This document summarizes an IDS presentation done by Group 19 on solving a crime using forensic evidence. It includes an agenda, summaries of how they solved the crime through interrogation and evidence linking, an analysis of the evidence including what worked and didn't, comparisons to CSI shows, a discussion of the verdict and punishment, and reflections from group members on what they learned. The group members are Andy, Tong wen, Zac, and Zhaoxiang.

1. IDS Presentation Done by: Group 19 Members: Andy (2p302) (Leader) Tong wen (2p305) Zac (2p331) Zhaoxiang (2p324)

2. Agenda Solving the crime Evidence Verdict Reflections

3. Solving the Crime Most difficult task Interrogation Linking evidence to crime Easiest task Matching some evidence with sample ones

4. Solving the crime Crime Solving What worked: Pen analysis What worked partially: Plastering What didn’t work: Lip printing Media’s role Not helpful Published interesting but unconfirmed details of crime to increase readership

5. Evidence What we have learnt More to forensic science than we think Using intelligence to link evidence to crime Interrogating critical questions Examine evidence carefully Patience is needed for better results

6. evidence CSI Difference in view: Yes Why: Collecting evidence and matching them is not as easy as it seems Ridiculous examples : Finding out contents of drugs within minutes Getting clear fingerprints without them smudged Reason: Difficult to match contents of drugs, let alone finding contents so quickly Ridiculous for criminals to leave clear prints for forensic team

7. evidence Fingerprint matches Unclear fingerprints and reliability Classification for lip prints Lip prints classified and compared using spaces and pattern of lip

8. evidence “Knowing” and “proving” Knowing something – knowledge of a certain thing Knowing: Peter Hamilton was bald, find out about another person at crime scene from hair found Bullet shot at 145cm, Jack’s hand when raised approximately 145cm also Proving something – concrete evidence to support one’s theory or hypothesis DNA helps to prove that: John Lee drank the Vodka Jane Liu and Robert Isles were at the crime scene Peter Hamilton and Jack Smith at the crime scene

9. The verdict Punishment Death sentence – Peter Hamilton, Jack smith Peter Hamilton(Hung) – Drug trafficking and selling, accomplice of murder Jack Smith(Shot) – Intentional murder

10. The verdict Theory of circumstances There was a party before a murder. In the party, Jeannette Perry saw John Lee had an argument with Peter Hamilton. Jeannette Perry saw Peter Hamilton call his sidekick, Jack Smith. John Lee left the party with Robyn Jones and Jane Liu at 3.15. Peter left the party 10 minutes after that. As it was raining, they have to find shelter in the classroom. John broke the window to get access into the classroom.

11. The verdict Theory of circumstances Peter and Jack came in the classroom. Both Jane Liu and Robyn Jones ran away in fear of them. John Lee and Jack Smith had a fight. John Lee used the broke pieces of the window to cut Jack Smith arm. Thus, Jack Smith left blood on the whiteboard. Jack Smith took out a gun and shot John Lee. He left with Peter Hamilton, carrying the broke pieces of glass.

12. The verdict Offence of party holder Yes he should be charged. He should be charged for drug abuse. Furthermore, he let drug dealings happen in his party. He should be charged for 10 years in jail or fined up to $10,000 or both.

13. The verdict If I were a judge: Jack Smith –Death sentence for murder Peter Hamilton – Death sentence for drug pedaling

14. reflections Andy I feel that the one activity in the course which has taught me a lot was the fingerprinting activity. This activity taught me that we should always be careful when doing things, whether it is concerned with forensic or homework. This activity has to be carried out with utmost attention so that the finger print collected on the tape or the ink would not be blur or smudged. Thus, I learnt to do things carefully through this activity.

15. reflections Cheng Tong Wen In my opinion, this course has indeed taught me a lot. One of the most experiential would be the plastering unit as it taught me the most as it requires us to be very careful in our work. A mistake would result in us starting all over again. The plastering is very fragile, thus we need extra precaution when doing it. I enjoyed this course.

16. reflections Sim Zhao Xiang I feel that this course is truly beneficial, not many people have the chance to have hands-on learning to solve crimes, this course has let us learn tricks to solving a crime, and the several things needing to solve a crime: Fingerprinting, plastering, and such. I felt that questioning the suspect taught me a lot. In many ways, you have to learn how to question the suspect, and not only focus just on one person, a person that seems like the murderer might not be, and you have to learn the techniques to getting the answer out of the suspect.

17. reflections Zac Lee I feel that this course has taught me a lot and I really enjoyed the course as well as the experiments that came with it. What I feel was the most meaningful and interesting yet challenging was the interrogation. We needed to use our brains to its full potential so as to find right questions to receive correct answers. Furthermore, we had to add on on other people’s points. Thus we learnt how important the use of linking points together and teamwork as a whole team, so as to solve the whole crime. Thus I feel that this was very meaningful and experiential.

18. Thank you for your Kind attention 