Forensics Science
In the Forensics Science workshop we learned how a crime scene unit secures evidences. In many experiments and investigations we found out about some methods in forensics science and at the end of the week we solved a fictive murder.
Monday morning we got welcomed by Mr. Brown, our very friendly teacher, who seems to be a trust teacher, because many students came to him in breaks to talk to him or to pick up things they have stored there. We started our course with looking at skeletons. At the back of the classroom on some tables were some fake and real skulls, bones and two skeletons. While we were looking at the models, the teacher taught us what and how you can find out facts if you just see the bones of a person. For example if you want to find out if a skull is from a man or from a woman, you can look at jawbone, as closer it gets to 90° as higher is the probability that it was a man. Also the whole skull of a woman is smoother. Another strong evidence to find out about the gender is a bone at the back of the skull, who holds the neck muscles, as bigger this bone is, as more muscles were hold there. From this you can conclude that the bigger the bone is the skull is more probably a male skull, because man usually have more muscles. All these are just strong hints, never a clue! We got many more information. One skeleton had a male body, but a female skull, when Mr. Brown bought it. This is because many think a female skull is prettier, because it is smoother, so it is sold better. On another table were some fake skulls of different time ages. We got a quick overview how the homo sapiens was developed. Afterwards we got folders which included a time table for the week and extra information of the topics we worked on during the week. We started with the new topic blood types. Although we had all the information in our folders Mr. Brown explained all we need to do the investigation with a Power Point Presentation and we didn't have to read the folders, they were just an extra information to read at home. After we learned the theory we started some practical work, an experiment. (We had 4 different (fake) blood samples (Victim, Suspect 1, Suspect 2 and from the crime scene), 4 blood typing trays, 12 mixing sticks, Anti-A, Anti-B and Anti-Rhesus factor blood serum. First we put some drops of every blood sample in three wells of the tray. Then we added some drops of the Anti-A blood serum to one well of every blood sample. Anti-B and Anti-Rhesus factor blood serum was added as the Anti-A serum to wells where no other Anti factor is already in. With the mixing sticks we sired the mixtures. We found out that Suspect 1 blood group matches with the one of the crime scene. So Suspect 1 could be the murderer, but don't need to be it.) Then we started with the presumptive blood testing. In this topic we learned how to detect iron sulphate. If it is negative then it is no blood, if it is positive then it may be blood. After lunch we made the blood splatter experiment, where we drop a red liquid on a white paper from different heights and in movement. On the next day we looked at fingerprints, how you can differ and detect them. Then we extracted some DNA of a kiwi and learned about the genetic fingerprint. Later we examined on fibres and hair under the microscope and we found out the difference between synthetic fibres and natural hair. While all the students were at a day trip to York, Mr. Brown and two Sixth Form Students set up a crime scene in the tennis pavilion. On Thursday we made the investigation of the crime scene. There were two murders, one in a bathroom and one in the living room. A group leader made a sketch of the crime scenes and added all evidence numbers in the sketch. Others were looking for fingerprints, fibres, hairs, drugs and other evidences using the procedures we learned on Monday and Tuesday. I was in the group of the living room murder. When we secured all evidences, we sat down and discussed what a plausible story line of the murder could be. On the next day we saved our
results and made boards to present our case. Our final result was that the victim Charlie was visited by Nicole Berry and drunk a cup of tea with her. This is proved by two teacups in the kitchen, on one where the fingerprints of Nicole Berry on the other the victim's fingerprints. Then Nicole left, also proved by the fact, that the cups were in the kitchen. (The murder seem to had enough time to write a suicide note, so if it would be the own fingerprints at the cup, she would have taken them away) Then Charlie set up to smoke a joint, which was not burned yet. We are not sure if she did it alone or with Barbara Wool, who came inside later. Then an argument started, we were not sure about what, but probably about money, because we found a lot money under the pillow of the bed or about drugs, because we found a lot of weed behind some picture frames. The argument is proved by a chair which is turned over. The victim was stabbed to death. On the knife we found fingerprints of Barbara Wool, but none from Charlie. So we concluded that it was no suicide, although we found a suicide note on the desk. We compared the writing of the suicide note with the writing on a shopping list we found in the kitchen, which was probably written by the victim, but the writings did not match. This proves our theory that it was no suicide, but a murder committed by Barbara Wool. After we finished our presentation we set up a crime scene in another classroom to show the others how it looks like if we are working on a crime scene.
All in all I am very glad that I choose this workshop and I want to thank Mr. Brown, all the other ROTA staff members and my host family for an amazing, wonderful week.