According to the investigation report and findings, it is unreasonable to conclude the incident was an accident. First, there was an inaccurate analysis of the accident scene by the preliminary investigator. The investigator did not gather all the events leading to the incident in a chronological order to uncover the truth. Secondly, the scene of the incident seemed to have been tampered. The passenger door was open, and this leaves questions if someone orchestrated the incident. The presence of a dumbbell on the driver’s foot also shows that someone could have committed the arson attack on the driver and used the dumbbell to restrict the driver's movement. Moreover, the autopsy report contradicts the investigator's findings as there were no crash-related injuries on the driver’s body. Hence there is no possibility that an accident occurred as there are no crash-related signs on the victim’s body ( Shannon et al., 2018) .in addition to this, there were no correct measurements to ascertain whether an accident had occurred. The car's mechanical components, such as the tires, the vehicle chassis, and suspension system, were not analyzed to uncover whether there had been a crash.
Preliminary Investigation by the Initial Responding Officer
The preliminary investigation by the initial responding officer was inadequate. The officer did not respond immediately to the scene, and this could have compromised the evidence. Lack of immediate response leaves a platform to tamper with the evidence, resulting in inaccurate findings. The officer also rushed to make assumptions without a complete analysis of the events leading to the accident. It is necessary to determine all the events before the accident and relate them to uncover an accident's underlying cause to determine the accident's cause. The initial responding officer did not carry out proper vehicle inspection ( Shannon et al., 2018) . it is also necessary to inspect the vehicle's mechanical components, such as brakes, chassis, speedometer, and the tires, and gather this data to determine whether an accident could occur. Moreover, the driver's car compliance documents, such as driving license and vehicle registration documents, can help ascertain whether the driver was qualified and whether it belonged to him. Finally, the responding officer’s findings contradicted other professionals’ findings. The pathologist's report suggested there were no crash injuries on the victim while the officer reported a crash ( Shannon et al., 2018) . These events conclude that the initial responding officer’s investigation was inadequate.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Theory of What Happened
In my opinion, this is a homicide where the driver was murdered deliberately. The driver's body was then placed in the car, and a dumbbell was used to ensure the vehicle was on motion leading to the vehicle crashing as there was no one to steer the vehicle. The arson attack on the vehicle was then used to conceal the whole series of events and presume that the crash resulted in the car igniting.
The reason why I suggest it was a homicide was the fact that the passenger’s door was open. If there had been an accident, then another passenger inside the car or the door could have been shut. The presence of a dumbbell on the driver’s foot also indicates a third party involved in orchestrating the incident. The absence of crash injuries on the driver’s body also suggests that the crash was used to conceal other murder details and presume that the driver succumbed to the crash ( Shannon et al., 2018) . The driver's arson injuries do not relate to over speeding; hence, someone was involved in the car's burning to conceal murder details.
References
Shannon, D., Murphy, F., Mullins, M., & Eggert, J. (2018). Applying crash data to injury claims-an investigation of determinant factors in severe motor vehicle accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention , 113 , 244-256.
