Microclimate Study Done by: Wang Xiang Yu Sun Tian Ze Thio Leng Kiat Zhao Xing Yu.
Done by: Group 16 Ong Jie Hao(20) Lim Jingkai(15) Dickson Lim(14) Thio Teng Kiat(26)
-
Upload
octavia-powers -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Done by: Group 16 Ong Jie Hao(20) Lim Jingkai(15) Dickson Lim(14) Thio Teng Kiat(26)
MURDER MOST FOUL
Done by: Group 16
Ong Jie Hao(20)
Lim Jingkai(15)
Dickson Lim(14)
Thio Teng Kiat(26)
Introduction
Solving the crime Evidence The Verdict Reflections
Solving the crime Most difficult task: To find a link from the various
evidences
Easiest task: The lab work where the evidences were identified and analyzed
Task Worked: Looking from different perspectives and identifying reliable statements
Did not work: Questioning the same suspects Suspects would lie and not tell the truth. The leads would get us nowhere.
Media The media: Aims
To earn profitsTo be the first to publish Increase profits (Sensationalize stories)
○ Readers like to read exciting newsInterest/attract readers
○ Fabricate facts
Media Source:Not helpfulMisleading information (Lead us off-track)Unreliable
What we learnt Able to identify false and true testimonies
Able to find links based on evidence
Able to find flaws in information
Able to source out useful information from others
Fingerprints Fingerprints look similar to the naked eye
It would be more accurate if more matches can be found
Avoid prosecuting the wrong person and letting the guilty escaping
8 matches are required to be submitted as evidence
CSI Dramatic forensic science
According to CSI, evidence is perfect and easily identifiable
In reality, according to Locard’s Principle, evidence is contaminated and may even contain traces of people who have no link to the crime but have been in contact with it
CSI It aims to attract viewers to the show to increase
profits
Does not showcase authentic forensic science such as the procedure and tools
CSI cannot be trusted completely
CSI movies only require a few fingerprints to prove the suspect guilty but however, in the real case, investigators require 8 matches in Australia to prove guilty.
Lip Print Classification System
Classification system for lip print is similar to a fingerprint’s
Able to identify corresponding points on lipsSuch as forks line and vertical lines
Must have a minimum number of matches
Proving and Knowing Difference: Proving requires evidence Example: We knew that Jack Smith was the
murderer Needed evidence such as DNA matches in order
to prove him guilty Peter Hamilton was alleged to be at the crime
scene But needed concrete evidence to prove.
The Verdict Suspects:
Jack SmithPeter HamiltonRobyn JonesJane Liu
Crimes committed: Murder Making false statements Assisting in the crime
The Verdict Jack Smith
Accused of murder of John Lee.Fingerprint found on cartridgeConfession of Robyn: Jack was at the crime scene.Janet Perry witnessed Jack with Peter.Blood found at evidence F04 belonged to JackHe should not be treated leniently as it is a deliberate
act (planned)
The Verdict Peter Hamilton
Providing firearms to Jack for committing murderAssisted Jack in the crimeMaking false statementsDNA found in footprints on garden bed Witness statement:
○ John was on bad terms with Peter.○ Had an argument with John before crime was
committed at Robert Isles’s house.He should not be treated leniently as it is a deliberate
act (planned)
The Verdict Robyn Jones
Crime: False statements, DrugsHair was foundDNA on cup was found Tests showed under alcohol influence.Should be treated leniently as she was under the
influence of alcohol.
The Verdict Jane Liu
Crime: False statementsConfessed to being at crime sceneGave false statements to police
Reconstructed Death of John Lee Due to several reasons
Failure to pay up $5000 debt to Peter.Possibly due to drug dealings.Resulted in argument at partyPeter asked Jack Smith along with himRobyn was with John, provided the location of JohnPeter and Jack went to ClassroomJack murdered John.
Robert Isles: The Verdict
Guilty: Drug intakes Found to be on drugs through tests. Not guilty: Making false statements Found to be on drugs and drunk, not in a
clear state of mind Could not recollect scene clearly Not guilty: Assisting in the murder Were on drugs, was not sound, could not
have known about murder intent.
The Verdict If I were the judge, I would have felt that the
suspects are guilty.
There were sufficient evidence to prove that they were at the scene when the murder happened
However, there was not sufficient evidence of Jane or Robyn providing assistance to the crime.
Below are the given verdicts
The Verdict Jack Smith: Sentenced to life imprisonment for
murder charges of 1st degree murder, and intentionally committed the crime.Under the law, murder carries life imprisonment.Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973, Section 3“A person is not liable to the punishment of death for any
offence".
Peter Hamilton: Sentenced to life imprisonment for drug trafficking, assisted/staged the 1st degree murder, making false statements.Drug Trafficking includes life imprisonment under the
context of the Law.
The Verdict Robyn Jones: Sentenced to 10 years
imprisonment, fined $30,000 for making false statements and taking drugs under the influence of alcohol (more lenient).
Jane Liu: Given a court warning, fined $5000. Could not be convicted of assisting in the crime due to lack of evidence. (Oral sources only)
Reflections Phrase questions and sentences more
accurately and precisely Thinking out of the box (riddles) Teamwork Problem solving skills Looking from different perspectives Reconstructing scenes Analytical skills Learnt forensic procedures
THANK YOU
Any questions
?