1. Done by: Group 16 Ong Jie Hao(20) Lim Jingkai(15) Dickson Lim(14) Thio Teng Kiat(26)

2. Introduction  Solving the crime  Evidence  The Verdict  Reflections

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. The Verdict  Suspects: Jack Smith Peter Hamilton Robyn Jones Jane Liu  Crimes committed: Murder Making false statements Assisting in the crime

12. 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)

13. 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)

14. 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.

15. The Verdict  Jane Liu Crime: False statements Confessed to being at crime scene Gave false statements to police

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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

19. The Verdict  Jack Smith: Sentenced to life imprisonment for murder charges of 1 st 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 1 st degree murder, making false statements. Drug Trafficking includes life imprisonment under the context of the Law.

20. 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)

21. 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

22. Any questions?