Crime Scene Investigation: Case Closed?

We believed that Jet Trong was a drug dealer for Sandra O’Connor (explains his fingerprint, which would have been found on a bag of drugs), who was a homeless drug addict. The sneakers were found on her, because she needed good outdoor shoes for living in the woods. Lucas Moore was walking his dog (explains the dog hair found on scene) out in a wooded area & came across Sandra doing cocaine (the liquid tested positive for cocaine) so he decided to inject with her (explains the syringe/needle.) Sandra overdosed on the cocaine & dies right on the scene. Lucas was afraid of being caught with cocaine so he wrote a fake suicide note pretending to be Sandra, saying “Please forgive me! I love you all.” And walked away (explains shoe walking away from crime scene) The body was left for so long that it started to decay & when someone found it, it was already infested with maggots. 

The breaking point of our investigation was when we tested the liquid to be cocaine positive, because it gave good reason for Jet & Sandra to be involved. Sandra was a drug addict after all, which explains the OD!

Crime Scene Investigation: Suspects

There were 10 suspects:

Of these 10, 5 were relevant to our specific case & 1 animal was relevant to our case:

Same handwriting from note!

Same fingerprint as on scene!

Same fingerprint as on scene/drugs?

Same fingerprint as on scene!

Same fingerprint as on scene/drugs?

Dog hair found on scene!

Crime Scene Investigation: Exhibits

exh #1

additional print found on glass

Crime Scene Investigation: Intro

For the final project of the forensics unit, we were given a "crime scene" with different evidences, clues, & suspects of a crime. Our job was to test & analyze the different things that were given to us & create a story of what happened, who died, & who was the killer. Each exhibit given to us was something to help us solve the case; we had 11 exhibits to work with & 10 suspects, with 2 animals.

Testing: Drug Analysis

For this experiment, we were given simulated drugs & three different drug reagent testers for cocaine, LDS & meth. Six “drugs” were set up & in groups of four, we tested them with the reagents for LSD, meth or cocaine. We also tested the pH of each drug for further analysis.

Drug 1- cocaine positive & LSD negative with pH of 6

Drug 2- cocaine positive & LSD negative with pH of 9

Drug 3- cocaine negative & LSD positive with pH of 3

Drug 4- cocaine positive & LSD negative with pH of 7

Drug 5- cocaine negative & LSD positive with pH of 6

Drug 6- cocaine negative & LSD positive with pH of 5

photo curtsey of Casey Wenner

Testing: Footprinting

In this experiment, each group of 4 went outside & collected a bin full of dirt. (Near a wetland) Each person stepped one of their shoes into the dirt, laying a footprint. We analyzed each person's footprint, recording important characteristics, the temperature outside, the wind strength, the substance it was found in ect. On each sheet, is a separate person's footprint along with the analysis that goes with that footprint.

Testing: Creating a Profile

For this class experiment, each person (group of four) cut out a face from  a magazine, of relatively the same size. We cut the eyes, nose, lips & hair apart from each face then scrambled them. We had to remake the original faces with the different features. This taught us that each individual feature of a person's face is important in witnessing a crime.





photo curtsey of: Katharine Frazier 

Testing: Lip Print Analysis

In class, each student applied some from of lip gloss or lip stick (boys included!). We each kissed a blank white notecard, leaving our "lip prints." We had to analyze distinct features of our lip prints such as certain lines, shape overall, cupid bow shape, ect. Later, in groups of four, each student again placed their lip print on one sheet of paper. We placed our originals with the sheet of all four prints & switched groups. We had to guess whose lip prints belonged to who, depending on their features that were analyzed. Our group had success & so did the group that had to guess ours!

Handwriting Analysis: Template Reflection

  Steps/process of your check forgery: I checked the spacing of the words & letters first. That's normally the most obvious difference on the freehand forgery. Then I looked at individual letters. I checked the dots of the i's & the crosses of the t's ect. I looked at whether or not the letters were suppose to be opened or closed letters & compared to the original. 

 Did you and your group identify the proper person/persons who did the forgeries? 

Although it was slightly difficult, we did manage to identify whose writing belonged to who. The size of the writing & spacing were big factors to helping me figure out the writing. 

                

Which characteristics were the most distinguishing in your analysis?) I believe it was spacing, size, & little details of each letter. Spacing was very different from the original to the forgery & so was the size of the writing. Many people marked their i's in a distinct way or crossed their t's slanted specifically. 

Handwriting Analysis: Template

The freehand forgery is less fluid & less spaced. The original is more smooth topped & the forged is sharper letters. The cursive in the original is taller & more looped than the forged.

The traced forgery is closer to the original. Some letters are less slanted than the original. The a on the original is an open letter, while the forger traced it as a closed a.

Overall, you would have to compare the original handwriting to that of the forger to notice any extreme differences on the traced forgery. The freehand is similar to the original, but different enough to notice it's not the same individual's writing.

I believe traced forgery is more accurate & easy. Freehand requires a lot of time to figure out spacing & each letter needs specific work. Tracing is quicker & seems to be more effective.

Handwriting Analysis: Characteristics

1. Spacing between letters & words

2. Distinct markings (crossing z's or 7's, ect)

3. Looped letters (t's, y's, d's, ect.)

4. Smoothed tops (m's, n's ect.)

5. Slanted letters or lines



6. Sharp letters










7. No 'tails' / long 'tails'

8. Distinct letters

9. Long letters

10. Size of writing

11. Dragged marks (dots for i's & j's, ect.)

12. Open or closed letters (o's, d's, g's, ect.)

Handwriting Analysis: History

• Handwriting analysis dates back as far as the 1600s, when people started to notice the distinctness between the writing & their handwriting 
• In 1873, Hypolite Michon & Jules Crepieux-Jamin developed the School of Isolated Signs, in attempt to relate specific traits to handwriting
• In 1910, Milton Newman Bunker (a teacher) was curious about the spacing in his letters compared to the way other people wrote
• He found the shapes & formations of individual specific letters was unique to each person's handwriting
• With his curiosity, handwriting analysis was born

Hair/Fiber: Notable Case

In 1994, a woman was murdered with what seemed to be no traces of a killer. However, the only thing found on her was a few pieces of cat hair. The cat hair was analyzed and matched up to a Canadian man's cat. The woman's body was found in a shallow grave a few months after she disappeared & the police suspected her former husband. The cat hairs were found on a jacket stuffed into a plastic bag in the woods & they matched Stepehn J. O'Brien. This was one of the few cases in history where a person was convicted of murder on something other than human hair.

Hair/Fiber: Reliability

• The hair from a human head has odds of 4500 to 12 from coming from the same person, which is .0022%
• Fibers are different, as there are many different fibers in existence 
• It depends on how 'rare' that fiber is or how much is found
• Fibers are very common on the crime scene, found on the victim, their clothes, their fingernails, ect.
• As they're so common, it can be difficult to find & test all fibers from a scene 

Hair/Fiber: Uses

Scientist use the hairs to determine the race of the person (if it's a person; animal hair can be identified as well) while the gender and age are still undetermined. The fibers can be analyzed and compared to fibers taken from possible suspects can be helpful in finding the criminal. Fibers are compared to things such as suspects car interior, carpets, clothing, ect.

Hair/Fiber: Collection

Hairs & fibers are collected on the scene using various vials, tubes, & grip seal to avoid cross contamination.

Under the victim's fingernails are scraped out, as they tend to carry lots of hairs & fibers (especially if there was some sort of struggle)

The victim's clothes are searched for hair & fibers that may have transferred during physical contact with their killer.

Major Types of Fiber

• Cotton-Appears as DNA-shaped fibers under a microscope

• Polyester-Appears in rod shaped pieces under the microscope

• Nylon-Apears as smooth, clear under microscope

• Wool-Appears scaly/wiry

• Silk-appears double stranded/smooth & shiny