MURDER MOST FOUL

Done by: Group 16Ong Jie Hao(20)Lim Jingkai(15)Dickson Lim(14)

Thio Teng Kiat(26)

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 profitsTo be the first to publish Increase profits (Sensationalize stories)

○ Readers like to read exciting newsInterest/attract readers

○ Fabricate facts Media Source:

Not helpfulMisleading 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 SmithPeter HamiltonRobyn JonesJane Liu

Crimes committed: Murder Making false statements Assisting in the crime

The Verdict Jack Smith

Accused of murder of John Lee.Fingerprint found on cartridgeConfession of Robyn: Jack was at the crime scene.Janet Perry witnessed Jack with Peter.Blood found at evidence F04 belonged to JackHe should not be treated leniently as it is a deliberate

act (planned)

The Verdict Peter Hamilton

Providing firearms to Jack for committing murderAssisted Jack in the crimeMaking false statementsDNA 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, DrugsHair was foundDNA 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 statementsConfessed to being at crime sceneGave 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 partyPeter asked Jack Smith along with himRobyn was with John, provided the location of JohnPeter and Jack went to ClassroomJack 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 under the 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

THANK YOU

Any questions

?