The questions sessions were probably the most difficult task because it was not very organized. Many people have different points of perspective and there were many varied questions. Although there were many useful questions, what made it worse was the fact that there were some unnecessary questions that cause the session to be sidetracked and also causing the whole Sec 2s in not continuing with the correct questions. It was also very noisy because most of the students were excited and wanted to voice out their views. For example, there were many people at the house. At the first day, someone had actually asked about Janet Perry. However, most of us thought that Janet and Helen Perry were just normal people who were just attending the party. This caused a change in types of probes and we only got the answer two days later. Hence, it is very important and difficult to make the correct questions in asking the suspects questions.
The easiest task was probably the problem solving sessions. Firstly, it was fun and act as a leisure time to us although it was a bit challenging. It also allows us to think out of the box for a while and not concentrate on the crime. Moreover, we were doing this activity as a whole group, which makes it less pressurising.
What worked in the crime solving was the evidences and experiments done at the laboratory because the results were quite accurate and it was rather a step-by-step session because there were steps and methods given in the worksheets for us to follow. There were also experienced teachers to guide us in case anything went wrong. We also learnt many things, such as the forensic methods used and overall, we went quite smoothly during the lab session.
What simply didn’t worked well was the questions and hypothesis worksheets. We asked the wrong type of questions as we were misled by the suspects lists and thought that only the three of them were the only possible ones involved with the crime. However, we did not think out of the box and ask the main question that would crack the case.
The article that was published in the Sydney Sun was only published to seek attention and was also because that the reporter wanted to finish up his job. The article was not helpful at all and instead, it caused confusion and panic as the facts were wrong and not supported. This may then misled the police and the public and worsen the situation.
* Type I--clear-cut lines or grooves that run vertically across the lip * Type I/--straight grooves that disappear half-way into the lip instead of covering the entire breadth of the lip * Type II--grooves that fork * Type III--grooves that intersect * Type IV--grooves that are netlike)* Type V--grooves that do not fall into any of the above categories and cannot be differentiated morphologically
As a group, we feel that this 4-day camp is very beneficial and it gives us a new insight towards forensic science. We also feel that we had displayed teamwork during the process and this is an overall of what we have learnt. It is not easy to solve a crime although it may seem very easy. We also need to ask vital questions to eye-witnesses so has to get a main clue. Most important of all, we learnt many forensic methods, such as collecting a footprint sample, fingerprints samples, collection of blood tests and lip prints.
Group 14<br />KwaJieHui<br />Jerrick Lim<br />Xu Run Huai<br />Murder<br /> most<br /> foul?<br />
Most difficult task<br />The questions sessions<br />Many varied questions (useful, useless, sidetrack)<br />Many people have different POVs<br />Noisy, excited<br />
Most easiest task<br />Problem solving sessions<br />Fun though challenging<br />Look unsolvable but simple<br />Leisure<br />
What worked, what didn’t?<br />Worked:<br />Evidences done at the laboratory<br />Quite accurate<br />Rather a step-by-step session<br />Teachers to guide us<br />Learnt many forensic methods there<br />
What worked, what didn’t?<br />Didn’t worked:<br />Questions & Hypothesis<br />Asked the wrong questions<br />Misled by the suspects<br />Thought that only Jane Liu, Peter Hamilton and Robyn Jones were the only possible ones involved with the crime<br />
Media<br />Not helpful<br />May misled police and public<br />Cause confusion, panic<br />Article was made to seek attention and finish up the job<br />Facts were wrong and not supported<br />
Group Reflection<br />Very beneficial<br />A new insight to forensic science<br />Teamwork<br />Learnt:<br />It is not easy to solve a crime<br />Vital questions are needed<br />The crime may not always seem as easy as it is<br />Forensic methods<br />Footprints<br />Fingerprints<br />Blood tests<br />Lip prints<br />