Content

1. Content • Solving the crime • Evidence • Verdict • Reflections

2. 1st section – Process in solving the crime

3. Solving the crime • Most difficult task – Interrogation • Must be very calculative • Asking the right questions in a tactful manner. • Eg. When wanting to know why this person was at the crime scene, we cannot ask directly. • Must be aware of context and personality • Eg. Cleaner and Peter Hamilton.

4. Solving the crime • Must be aware of context and personality • Eg. Cleaner and Peter Hamilton. • Great communications skill • Use the right tone. • Use the right language. • Strong mind • Never falter because of a comment by suspect. • Stand by your train of thought.

5. Solving the crime • Easiest task – Evidence gathering • Straight forward – objective not subjective. • Simply requires good knowledge and steady hands. • Eg. Knowing process of finger printing. • Does not need to be aware of image or tone.

6. Solving the crime • Not much thinking involved, plain skills and keen eye. • Spot the pattern exercises. • No need for interaction. • “Carbon vs Silicon”

7. Solving the crime • Success • Very efficient with experiments. • Obtaining relevant evidence. • Eg By end of third day, able to discern most of the evidence in the sketch. • Leading questions • Eg. Peter’s baldness

8. Solving the crime • Hiccoughs • Lack in collation and interpretation • Eg. Assumption that there was more than one victim • Messy discussions • Frequent bickering and disagreements • Seldom we reach conclusions

9. Solving the crime • Media • At first we thought the papers would be helpful. • However we discovered red herrings later. • Eg. Name of the school, unreliable data interviewing of random stranger. • Got us distracted and making wrong assumptions.

10. Solving the crime • Should have seen it coming. • Newspapers need money and revenue • Dirty chain -

11. 2nd section – Evidence

12. Evidence • In every crime… • There is always evidence (Locard’s Principle) • Important factor to break the case • Places things and people at the crime scene. • Help show what actually happened at the crime scene. • Eg. Bullet hole through a person

13. Evidence • But evidence can be hard to find • Blood stains invisible to naked eye. • Particles of substances • Tampered evidence (By nature or man) • Also evidence may not always be reliable.

14. Evidence • Eg. Fingerprinting • Locard’s Principle, many people might be in contact. • May leave barely a trace. • Most whorls and other patterns might be hard to catch.

15. Evidence • Another form of discerning identity would be lip printing. • Patterns can be told from – • Number of grooves • Thickness of upper or lower lip. • Type of lipstick • Can be used as a back - up

16. Evidence • Such revelations show just how absurd and impossible CSI is. • Eg. How once they have a fingerprint they have the criminal. • How lucky they seem to always get the right evidence. • CSI is just but another show trying to get views, we must be more skeptical.

17. Evidence • “Knowing does not amount to proving” • Proof means to have sufficient evidence and argument to reach a statement on an issue. • Whereas knowing lacks the evidence part only the opinion part comes into play. • Knowing in a crime is never enough, we need evidence, we need to prove. We need proof.

18. 3rd section – VERDICT!

19. The Verdict • In every case there is a motive. • In this case, I can conclude that Peter wanted John dead because of debts concerning drugs. • To kill John, Peter hired a mercenary, Jack Smith, to pull the trigger and do the deed.

20. The Verdict

21. The Verdict

22. The Verdict • Everyone at the party • While this is not the focus, justice must be served. • While some did not consume, none informed the authorities even with the knowledge. • Severity depends on amount consumed.

23. The Verdict • Organiser of party • He is as good as a drug trafficker himself. • Allowing such a great breach of law to take place knowingly. • He should be given a heavier sentence.

24. The Verdict

25. The Verdict • Peter Hamilton • While he never pulled the trigger, he had staged and planned for the murder. • This amounts to 1st degree murder. • Also he has been proven to be a drug trafficker. • Also he had evaded the 2nd interrogation. • This amounts to serious sentences seeing he is too a repeat offender. • Still there can be no capital punishment.

26. The Verdict • Jack Smith • While he never planned for the murder and just murdered (2nd degree murder) • He was involved in the plans which amounts to 1st degree murder. • Seeing that he so readily accepted the offer, shows that he must be a mercenary that must have killed many more. • Likewise he should have a heavy sentence and no capital punishment.

27. Reflections as a group

28. We as a group, feel that we have learnt the most from the interrogation sessions. It is then that everything new we learnt in the camp could be applied. Things like learning how to think, how to be tactful, how to phrase questions, how to get answers, we learnt from there. It was through the sessions that actually showed us the importance of Mr. Toppin’s lectures, showed us how to be real humans with emotion and creativity and not just a machine, chasing for hard facts. The interrogation session offered such a great platform as in order to crack the case, everyone would want a go at the mike, everyone would be forced to apply such soft skills, that is the real beauty of it. It is during the interrogation sessions that we see the whole camp liven up, everyone interacting, engaging and fencing with the “suspects” through words, instead of just running around labs, performing experiments. We had also really learnt how a real team, a real forensic squad must function, suggest, discuss and initiate. Thank you, Mr. Toppin for such a wonderful and delightful experience.

29. THANK YOU!!