Unit 23CD: Forensic Evidence, Collection and Analysis
C: Conduct scientific analysis of physical, biological and chemical evidence.
D: Be able to justify methods, interpret findings and report on conclusions of forensic
techniques and analysis.
“Expert witness”
Scenario:
I am a trainee Forensic Technician working for the British Transport Police’s Scientific
Support Unit. As part of my training my supervisor has set up a simulated crime scene. I
am to act as an ‘expert witness’ and analyse the evidence sent to me from the crime
scene, drawing conclusions and report on my findings. I will be asked to present my
conclusions about the evidence to a ‘mock court’. My supervisor will observe me while I
carry out my laboratory work and will record my presentation to the court, providing
‘cross-examination’ of the evidence I present to test my evaluative skills. The supervisor
will use all this information to decide whether I am now competent to move into the
laboratory to carry out live investigative work.
Techniques employed to scientifically analyse a simulated crime scene
Physical
Note
,Once we acquired the handwritten note, we had to perform a visual examination to compare the
handwriting on the note to the 4 suspects. Although the handwriting was quite similar between
all four suspects, there were clear features and characteristics that enabled us to get an idea of
who may have written the note. Me and my group analysed the handwriting we had available,
and it was clear that the T and M were distinctly like suspect 3. We had to make sure whilst
examining the suspects handwriting, we had to look specifically at how the words were shaped
and spaced out.
I believe when comparing the note to the suspect’s handwriting, we concluded that the note was
a match to suspect 3. The main reason for our choice was because the Ts and Ms looked very
similar in shape and spacing. Although we can see there a visual similarity, this is subjective to
everyone – for example, one person in our group did say they believed it was suspect 3 due to the
N format looking almost identical. However, I do still think it is a good piece of evidence, the
perpetrator could have altered their handwriting, but some features will remain the same and
can’t be changed – but this is different to each person as it is subjective.
Footprint
,
C: Conduct scientific analysis of physical, biological and chemical evidence.
D: Be able to justify methods, interpret findings and report on conclusions of forensic
techniques and analysis.
“Expert witness”
Scenario:
I am a trainee Forensic Technician working for the British Transport Police’s Scientific
Support Unit. As part of my training my supervisor has set up a simulated crime scene. I
am to act as an ‘expert witness’ and analyse the evidence sent to me from the crime
scene, drawing conclusions and report on my findings. I will be asked to present my
conclusions about the evidence to a ‘mock court’. My supervisor will observe me while I
carry out my laboratory work and will record my presentation to the court, providing
‘cross-examination’ of the evidence I present to test my evaluative skills. The supervisor
will use all this information to decide whether I am now competent to move into the
laboratory to carry out live investigative work.
Techniques employed to scientifically analyse a simulated crime scene
Physical
Note
,Once we acquired the handwritten note, we had to perform a visual examination to compare the
handwriting on the note to the 4 suspects. Although the handwriting was quite similar between
all four suspects, there were clear features and characteristics that enabled us to get an idea of
who may have written the note. Me and my group analysed the handwriting we had available,
and it was clear that the T and M were distinctly like suspect 3. We had to make sure whilst
examining the suspects handwriting, we had to look specifically at how the words were shaped
and spaced out.
I believe when comparing the note to the suspect’s handwriting, we concluded that the note was
a match to suspect 3. The main reason for our choice was because the Ts and Ms looked very
similar in shape and spacing. Although we can see there a visual similarity, this is subjective to
everyone – for example, one person in our group did say they believed it was suspect 3 due to the
N format looking almost identical. However, I do still think it is a good piece of evidence, the
perpetrator could have altered their handwriting, but some features will remain the same and
can’t be changed – but this is different to each person as it is subjective.
Footprint
,
