After going through the evidence available at the crime scene, I concluded that customers B, C and D knew each other. At the moment I arrived at the crime scene, it was evident that the three customers were sitting next to each other. Also, I took note of the fact that the checks of the three customers were totaling to $8.75 that had just rung up at the cash register. In assessing the available evidence, how do we know that customers B, C and D knew each other? Firstly, when friends go out for lunch, they normally tend to sit next to each other while engrossed in a chat ( Geberth, 2016) . Secondly, the cash register immediately rung up $8.75 which implies that the respective customer checks were paid by one of them. Therefore, it is evident that customers B, C and D knew each other.
Secondly, I also concluded that customer C is a left-handed individual while B and D are right handed. When I entered the crime scene, I notice that the arrangement of plates, cups, spoons, and knives were not the same for the three customers. For instance, the cup, knife and fork spoon for customer C was placed on the left-hand side with a napkin on the right-hand side. This was contrary to customer B and D whose cups and spoons were positioned on the right-hand side with a napkin on the left-hand side. However, how can we determine the behavioral differences of the three customers? As a general rule, the position of used cutlery tools says more about the hand being used by an individual. With this knowledge, it is evident that customer C was a left-handed individual while B and D are right-handed. Therefore, it is worth concluding that the three customers differed on how they prioritized their use of hands.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Thirdly, I also concluded that Y is set of Ernie’s footprints. When I entered the lunchroom, I quickly noticed that the footprints were emanating from a mop positioned next to a cleaning bucket. I also noted that the footprints were heading towards the cash register. Based on this evidence, how do we then determine Ernie’s footprints? As indicated in Lee’s crime report, Ernie is the owner and the only employee of the lunchroom. With this in mind, it is also logical to point out that she is the only one in charge of cleaning the place. In this perspective, the footprints pointing away from the mop and the cleaning bucket could be that of Ernie. Secondly, taking into account that Ernie is the owner and the only employee of the lunchroom, it is also prudent to point out that he is the one in charge of collecting funds in the place. With footprints Y ending at the cash register, it is evident that they map Ernie’s movement in the lunchroom. Based on this analysis I concluded that the footprints marked Y are Ernie’s.
Lastly, the footprints marked X belong to the shooter. While in the crime scene, I noted that the position of the handprint on the wall is in line with where footprints X emanated from. In this perspective, I also took note of a police report which indicated that the murderer was leaning against the wall while shooting. Based on this information how do we determine the true identity of the person whose footprints are marked X? Considering that the position of the handprint coincides with where footprint X is emanating from, it is logical to point out that the suspect’s right hand was facing the wall while the left one was directly pointing the mobster. If the murderer was leaning against the wall, while facing the deceased, his or her feet will be pointing in the direction of footprint X. With this information, it is evident that the person whose footprints are marked X is the one who murdered the mobster.
Reference
Geberth, V. J. (2016). Practical homicide investigation: Tactics, procedures, and forensic techniques . CRC Press.
