In my introduction, I had already stated that I love Forensic Science, and the god has given me a great chance to explore more on forensic science in term 3. I was extremely lucky to have a IDS in term 3 which is also a forensic science challenge. It is over a period of 4 days where we are in groups of 4. We are supposed to crack a case using the evidence that we have and the statements of witnesses. I am in group 30 and my group mates are Koh Kah Xuan, Tan Chuan Xin and Per Sheng Xiang and we are all from the same class. :D
On the 1st day, I am introduced the scene of the case. There was this person that was lied dead on the ground in a classroom on June 5th 1546hr. He was of 182cm tall and was shot dead @145cm from the ground. The bullet went right through his left chest that cause him to die immediately. There are several evidences left at the crime scene. A shopping bag soil, a Vodka bottle, 2 strands of hair, the cartridge of the weapon, red rag and a few patches of blood. After introducing the case, we are knew that a anonymous was rang to the police that said that the crime that happened has something related to the party at Robert Isle's house. Straight away, I was thinking who Robert Isle is. The forensic scientists arrived at the crime scene at 4.30pm and they went over to Robert Isle's party right after that. Lastly, we are given a list of people at the party and 4 pictures of people that are at the party. The 4 are John Lee, Robbyn Jones, Jane Liu and Peter Hamilton.
I started organizing my thoughts on this case as we proceeded on to examine the evidence that we had. Before stepping into the laboratory, I had a clearer picture of what had happened but there are many suspicion in this case. Thus, I was also quite confused at that time. Finally, I decided to stop thinking about the case and focus more on the examination of evidence. There are many evidence that we needed to examine but these were easy stuffs as there is a step by step instruction on how to examine each evidence. Such experiments are not in normal syllabus and it is another additional knowledge for me! From examining all the evidence, I realized that all these work are not as easy as I thought or seen in CSI shows, it is much more complicated and tedious in the steps needed to be taken. Maybe it is because of the lack of equipment in our laboratory.
The most difficult part of this crime solving will be linking the evidence and statements of witnesses to crack the case as statements of witnesses may be false when they tell lies. Furthermore, we would need listen carefully to what all the witnesses say and then check their reliability before linking evidence to their statements. The worse part is there are so mnay evidences and so many witnesses! I was totally confused when it comes to the questioning part.....
On the last day, we were finally given the last piece of evidence which was the autopsy and the DNA of the blood found at the crime scene by the forensic scientists. My group then cross-reference with the blood found at the crime scene and we came out with more questions that could link us to the answer. Finally, the key person to the crime was Janet Perry in the list, she was the only one that was not drunk and capable of answering our questions about the party. Actually, this name had appeared on the first day of questioning but we totally forgot about her presence and took such a long way to reach the answer. This proves that being a forensic scientist must be sharp with minute clues provided in the crime scene.
Seems like I still have a long way to go before being experienced enough as a forensic scientist. In just such a small case, I know that I am not as capable as I thought I would be as I missed out many crucial evidences and links that I should not have missed out. THEREFORE, WORK HARD!
On the 1st day, I am introduced the scene of the case. There was this person that was lied dead on the ground in a classroom on June 5th 1546hr. He was of 182cm tall and was shot dead @145cm from the ground. The bullet went right through his left chest that cause him to die immediately. There are several evidences left at the crime scene. A shopping bag soil, a Vodka bottle, 2 strands of hair, the cartridge of the weapon, red rag and a few patches of blood. After introducing the case, we are knew that a anonymous was rang to the police that said that the crime that happened has something related to the party at Robert Isle's house. Straight away, I was thinking who Robert Isle is. The forensic scientists arrived at the crime scene at 4.30pm and they went over to Robert Isle's party right after that. Lastly, we are given a list of people at the party and 4 pictures of people that are at the party. The 4 are John Lee, Robbyn Jones, Jane Liu and Peter Hamilton.
I started organizing my thoughts on this case as we proceeded on to examine the evidence that we had. Before stepping into the laboratory, I had a clearer picture of what had happened but there are many suspicion in this case. Thus, I was also quite confused at that time. Finally, I decided to stop thinking about the case and focus more on the examination of evidence. There are many evidence that we needed to examine but these were easy stuffs as there is a step by step instruction on how to examine each evidence. Such experiments are not in normal syllabus and it is another additional knowledge for me! From examining all the evidence, I realized that all these work are not as easy as I thought or seen in CSI shows, it is much more complicated and tedious in the steps needed to be taken. Maybe it is because of the lack of equipment in our laboratory.
The most difficult part of this crime solving will be linking the evidence and statements of witnesses to crack the case as statements of witnesses may be false when they tell lies. Furthermore, we would need listen carefully to what all the witnesses say and then check their reliability before linking evidence to their statements. The worse part is there are so mnay evidences and so many witnesses! I was totally confused when it comes to the questioning part.....
On the last day, we were finally given the last piece of evidence which was the autopsy and the DNA of the blood found at the crime scene by the forensic scientists. My group then cross-reference with the blood found at the crime scene and we came out with more questions that could link us to the answer. Finally, the key person to the crime was Janet Perry in the list, she was the only one that was not drunk and capable of answering our questions about the party. Actually, this name had appeared on the first day of questioning but we totally forgot about her presence and took such a long way to reach the answer. This proves that being a forensic scientist must be sharp with minute clues provided in the crime scene.
Seems like I still have a long way to go before being experienced enough as a forensic scientist. In just such a small case, I know that I am not as capable as I thought I would be as I missed out many crucial evidences and links that I should not have missed out. THEREFORE, WORK HARD!