of void.” Interviewers can sometimes learn as much from what is not said as what is said. The basic premise in communications during an interview is that an easy straightforward question deserves an equally easy straightforward answer. Anything other than an easy answer to a straightforward question is significant. It could mean that a person is trying to be deceptive.

For instance, if I asked a person if he is from Ohio, it is an easy specific question deserving a “Yes” or “No.” The person instead replies, “Man, I wouldn’t be caught dead in Ohio.” Has the person answered the question? No, even though it sounds like they have.

That person wants you to believe they are not from Ohio, but they have not committed to an answer and they have not “lied” if they are actually from Ohio.

A good interviewer will follow up and again ask if the person was from Ohio. “Man, I just told you.” That is strike 2. The person still has not answered the question.

The good interviewer will again ask, another way, by politely saying, “Well no, you really haven’t answered the question for me. Are you from Ohio?” If the answer is anything other than yes or no, that would constitute strike 3 for the answer.

The interviewer can assume that the person being interviewed is sensitive or deceptive about that question. One answer like that does not make a liar, but the interviewer should note the sensitivity to the question and try to explain it during the interview or look for more deceptive clues.

Not to pick on politicians, but many times they “answer” easy straightforward questions with rambling dissertations that do not really answer the question. This is a verbal “area of void.” What should be expected, namely a straight-forward answer, is blocked by a barrage of meaningless qualifiers and non-answers.

Sharp interviewers with captive audiences -- like live television interviews -- will pick up on the lack of an answer and again ask the question until they get an answer or the politician gets irritated and has effectively answered the question with a non-answer.

Many cases have been solved by detectives looking at crime scene photographs spread out on a counter or on their computer screen. Sometimes when an investigator takes a step back from a case, sips a coffee and goes over crime scene photographs in a relaxed atmosphere these “areas of void” clues just pop out and suddenly a scene makes perfect sense.

One case that was solved in such a way involved a victim who claimed being attacked in a fifth-floor locked room, while security was posted outside. While looking at the photographs, investigators found that undisturbed areas (areas of void if you will) of the crime scene proved that the “victim” had fabricated the attack.

Lock it up, don’t leave it unattended, be aware and watch out for your neighbors -- if you follow these tips hopefully you won’t find an “area of void” where your laptop/wallet/electronic equipment/jewelry/valuables should have been.

Rich Kinsey is a retired Ann Arbor police detective sergeant who now blogs about crime and safety for AnnArbor.com. He also serves as the Crime Stoppers coordinator for Washtenaw County.