Unit 23 LAC&D Expert Witness
Forensic Report
Introduction
I am a trainee technician with six months of experience working in a biochemistry lab. My
supervisor asked me to assist the new trainee biochemistry technician who will be carrying
out the identical placement that I have recently done before moving on to the next phase of
my technician training in another sort of lab. I will need to demonstrate a comprehension of
biochemical processes and the effects of disrupting them, as well as include models of the
relevant biological molecules that will allow you to illustrate to the new trainee the structure
and function of these in living animals.
Physical evidence footprint
Physical evidence was another form of evidence that was found at the crime scene and
collected from suspects. The evidence that was collected and analysed was footprints.
There were two footprints taken, one from each suspect. The shoe was also collected from
the crime scene and analysed. Footprints can show many things, the type of shoe, what
shoe it is, the foot size, any special markings and other information. Investigators can use
this information to see where the shoe could have been purchased from or which suspect
has this shoe in their possession. Forensics have a large database where all types of shoes
are shown and this simplifies the investigation.
Method
Footprints were collected from the crime scene by the SOCOs. The footprints could not be
lifted off the floor so it was photographed with a scale so it could still be used as evidence.
Footprints were found at the crime scene made from blood. Footprints from the suspects
were also collected by the police to be analysed. A shoe was collected from the crime scene
where it was then imprinted on a sheet. This could make it easier to compare the blemishes.
This image shows that the shoe was tightly sealed to ensure risks of contamination and was
labelled correctly.
Analysis of results
This footprint was found on the H.D of one of the suspects. The
footprint splits into two halves, and the front of the shoes starts to get
smaller and disappear. As a result, the shoe's front will be angular
and slightly bent upward. With this knowledge, it is most likely that the
shoe is a pair of smart shoes.
15
, Unit 23 LAC&D Expert Witness
The footprint that was found at the crime scene is represented
in this image. It is 12 cm in width and 30 cm in length. Due to
the lowest portion of the print being removed, the length of the
print may not be accurate; it should be greater than 30 cm. Like
before, there is a pattern in the footprint, indicating that it is
either a boot or a trainer.
This footprint is also from a large shoe and belongs to B.S,
another suspect in this criminal investigation. The footprint is also
split into two, however, it shows slight connections on the edges.
Patterns like these suggest that the shoe is a trainer or a boot. To
improve the analysis, more footprints can be taken from the
suspect.
Conclusions
Both the footprints above show the most similarities: the blood footprint was from the crime
scene and the other footprint was from Bear Sus. This is because the pattern on both of the
prints are very similar and both suggest that they are either a boot or a trainer. The size of
the print is also the same, this could suggest that suspect B.S was involved in this scene.
Similar signs of wear in both of the footprint.
Part C.P5, C.P6, C.M4, CD.D3
Evaluation
We followed careful protocols during our investigation to ensure the evidence's integrity and
chain of custody. We carefully removed the evidence from the storage area, documenting
each step by completing the chain of custody form located on the front of the evidence bags.
This gave us a clear record of who handled the evidence and when. We created distinct
parts within the lab to avoid cross-contamination. One part dealt with evidence connected to
Bear Sus, while the other section dealt with material regarding Hugh Dunnit. This separation
of work areas reduced the possibility of unintentional material transfer between the two
cases.We approached each piece of evidence with extreme caution, taking care not to mix
or contaminate any of the samples. We intended to protect the integrity and dependability of
the evidence throughout the inquiry process by maintaining this isolation and following strict
regulations. The connection gives strong evidence that Bear Sus was present at the time of
the crime and had direct touch with the victim. The presence of blood staining footprints not
15
Forensic Report
Introduction
I am a trainee technician with six months of experience working in a biochemistry lab. My
supervisor asked me to assist the new trainee biochemistry technician who will be carrying
out the identical placement that I have recently done before moving on to the next phase of
my technician training in another sort of lab. I will need to demonstrate a comprehension of
biochemical processes and the effects of disrupting them, as well as include models of the
relevant biological molecules that will allow you to illustrate to the new trainee the structure
and function of these in living animals.
Physical evidence footprint
Physical evidence was another form of evidence that was found at the crime scene and
collected from suspects. The evidence that was collected and analysed was footprints.
There were two footprints taken, one from each suspect. The shoe was also collected from
the crime scene and analysed. Footprints can show many things, the type of shoe, what
shoe it is, the foot size, any special markings and other information. Investigators can use
this information to see where the shoe could have been purchased from or which suspect
has this shoe in their possession. Forensics have a large database where all types of shoes
are shown and this simplifies the investigation.
Method
Footprints were collected from the crime scene by the SOCOs. The footprints could not be
lifted off the floor so it was photographed with a scale so it could still be used as evidence.
Footprints were found at the crime scene made from blood. Footprints from the suspects
were also collected by the police to be analysed. A shoe was collected from the crime scene
where it was then imprinted on a sheet. This could make it easier to compare the blemishes.
This image shows that the shoe was tightly sealed to ensure risks of contamination and was
labelled correctly.
Analysis of results
This footprint was found on the H.D of one of the suspects. The
footprint splits into two halves, and the front of the shoes starts to get
smaller and disappear. As a result, the shoe's front will be angular
and slightly bent upward. With this knowledge, it is most likely that the
shoe is a pair of smart shoes.
15
, Unit 23 LAC&D Expert Witness
The footprint that was found at the crime scene is represented
in this image. It is 12 cm in width and 30 cm in length. Due to
the lowest portion of the print being removed, the length of the
print may not be accurate; it should be greater than 30 cm. Like
before, there is a pattern in the footprint, indicating that it is
either a boot or a trainer.
This footprint is also from a large shoe and belongs to B.S,
another suspect in this criminal investigation. The footprint is also
split into two, however, it shows slight connections on the edges.
Patterns like these suggest that the shoe is a trainer or a boot. To
improve the analysis, more footprints can be taken from the
suspect.
Conclusions
Both the footprints above show the most similarities: the blood footprint was from the crime
scene and the other footprint was from Bear Sus. This is because the pattern on both of the
prints are very similar and both suggest that they are either a boot or a trainer. The size of
the print is also the same, this could suggest that suspect B.S was involved in this scene.
Similar signs of wear in both of the footprint.
Part C.P5, C.P6, C.M4, CD.D3
Evaluation
We followed careful protocols during our investigation to ensure the evidence's integrity and
chain of custody. We carefully removed the evidence from the storage area, documenting
each step by completing the chain of custody form located on the front of the evidence bags.
This gave us a clear record of who handled the evidence and when. We created distinct
parts within the lab to avoid cross-contamination. One part dealt with evidence connected to
Bear Sus, while the other section dealt with material regarding Hugh Dunnit. This separation
of work areas reduced the possibility of unintentional material transfer between the two
cases.We approached each piece of evidence with extreme caution, taking care not to mix
or contaminate any of the samples. We intended to protect the integrity and dependability of
the evidence throughout the inquiry process by maintaining this isolation and following strict
regulations. The connection gives strong evidence that Bear Sus was present at the time of
the crime and had direct touch with the victim. The presence of blood staining footprints not
15
