IDS Murder Most Foul


Published on

My 2011 HCI IDS PPT project for Murder Most Foul

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

IDS Murder Most Foul

  1. 1. Murder most foul<br />Done by: Group 16<br />OngJieHao(20)<br />Lim Jingkai(15)<br />Dickson Lim(14)<br />ThioTengKiat(26)<br />
  2. 2. Introduction<br />Solving the crime<br />Evidence<br />The Verdict<br />Reflections<br />
  3. 3. Solving the crime<br />Most difficult task: To find a link from the various evidences<br />Easiest task: The lab work where the evidences were identified and analyzed<br />Task Worked: Looking from different perspectives and identifying reliable statements <br />Did not work: Questioning the same suspects <br />Suspects would lie and not tell the truth. <br />The leads would get us nowhere.<br />
  4. 4. Media<br />The media: Aims<br />To earn profits<br />To be the first to publish <br />Increase profits (Sensationalize stories)<br />Readers like to read exciting news<br />Interest/attract readers<br />Fabricate facts<br />Media Source:<br />Not helpful<br />Misleading information (Lead us off-track)<br />Unreliable<br />
  5. 5. What we learnt<br />Able to identify false and true testimonies<br />Able to find links based on evidence<br />Able to find flaws in information<br />Able to source out useful information from others<br />
  6. 6. Fingerprints<br />Fingerprints look similar to the naked eye<br />It would be more accurate if more matches can be found<br />Avoid prosecuting the wrong person and letting the guilty escaping<br />8 matches are required to be submitted as evidence<br />
  7. 7. CSI<br />Dramatic forensic science<br />According to CSI, evidence is perfect and easily identifiable<br />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<br />
  8. 8. CSI<br />It aims to attract viewers to the show to increase profits<br />Does not showcase authentic forensic science such as the procedure and tools<br />CSI cannot be trusted completely<br />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.<br />
  9. 9. Lip Print Classification System<br />Classification system for lip print is similar to a fingerprint’s<br />Able to identify corresponding points on lips<br />Such as forks line and vertical lines<br />Must have a minimum number of matches<br />
  10. 10. Proving and Knowing<br />Difference: Proving requires evidence<br />Example: We knew that Jack Smith was the murderer<br />Needed evidence such as DNA matches in order to prove him guilty<br />Peter Hamilton was alleged to be at the crime scene <br />But needed concrete evidence to prove.<br />
  11. 11. The Verdict<br />Suspects: <br />Jack Smith<br />Peter Hamilton<br />Robyn Jones<br />Jane Liu<br />Crimes committed: <br />Murder<br /> Making false statements<br /> Assisting in the crime<br />
  12. 12. The Verdict<br />Jack Smith<br />Accused of murder of John Lee.<br />Fingerprint found on cartridge<br />Confession of Robyn: Jack was at the crime scene.<br />Janet Perry witnessed Jack with Peter.<br />Blood found at evidence F04 belonged to Jack<br />He should not be treated leniently as it is a deliberate act (planned)<br />
  13. 13. The Verdict<br />Peter Hamilton<br />Providing firearms to Jack for committing murder<br />Assisted Jack in the crime<br />Making false statements<br />DNA found in footprints on garden bed <br />Witness statement: <br />John was on bad terms with Peter.<br />Had an argument with John before crime was committed at Robert Isles’s house.<br />He should not be treated leniently as it is a deliberate act (planned)<br />
  14. 14. The Verdict<br />Robyn Jones<br />Crime: False statements, Drugs<br />Hair was found<br />DNA on cup was found <br />Tests showed under alcohol influence.<br />Should be treated leniently as she was under the influence of alcohol.<br />
  15. 15. The Verdict<br />Jane Liu<br />Crime: False statements<br />Confessed to being at crime scene<br />Gave false statements to police<br />
  16. 16. Reconstructed<br />Death of John Lee<br />Due to several reasons<br />Failure to pay up $5000 debt to Peter.<br />Possibly due to drug dealings.<br />Resulted in argument at party<br />Peter asked Jack Smith along with him<br />Robyn was with John, provided the location of John<br />Peter and Jack went to Classroom<br />Jack murdered John.<br />
  17. 17. Robert Isles: The Verdict<br />Guilty: Drug intakes<br />Found to be on drugs through tests.<br />Not guilty: Making false statements<br />Found to be on drugs and drunk, not in a clear state of mind<br />Could not recollect scene clearly<br />Not guilty: Assisting in the murder<br />Were on drugs, was not sound, could not have known about murder intent.<br />
  18. 18. The Verdict<br />If I were the judge, I would have felt that the suspects are guilty.<br />There were sufficient evidence to prove that they were at the scene when the murder happened<br />However, there was not sufficient evidence of Jane or Robyn providing assistance to the crime.<br />Below are the given verdicts<br />
  19. 19. The Verdict<br />Jack Smith: Sentenced to life imprisonmentfor murder charges of 1st degree murder, and intentionally committed the crime.<br />Under the law, murder carries life imprisonment.<br />Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973, Section 3<br />“A person is not liable to the punishment of death for any offence". <br />Peter Hamilton: Sentenced to life imprisonment for drug trafficking, assisted/stagedthe1st degree murder, making false statements.<br />Drug Trafficking includes life imprisonment under the context of the Law.<br />
  20. 20. The Verdict<br />Robyn Jones: Sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, fined $30,000 for making false statements and taking drugs underthe influence of alcohol (more lenient). <br />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)<br />
  21. 21. Reflections<br />Phrase questions and sentences more accurately and precisely<br />Thinking out of the box (riddles)<br />Teamwork<br />Problem solving skills<br />Looking from different perspectives<br />Reconstructing scenes<br />Analytical skills<br />Learnt forensic procedures<br />
  22. 22. Thank you<br />Any questions?<br />