59100
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

59100

on

  • 384 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
384
Views on SlideShare
377
Embed Views
7

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 7

http://www.lsse-portfolio.blogspot.com 5
http://lsse-portfolio.blogspot.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

59100 59100 Presentation Transcript

  • Powerpoint Templates Murder most Foul? Benedict Lim Neo Shi Zhang Zhou Jinquan Eric Cao
  • Content
    • Solving the crime
    • Evidence
    • Verdict
    • Reflections
  •  
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Solving the crime
      • Not much thinking involved, plain skills
      • and keen eye.
        • Spot the pattern exercises.
      • No need for interaction.
      • “ Carbon vs Silicon”
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Solving the crime
      • Should have seen it coming.
      • Newspapers need money and revenue
      • Dirty chain -
  •  
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  •  
  • 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.
  • The Verdict Evidence What does this mean? Member of party saw Peter and Jack having a serious discussion Shows connection between the two Coded message sent from Peter to John, threatening to hurt him if debt is not paid. Shows strong evidence of motive Blood was found from a source not in the list of suspects Garners more suspicion towards Jack Smith Fingerprint on cartridge is also from an unknown source Further reinforces the theory that Jack was in the scene A sample of drugs was found in the classroom Show that the issue of debts was probably about drugs Both John and Peter are drug dealers. This shows further evidence that the debt issue is over drugs
  • The Verdict Convicts Crime committed Sentence Everyone at the party
    • Consumption of drugs.
    • Drug trafficking.
    • Fines of up to $100, 000.
    • Imprisonment of up to 20 years.
    • 10 strokes of the cane
    Organiser of party
    • Allowed party to carry on, knowing full well of drug involvement.
    • No different from a drug dealer
    • Fines of up to $150, 000
    • Imprisonment of up to 30 years.
    • 10 strokes of the cane
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • The Verdict Convicts Crime committed Sentence Peter Hamilton
    • 1 st degree murder
    • Evasion of police (interrogation)
    • Drug trafficking
    Life imprisonement Jack Smith
    • 1 st degree murder
    Life imprisonment
  • The Verdict
    • Peter Hamilton
      • While he never pulled the trigger, he had staged and planned for the murder.
      • This amounts to 1 st degree murder.
      • Also he has been proven to be a drug trafficker.
      • Also he had evaded the 2 nd interrogation.
      • This amounts to serious sentences seeing he is too a repeat offender.
      • Still there can be no capital punishment.
  • The Verdict
    • Jack Smith
      • While he never planned for the murder and just murdered (2 nd degree murder)
      • He was involved in the plans which amounts to 1 st 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.
  •  
  • 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.
  •