1.1 Eyewitness account
An eyewitness has come forward; she was walking past the gym entrance and has provided evidence on what she saw. Below is what the witness says:
Activity 2 Trust
Do you think the eyewitness should be trusted?
Discussion
Eyewitnesses can be useful but they can also wrongly identify people. Since its formation in 1992, the USA Innocence Project has overturned numerous wrongful convictions, many based on faulty eyewitness testimony later disproved by DNA evidence. DNA and other forensic science evidence can be more reliable than eyewitness evidence.
Now listen to the Crime Scene Investigator (CSI):
Activity 3 Crime Scene Investigator focus
Investigating the scene: If you were the police investigator in Dave’s case, what would you ask the Crime Scene Investigator (CSI) to look for at the crime scene (the gym locker room) to help identify a culprit or assist in determining whether a crime had been committed?
Discussion
The CSI focuses on identifying, collecting, documenting, and recording traces that could be related to the alleged offence. These traces may be physical (weapons, fibres, hairs, footwear mark, fingerprints, DNA, etc.) or digital (phones, computers, routers, IoT devices, access logs, etc.). The CSI must collect all relevant evidential items that can progress the investigation. In this scenario the CSI might swab items for DNA, such as the bat, locker, door handles, and bags – recognising that many people use items daily, and their DNA could be present on surfaces for innocent reasons. Digital evidence, such as electronic gym access and mobile phone activity, could help reconstruct movements and link individuals to the scene.
OpenLearn - Do you trust forensic science in the criminal justice system?
Except for third party materials and otherwise, this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence, full copyright detail can be found in the acknowledgements section. Please see full copyright statement for details.