csi lab fun time

8/9/2019 Csi Lab Fun Time

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/csi-lab-fun-time 1/9

Crash Hide MakenRich Jet Gar Can

Rishi Mody (jk, not him)

The “Holy Shit it’s after the AP Test, why are we working?”Lab

I. Basics of the Case:

You gave us a document basically outlining all of this. Because this case isn’treal, I think you should just refer to that.

Crime Scene Photos 1 & 2: These are just pictures I took with my phone. It just showssome red food coloring that doesn’t really relate to our case.

Crime Scene Photos 3 & 4: These are literallythe same as before, with different numbers.



Crime Scene Photo 5: Bloody Stool.

Crime Scene Photo 6: In a desperate attempt to make this case look legitimate, here issome more splattered food coloring, a fish poster, and an all important M&M’s wrapper.



Crime Scene Photo 7: This is basically just a picture of the room. Yes, it would have justrendered all of the other photos useless if we had put this first.

This is a picture of the woman who “died”. Its kinda interesting how we saw her the next day though.

Figure 1: Photo of the Suspected VictimIf you really think that this needs more than that caption I think I’m going to kill

myself.



Figure 2: Photos of SuspectsAgain, this DOES NOT need a follow-up paragraph. Oh and to narrow it down it

was the guy one from the right.

Basically all of these people had some really lose reason to want to kill that other woman.

II. Evidence:

We came into class one day and you handed us all these pieces of evidence. Herethey are:

Table 1: Breakdown of Finger Prints from the Crime SceneI swear this post-caption crap is getting annoying.

FingerprintNumber Fingerprint Location

Type of Fingerprint

Owner of Print

1 Front Door Handle Entrance Loop Mike Hatcher

2 Test Tube Whorl Gale Stirtz

3

Door Handle on First Left

Cabinet Loop

Margo

Melendrez

4Door Handle on Third Right

Cabinet Loop Stacy Monson

5 Front Door Handle Exit LoopNorm

Townsend

Matching suspects to the fingerprints proves that the five suspects that thefingerprints matched were at the crime scene at some point. Yes, this does mean that thiswhole test was for nothing.



Basically we did some kind of blood test that did something. I don’t reallyremember. You kinda just handed me like a bunch of tubes and told me to run them.

Fig. 3 Photo of the Gel Electrophoresis

Fig. 4 Big Complicated GraphY- Axis: Distance Traveled (cm)X- Axis: Log(Base Pairs)Look familiar? Hint: we copied this from our last lab.



Fragment

Number of Base Pairs

DistanceTraveled (cm)

1 23,130 3.82 9,416 5.0

3 6,557 5.8

4 4,361 7.25 2,322 10.56 2,027 11.2

Fig. 5 Table of Hind III fragments in comparison to distances traveled.

Fragment 1 Fragment 2 Fragment 3

Distan

ceBasePairs

Distance

BasePairs

Distance

BasePairs

Crime Scene

DNA 2.8 cm 22,813 3.4 cm 18,856 3.8 cm 16,607Dang's DNA 2.8 cm 22,813 3.4 cm 18,856 3.8 cm 16,607

Table 2 Distances Traveled and Number of Base Pairs in Dang and Site DNA

Fig. 3 We could write a really long paragraph right here that describes fig. 3, butwe really don’t have to. Just read the conclusion if you care that much.

The rest of this lab is based off of some loosely gathered evidence from a tinyhole in the wall. It’s basically so inaccurate that it shouldn’t be considered, but here it isanyway.

Distance from Bullet Holeto Door

592.8cm

Height of Bullet 96.3 cm

Bullet Trajectory Angle 85 o

Distance Bullet TraveledDownward 51.9 cm

Shoulder Height of Shooter

148.2cm

Table 3: Bullet Trajectory InformationBased on what we’ve already found, we don’t really need to include this,

but hell, nothing says fun like busy work.



Figure 6: Visual Representation of Bullet TrajectoryDid you not read that chart that we already made? That was a miserable

experience making that. Oh I see, you want to visualize it. Well then do me a favor and

draw it yourself.

Look, we measured the heights of the suspects to match it up with the shoulder height calculations from the bullet hole. Kinda weird how Townshend’s height is closer to the calculated height than Hatcher eh? Nahh, we’ll just forget about it.

Suspect Shoulder Height(cm)

Melendrez 132.58Stirtz 90.17

Clarke 133.35Townshend 148.08

Hatcher 151.89Monson 136.39

Table 4: Heights of All Suspects

More explanation needed? Give me a break already. Well damn after the AP test,we’re supposed to relax, right? Too bad that plan was thrown out the window so wecould learn about gel and dye and blood and guns.



Figure 7: Bullets from Suspects and Crime SceneMatch them up and figure it out. Eyes exist for a reason, please use them to spareus of more painful explanation.

BulletSample

Diameter(in.)

RiflingType

Number of Lands

Direction of RiflingTwist

CrimeScene 0.36 Cut 5 Right

Townshend 0.35 Cut 9 LeftMelendrez 0.35 Cut 6 Right

Hatcher 0.35 Cut 5 Right

BulletSample

Groove Width(in.)

Land Width(in.) Grams Grains Bullet Type

CrimeScene 0.093 0.12 7.5 115.7 Full Metal

Jacket

Townshend 0.12 0.12 7.46 115.1 Full Metal Jacket

Melendrez 0.13 0.11 7.55 116.5 Full Metal Jacket

Hatcher 0.09 0.11 7.51 115.9 Full Metal Jacket

Table 5: Physical Specifications of All BulletsSee table 5 (BAM. THAT JUST HAPPENED)



Basically here’s what happened. We worked. We worked for weeks. Collectingdata, fingerprinting random people, etc, etc. Then you come in one day and tell us aboutthat hair fiber you conveniently forgot to mention. The fiber that clearly pinpoints whichsuspect was the one, without all this other crap. Oh yeah that one.

Fig. 8: Results of Gel ElectrophoresisBasically it was Hatcher.

Basically it was Hatcher.

III. Conclusion:

Basically it was Hatcher.

csi lab fun time

Documents