Murder most foul – G30Koh Kah Xuan (2P4)Shie Yu Hao (2P4)Tan Chuan Xin (2P4)Per Sheng Xiang (2P4)

Section 1: Solving the crime

What was the most difficult task and why was it so difficult? Come up with good questions that will

bring us closer to the solution Ability to link and make use of evidence Identification of reliable statement Accuracy and consistency of laboratory

work – reliable evidence

What was the easiest task and why it was so easy? Laboratory work Recording of questions and answers by

others Problem – solving questions

In your crime solving, what worked, what worked in part, what didn’t work? Why? Work: Plastic Casting Comparing of Evidence (Thread, Hair,

bite marks, footprint etc) Identification of a mastermind and a

accomplice Link evidence (D.N.A) Point out importance of Janet Perry in

the party

In your crime solving, what worked, what worked in part, what didn’t work? Why? Work in part: Stride exercise (Identification of the

concept, but not the results) Linking of evidence (Hair) Knew of accomplice but thought that

he/she was in the list of names Knew that Peter Hamilton was involved

in the crime but assumed that he was the murderer

In your crime solving, what worked, what worked in part, what didn’t work? Why?

Did not work: Getting statement from crucial people Unable to link the presence of the

shopping bag with soil Unable to get clear fingerprints during

the exercise

Why did the media take the angle on the story they did? Was this helpful or

not helpful?

Angle: Media wanted their stories to be

sensational They did not have enough information Helpfulness: It is not helpful and reliable.

Section 2: Evidence

What has been learnt about crime solving and using evidence to build a case?

Linking of evidence to get the solution Arrest Warrant Forensic Science Type of questions to ask the suspect Be daring to make assumptions and

prove evidence

Why are so many matches required for fingerprints to be accepted as evidence?

Different fingerprints have similarities Loop Arch Composite Whorl Ensure accuracy

What examples did you have of “knowing” something and “proving something”?

Knowing something: Fingerprints present at the crime scene

belongs to murderer Someone sat on the beanbag A pistol is used to kill John Lee Someone stepped on the garden bed

before

What examples did you have of “knowing” something and “proving something”?

Proving Something Matching of fingerprints on cartridge to

identify murderer Matching of footprints on garden bed Matching of DNA on beanbag Matching of hair and thread

Section 3: The Verdict

What punishment any member of the suspects should get and why they should get this punishment

Peter Hamilton Death sentence, Singapore Elsewhere, depends on the law

Jack Smith Death sentence, Singapore Elsewhere, depends on the law

Argue a case that the person who held the party should or should not be charged with an offence.

Yes Drug abuse Not murder charges

If you were judge, what decisions would you have made about the suspects guilt, what sentences would you have imposed and why would you have imposed them

The suspects are guilty Death in Singapore, and others in

accordance to law of other countries Capital offence

Section 4: Your Selection

Reflection: Kah XuanThrough the entire course, I have learnt many new skills regarding laboratory works. I was exposed to more forms of experiments and found out that during the experiments, much skills learnt in lessons were applicable. However, sometimes, we faced difficulty when the task only required us to look for matching evidences. We found it hard to describe and compare, since there were only guidance in words but not actual examples for us to follow.

I also feel that to the solve case, I will have to be very clear of what is going on. Hence, we attempted to construct a timeline to point out specific events that happened. Unfortunately, even though we deduced the murderer, we were unable to find out who were to ones who made the anonymous calls and what were their motives. We also had to be extremely attentive during the question asking session as we had to look for contradicting statements made by the respective suspects and witnesses.

Reflection: Yu HaoI feel that this IDS lesson given to us is very fruitful as we get to do many hands-on laboratory work that we will not have a chance to do during our normal laboratory lessons in class. Furthermore, listening and watching forensic scientists in work is totally different when I myself tried to do it.

In this whole crime solving, I finally understand that I am not very suitable to be in forensic science. Since young, I have aspired to be a forensic scientist but after this 4 lessons of work, I find that I am not observant enough and I cannot link the evidence up properly. Also, I could not chain up my thoughts when it comes to brainstorming. But I think that all these need experience and it all takes time.

After all the lab work, I realized the importance of the recording and reliability of evidence. Just like the fingerprinting, we need a minimum of at least 8 matches before we can determine whose fingerprint is it. Last but not least, I enjoyed the forensic lesson provided and would hope that I can join next year too!

Reflection: Chuan XinThe part of the entire course that has taught me the most was not the experiments, but instead the questioning sessions. Short as they were in comparison to the laboratory sessions, it was by far the most important. In the short questioning sessions that we had, I learnt that the phrasing of the question is very hard, and that it has to be very precise, or a false answer can be given very easily. This questioning session really pressed the brain hard to think of the right question to ask too.

Also, the questioning session helped me learn that there is a lot of trial and error in questioning a suspect, but a lot of it boils down to listening skills. We had to try a lot of times before we could identify the right person to ask questions, and also that was only due to hints that was given by Mr Bill. Also, identifying a suspect is hard, since the most likely suspect will be the one who does not give the answer, and we have to look at a person seemingly unrelated to the whole thing, someone like Janet and Helen Perry, totally unnoticed till the hint was given. This reflects a lot about our listening skills.

I have also learnt that I should dare to speak up. On day 1, when a person asked the question about Janet Perry, I already had the thought to question her since she was sober. However, I was too shy to go up to the microphone to ask my question. Otherwise, the case could have been cracked on the first day itself. However, this is now something that I have to improve on, and now I know it.

Reflection: Sheng Xiang After this IDS course, I had learnt more about the different method to

crack a case, all the different laboratory work. For example, before this IDS sabbatical, I had only few knowledge about how those forensic scientists make use of the evidence to crack the case. However, after all those laboratory work, I had learnt more about the different methods, such as the matching of fingerprints, bite marks, foot print, and even lip stick. I had also learnt all those different things to look out for when matching evidence, for example the whorls, arch, composite fingerprints.

Other than the laboratory work, I had also known how to ask good questions that will aid us in solving the case. We had to examine the evidence as detailed as possible, and by looking at the possible contradictions and loopholes, we could ask the suspect. However, the suspect’s statement might not be necessarily true, thus we had to confirm it with other suspects’ statement to reconfirm it. With the help of the suspect’s statement and the evidence at the crime scene, it will bring us closer to solving the case.