S EC 2 (IDS) Group 12 Done by: Nicholas Sung Dai Nan Tian Joshua Ong Gareth Lim

Section one – Solving the Crime I. What was the most difficult task and why it was so difficult? II. What was the easiest task and why it was so easy? III. In your crime solving, what worked, what worked in part, what didn't work? Why? IV. Why did the media take the angle on the story they did? Was this helpful or not helpful?

W HAT WAS THE MOST DIFFICULT TASK AND WHY IT WAS SO DIFFICULT ? The most difficult task would be trying to guess who the killer was through intergoration. This is largely because of Jack Smith’s name was not in the character list, thus, we had to probe Janet Perry to ask who was with Peter Hamilton after the party.

W HAT WAS THE EASIEST TASK AND WHY IT WAS SO EASY ? The easiest task would be the riddles given by Mr Bill. Some tasks that we especially like would be animal questions where we would have link back to the previous question to derive the answers.

I N YOUR CRIME SOLVING, WHAT WORKED, WHAT WORKED IN PART, WHAT DIDN ' T WORK ? W HY ? We feel that most things went on smoothly especially lab work such as our plasters and fingerprint lifting which was very fun. However, there were some disagreements at times. This was so as there was some urgency to complete the given assignment. We also did some setups again as it went wrong.

W HY DID THE MEDIA TAKE THE ANGLE ON THE STORY THEY DID ? W AS THIS HELPFUL OR NOT HELPFUL ? The media did this, so as to get the latest stories which are sensational such as a murder which was what happened. With more of this type of interesting stories, there is more circulation of their papers which means more PROFIT. Thus, it may not be helpful because the details will not be accurate is seen in the case where the name of the school was wrong and the reporter also interview the “not so important”person

Section Two – Evidence I. What has been learnt about crime solving and using evidence to build a case? II. Will you view CSI differently now? How will you view it differently and why? Can you think of any examples on CSI that were plainly ridiculous? Why were they ridiculous? III. Why are so many matches required fur fingerprints to be accepted as evidence? IV. What examples did you have of “knowing” something and “proving” something? (To answer this question state what proof is )

W HAT HAS BEEN LEARNT ABOUT CRIME SOLVING AND USING EVIDENCE TO BUILD A CASE ? Locard's theory : "Everywhere you go, you take something with you, and you leave something behind." DNA is the strongest and most reliable identification evidence that exists. Eg. Bloodstains Traces that are left behind that only can belong to one person Eg. Fingerprints, Lip print, and Toe print

W ILL YOU VIEW CSI DIFFERENTLY NOW ? H OW WILL YOU VIEW IT DIFFERENTLY AND WHY ? C AN YOU THINK OF ANY EXAMPLES ON CSI THAT WERE PLAINLY RIDICULOUS ? W HY WERE THEY RIDICULOUS ? Yes. CSI is actually too superficial and simple in a way. CSI shows that: 1. DNA tests are quick and always pinpoint the right criminal 2. CSIs have extensive, sweeping knowledge about everything in forensic science 3. Able to get enough evidence in every crime easily 4. Fingerprints are spotted by the inspectors bare eye

W HY ARE SO MANY MATCHES REQUIRED FUR FINGERPRINTS TO BE ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE ? 8 matches are required as fingerprints are might have errors, only with such many matches then would it be more accurate as human errors may occur during the process of lifting the finger print.

W HAT EXAMPLES DID YOU HAVE OF “ KNOWING ” SOMETHING AND “ PROVING ” SOMETHING ? (T O ANSWER THIS QUESTION STATE WHAT PROOF IS ) Proving is to show that what you know is true, to make people who didn’t believe that is true or deny the truth have no choice but to admit the truth. For example, I am somebody who saw Jack kill John however in the court, I say that I saw it happen but that's not proving. Some people might not believe. Therefore we need fingerprints, blood and other evidence to prove the case it is true. Knowing may not be accurate.

Section Three – The Verdict I. What punishment any member of the suspects should get and why they should get that punishment ? Include discussion on why they should be treated harshly or leniently? II. Argue a case that the person who held the party should or should not also be charged with an offence.If so,what offence and what punishment ?

W HAT PUNISHMENT ANY MEMBER OF THE SUSPECTS SHOULD GET AND WHY THEY SHOULD GET THAT PUNISHMENT ? I NCLUDE DISCUSSION ON WHY THEY SHOULD BE TREATED HARSHLY OR LENIENTLY ? Jack Smith should have life in prison as he murdered John, however, Peter Hamilton should be given the same punishment. This is mainly because he was the one who shot John and instigated Jack into harming John. I feel that Jack Smith and Peter should be treated harshly. This is because Peter is the mastermind of this murder and Jack was stupidly carried out the murder.

A RGUE A CASE THAT THE PERSON WHO HELD THE PARTY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT ALSO BE CHARGED WITH AN OFFENCE.I F SO, WHAT OFFENCE AND WHAT PUNISHMENT ? This is right that the person who held the party should be charged with the offence of the possession of huge amount of the drugs. The punishment of this should be time in prison as heroine was taken in by the victim. When it is taken in with alcohol, it will possibly lead to death.

Section –Four – Your selection I. Reflection –select any part of the unit that taught you the most and explain what you learnt, what insights it gave you that you didn’t have

R EFLECTION – SELECT ANY PART OF THE UNIT THAT TAUGHT YOU THE MOST AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOU LEARNT, WHAT INSIGHTS IT GAVE YOU THAT YOU DIDN ’ T HAVE Nicholas: I have learnt about Locard’s principal whereby "Everywhere you go, you take something with you, and you leave something behind.” This is especially important as it is vital in solving crimes. I have also learnt about the different things that a victim could possibly leave behind at the crime scene and how to get there. This includes fingerprint, footprint, soil, etc. For fingerprint, there is the lifting method where iron fillings are used, for footprint, we can use plastering. The unit that taught me most is the case of the murder of John Liu where we learn not to come to a conclusion without sufficient evidence.

G ARETH : I had learnt a lot from this course, including the different methods of analysing physical evidences found in crime scene and questioning skills through the lab sessions and interrogating sessions respectively. However, it is not from these few sessions that I had learnt the most from. It was instead the small quiz about the businessman and robbery which seemed pretty insignificant that taught me the most. Through this quiz, I had learnt how to analyse sentences word by word as a change in any word can result in different meaning which may lead to misinterpretations if they are not noted. This may seem to be a very simple and insignificant skill to many as many of us will not bother to go to the extent of looking out for all sort of errors in the way we speak or other's speak and basically make assumptions that others will understand what we want them to and vice versa. This may lead to digression which can stir up a lot of problems and misunderstandings. For example, if I am a University student looking for a part time job and I told my employer that I "was" a university student due to my poor grammar and assume that he knew what I meant, I may instead get myself a full time job which will clash with my University lecture. This example shows how close analysis of sentences word by word and also ensuring that what we are saying is what we really mean is not only important to derive information from interrogations of suspects during an investigation, it is also an essential life skill as it helps reduce digressions which will result in a lot lesser trouble.

J OSHUA I personally feel that this programme is indeed a very enriching and fulfilling one. It taught me a lot of stuff not usually taught on a typical school day. It firstly taught me how to use various equipment and tools to determine culprits. This is known as forensic science. The equipment that we have access to are indeed mind- boggling and I am sure that many including me find it hard to believe that these equipment and tools can come in so handy especially for scientists, police or even investigators. This course has of course taught me many invaluable things but most importantly, being very careful, prudent and observant when dealing with situations such as a murder case. Being observant also includes being quick minded and analytical. Like what the founder of forensic science had stated very clearly, every action leaves evidence and traces, I have also learnt that no one can get away unscathed if he were to commit a crime or offence. After this course, I am extremely interested in forensic science and would be keen on taking part in future similar courses.