Introduction
After receiving an urgent call from the investigators, in around 2-45 am, I reached to the crime scene, which is a gas station and stationary shop around the freeway. It was the crime scene and there was a dead body. This is my report:
The deceased
A white, male person around 45 years of age. Well built and, as reported, the owner of the gas station. He is around 6 feet and well over 75 kg. The bullet was shot from the front, may be from a 2 and 1/2 feet distance and it pierced his body and struck in the back showcase.
Witnesses
A gas store employee, who was present in the time of the event, nodded to be the witness of the crime. Along with the person there are two persons, a Japanese mother and her child who were on their way to another city came to fill up their gas tank saw the event completely. All the three witnesses are really scared to see the killing. The kid needed immediate medical attention and he was provided that by the emergency team in the crime scene.
Killer
Witnesses say that the killer was a man in his late thirties and he was medium in height but well built. Though he had a shotgun in his hand but he fired from a black 9 mm semi automatic gun and he has thrown the gun in the gas station. The only one camera of the gas station shows clearly the shooting and the shooter can be identified by this.
Other visible items
The other visible items in the case are the black 9 mm semi automatic gun which was used for shooting. Eye witnesses say that the main fired four bullets but we can recover only one casing by the entry door. There is a blood strained lottery ticket which is probably the victim’s and we believe he was checking the number in paper when the shooter came. A cigarette carton is ripped open in the floor and a pack is missing, which the shooter had taken away. A wooden cigar box full of cash is on the floor, which probably the shooter came to take but failed (Meyer & Reppucci, 2007). Another fresh cigarette butt is on the parking lot which the killer was smoking before entering the store.
Reconstruction of the crime
If we clearly go through the items and the situation we can recreate the crime scene very easily. The shooter before entering the store quickly smoked a cigarette and left it burning on the parking. Then he entered the shop and directly demanded the money from the owner. May be he was high on drugs and when the owner refused he shot him by his pistol, not the shotgun he was carrying in his hand, and then he realizes that there are three other persons in the store too. He than threats them by firing two more rounds, but he was unable to lay his hand on the money. So he was violently disappointed and took a pack of smokes from the curtain and fled the crime scene (Heath, 2009).
A-Process for collecting evidence
We can obtain finger prints from a lot of things. The cigarette butt the gun and the carton of cigarette from which I am certain that I will get the finger print of the shooter. The spent bullet is seen in the counter, it is embedded there, and we can match the bullet from the recovered gun and the bullet casing than it will be easy to charge the killer with homicide (Mann & Vrij 2008). And above all there are three eye witnesses and the footage from the close circuit camera and the footage will be analyzed by the video analyst present in our department (Heath, 2009).
We are collecting the evidences in the evidence bag by wearing plastic gloves so that the finger prints do not get away. The bullet that is embedded in the showcase has to be removed by knife. All the bullets and the gun will be tested in the forensic laboratory to confirm that the killer shot from the gun. Trace evidence will be done in the gas station to find any thing related to the man in question. Other than that impression evidences will be used here to frame the murderer (Tagliaro & Bortolotti, 2006).
B- Witnesses
As per my judgment goes, I believe that the people present in the store while the shooting are not involved with the shooter. For the beginning, here we can see that the shooter was failed to take the money he wanted to take, and only thing he had robbed from the store is nothing but a small pack of cigarettes. Now let us concentrate on the witnesses. The first witness is an employee of the store. As an employee of the store he must have to know that there is a close circuit camera in the store some where. And if he was involved he must have planned to avoid the camera. But the killer did not know about the existence of the camera and hence it is clearly recorded that he is shooting the owner. And the other two, the mother and the child, who is basically based in California can be safely said had no hand in the crime. They were only at the “wrong place, in the wrong time.” (Dirkmaat, 2008)
But still, here we can say that they were involved during a shooting where a person had lost his life. So every one present at the spot are a suspect and back ground checks on all the three will be done by our team of investigators before we come to any conclusion (Tagliaro & Bortolotti, 2006).
C- Packing of Evidence
All the evidences were taken into evidence bag and they are properly labeled. The photographers took photos from all the possible angles to present the reconstruction of the murder in a court of justice. The DNA analysts were there and they had collected samples of blood and also they believed that if they can examine the smoked cigarette, they can say that if the person who is being alleged as the shooter was on high or not (Dirkmaat, 2008).
Conclusion
In the final analysis, as a forensic investigator, the case looks very clear to me. The killer was in desperate need of money and he decided to rob the store. He had no intention of killing but the gun fired and he got afraid, and fled the crime scene. My experience says that it will be not a tough job to nab the killer and he will get a long punishment in a court of law.
References
- Dirkmaat, D. (2008). Fingerprint and Criminal Justice. New perspectives in forensic anthropology, 137, 33-52.
- Heath, W. (2009). Arresting and convicting the innocent: the potential role. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 313-332.
- Mann, S., & Vrij, A. (2008). See no lies, hear no lies: differences in discrimination accuracy and response bias when watching or listening to police suspect interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1062-1071.
- Meyer, J., & Reppucci, D. (2007). Police practices and perceptions regarding juvenile interrogation and interrogative suggestibility. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 757-780.
- Tagliaro, F., & Bortolotti, F. (2006). Recent advances in the applications of CE to forensic sciences (2001-2004). Electrophoresis, 27, 231-243.