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