here is an example: The victim was stabbed to death, in front of 12 witnesses, during a brawl at the local bar. According to the first officers on scene, six of the witnesses were too drunk to be reliable. The other six all agreed that the victim had instigated the fight. Only two of the witnesses actually admitted to seeing a local named Billy stab the victim in self-defense after the victim had wrestled Billy to the floor.

Both witnesses described the area where the victim's body was found as the location where the fight had occurrednear the only pool table. Ironically, Billy showed up at the local emergency room with a stab wound to his left hand that he said occurred during a fight at the same local bar. His left hand was wrapped up with a white cotton hand towel. Billy told officers at the hospital that the victim also had a knife, and that he had simply defended himself. Billy voluntarily produced a small buck knife from a leather sheath on his belt and gave it to an officer. The knife did appear to be slightly bloodstained.

The case appeared to be straightforward. A bloodstained knife was actually found on the bar room floor near the victim's right hand. According to the first responding officers on scene, the case was "probably self-defense." The officers were quite familiar with the victim, known to them as "Mad Max." Apparently, "Mad Max" had an anger management issue and hated to lose at Eight Ball.

Homicide investigators and the crime lab were called to process the crime scene. First, the officers on scene briefed the detectives and the two crime scene analysts with the circumstances and facts of the case as known. Here is where the teamwork started. Each investigator and crime scene analyst started his or her handwritten notes. Initial witness and suspect statements were written down along with the time of the call and the names of all individuals known to have been within the crime scene area. Officers at the scene had already started a crime scene log and had secured the scene with barrier tape and positioned officers outside the entry and exit doors of the bar.

One of the detectives along with two crime scene analysts were given an initial walk through the crime scene leading up to the victim's body located on the floor near the pool table. The officer conducting the walk-through pointed out a large kitchen knife on the floor near the victim's right hand, along with a bloody shoe print impression near the pool of blood under the victim's body. During this time the crime scene analysts made notes regarding the physical evidence observed. The analysts also noted any duties that needed to be performed such as taking photographs of witnesses to document physical evidence including bloodstains on their clothing, hands, and shoes. One of the analysts noticed that, due to gravity's effect, the pool of blood under the victim's body was f lowing slowly toward the bloody shoeprint impression on the floor. The crime scene personnel agreed that the bloody shoeprint impression should be photographed immediately before the expanding pool of blood destroyed it.

The crime scene analysts decided what duties they would each perform as part of this investigation. Their goal was to determine "what happened" and "how did it happen" based on the physical evidence and compare that with the statements of witnesses and the suspect.

Crime Scene Analyst #1 accompanied Detective #1 to the location of the witnesses and photographed their clothing, hands, and shoes. Detective #1 also requested that the paramedic who confirmed the victim as deceased return to the crime scene so photographs could be taken of the paramedic's shoe pattern. Crime Scene Analyst #1 did so and then accompanied Detective #1 to the hospital to photograph the suspect and the injury to his left hand. While at the hospital, Crime Scene Analyst #1 took custody of the suspect's buck knife and the bloodstained white cotton hand towel from the officer, noting the date and time.

Meanwhile at the bar, Crime Scene Analyst #2 took photographs of the interior of the building from different vantage points and searched for additional evidence. During that search, Analyst #2 used high-intensity lighting and observed what appeared to be an impact bloodstain pattern and two cast-off bloodstain patterns on the wall of the hallway across from the men's restroom.

Analyst #2 also observed several drip stains on the floor near the men's restroom, which was approximately 22 feet away from the victim's body. Several of the drip stains appeared to have been wiped through in a possible attempt to clean up the blood. There were, however, two circular drip stains approximately 15 millimeters in diameter observed to be on the surface of the partially cleaned hallway floor.

This physical evidence was the first data that would contradict the statements of the suspect and witnesses if, in fact, the blood actually belonged to the victim and was related to the stabbing incident that occurred in the bar that evening. DNA analysis would determine if, in fact, the blood belonged to the victim.

Upon observing the bloodstain pattern evidence, Analyst #2 informed both Detective #2 and Crime Scene Analyst #1. Analyst #2 then finished taking overall photographs of the scene and continued to search for additional evidence. Analyst #2 observed what appeared to be a trail of drip stains that had been partially cleaned up with what appeared to be some type of floor mop. The trail of blood was very faint and consisted primarily of perimeter stains that led from the men's restroom to the location of the victim's body.

Analyst #2 and Detective #2 conducted a thorough search of the crime scene and located several additional items of evidence. A mop and bucket containing dirty reddish-colored water was located in a storage closet. Analyst #2 documented the evidence along with his observations and opinions in his handwritten notes and prepared a rough sketch of the scene. He also marked each item of evidence, along with the victim's body, with numbered photo placards and took overall, midrange, and close-up photographs with the use of his scale. Detective #2 measured each item of evidence with the assistance of Analyst #2 for the detective's sketch. Analyst #2 then collected each item of evidence, writing the date and time of collection in his notes.

The victim's body was found face-up with his arms away from his body. There were blood f low trails from the victim's nose and mouth. There was also what appeared to be an impact bloodstain pattern on the floor around the area of the victim's head, including one leg of the nearby pool table. The victim's T-shirt was soaked in blood. It appeared the victim had sustained a single stab wound to his chest.

The deputy coroner arrived and examined the victim's body prior to transporting the body to the morgue so an autopsy could be performed. During the examination, the deputy coroner discovered that the victim had also been stabbed four times in the back, near the right shoulder.

At the hospital, Analyst #1 photographed the suspect, his clothing, and his shoes, noting what appeared to be impact spatter on the front of the suspect's T-shirt along with transfer bloodstains and a swipe pattern on the right thigh area of his jeans. Analyst #1 also observed and photographed what appeared to be drip stains down the left pant leg of the suspect's jeans. Analyst #1 then photographed the apparent stab wound injury to the suspect's left hand. The injury was relatively minor.

The suspect held fast to his original statement about having stabbed the victim in self-defense as they fought near the pool table where the victim's body was found. Officers transported the suspect to police headquarters where Detective #1 conducted a formal interview that was both recorded and videotaped.

Analyst #1 then returned to the crime scene and assisted Analyst #2 in determining the approximate area of origin for the apparent impact bloodstain pattern observed on the wall of the hallway outside the men's restroom. The approximate area of origin for the apparent impact pattern was determined to be 5 feet, 2 inches above the floor, 11 inches south of the north hallway wall, and 2 feet, 5 inches east of the west hallway wall. There were two cast-off bloodstain patterns observed on the north hallway wall near the impact pattern. The area of origin of the impact pattern and the two cast-off patterns were consistent with the victim being stabbed a minimum of three times in his back while standing along the north wall of the hallway outside the men's restroom.

During the process of interviewing suspect Billy, Detective #1 was called out of the interview room and updated about the bloodstain patterns discovered in the hallway, the apparent cleaned-up trail of blood from the men's restroom to the location of the victim's body, and the potential bloody mop and bucket located in a closet. Detective #1 informed Billy to "sit tight" because there has been a "break in the case." The Detective wanted Billy to think about the truthfulness of the story he had been telling.

Detective #1 then separately re-interviewed the two witnesses that claimed that Billy had stabbed the victim in self-defense on the floor near the pool table. One of the two witnesses was the bartender, and it was his shoe pattern that was consistent with the bloody shoeprint impression on the floor near the victim's body. When confronted with the bloodstain pattern evidence outside the men's restroom along with the evidence that someone had cleaned the blood trail, the bartender admitted that the fight might have started in the hallway and ended with the victim collapsing on the floor near the pool table. The bartender also admitted that he was the individual responsible for mopping up the bloodstains on the floor, but that was his only involvement. He could be labeled a "reluctant" witness.

While being re-interviewed by Detective #1, the second witnesswho wasn't as reluctantadmitted he also lied to the detective about where the fight started because he was afraid of Billy. The second witness told the detective that he could hear Max making a gurgling sound but that he really wasn't sure how badly Max was hurt. The witness went on to say that when the bartender was mopping the floor he called out to Billy and said, "He's not dead. What are you going to do now?" The witness then explained to the detective how Billy walked over to Max's body and hit him in the chest one time while stating, "Now he's dead!"

The witness admitted that he did not see a knife but that Billy may have stabbed Max because the gurgling sound stopped. The witness also stated that Billy told the bartender to "get him a fking knife and a couple of clean towels." The bartender did so, and Billy disappeared for a minute back toward the men's restroom. According to the witness, Billy returned, walked back over to Max's body and bent over. The witness again explained that he did not actually see Billy place the large kitchen knife next to Max's hand because the pool table was in the way, but did notice that Billy had a white towel around his left hand and was holding another in his right. The witness explained again that Billy had threatened both him and the bartender if they did not back up his story.

Detective #2 realized that the plot was getting more complicated. If the statements of Witness #2 were indeed factual, this could now be a first-degree premeditated homicide as opposed to self-defenseor, at best, manslaughter. The detective returned to the interview room where Billy had been waiting. He confronted Billy with some of the statements of the witnesses and encouraged him to explain what really happened.

Billy admitted that the fight did start in the hallway near the men's restroom. However, he insisted that Mad Max was armed with a large kitchen knife and tried to stab him in the chest. Billy went on to demonstrate how he moved away from the knife only to be stabbed in his left hand. It was only then that Billy retrieved his own buck knife and stabbed Max in self-defense. He could not remember exactly how many times he stabbed Max, stating only that it was "maybe twice."

Billy further explained that Max pursued him from the hallway to the pool table where Max again tried to stab Billy before the former fell to the floor. Billy admitted that he did ask the bartender for some towels since he was bleeding, and that was when he decided to seek medical aid. When Billy was informed that a witness stated that he saw Billy stab the victim in the chest while he was on the floor, Billy demanded an attorney and the interview came to an abrupt halt.

Based on the physical evidence collected at the crime scene and the statements of the suspect and witnesses (whether intoxicated, reluctant, or both), many pieces of the puzzle related to this stabbing death seemed to fit.

More pieces of the puzzle are needed, however, so let's return to our definitions of crime scene reconstruction. The California Department of Justice defines homicide reconstruction as "the process of utilizing information derived from physical evidence at the scene, from analyses of physical evidence, and from inferences drawn from such analyses to test various theories of the occurrence of prior events." Per this definition, to gather more pieces of the puzzle, the physical evidence collected from the crime scene needs to be analyzed.

Take a couple of minutes and make a list of the various examinations of physical evidence you would request on this case. Think about the results you need to complete the crime scene reconstruction.

In the case of the victim (Mad Max) reportedly being stabbed in self- defense by the suspect (Billy) in the area of the pool table, the DNA analysis of the various bloodstain patterns collected at the scenealong with processing the large kitchen knife found near the victim's right handare absolutely vital. We cannot accurately draw inferences, test various theories, or confirm the honesty of statements made by the suspect or witnesses until the analysis of the physical evidence collected has been completed.

Unit IV Crime Scene Reconstruction: Case Study 1

Directions: Read the case study that begins at the bottom of page 65 in the textbook. The case contains many details and items for consideration when reconstructing the crime. In order to organize the facts and observations into meaningful analysis, complete the following table regarding the suspects, victims, witnesses, and evidence.

Example entries are given below in italics.

You may add as many rows as needed.

Not all blanks will be filled.

Shading demonstrates how the table reads in intersecting columns and rows. For example, the "buck knife" is placed where the "Billy" column and "Weapons" row intersect; therefore, you know the knife was a weapon and belonged to Billy. The idea is to layout all observations in one place to make the final assessment easier.

	Billy (suspect)	Mad Max (victim)	Scene	Witnesses
Injury
Weapons	Buck knife in Case with stain
Evidence
Evidence			Bloody Shoe Print Impression
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence

After completing the table, make your analysis to determine the correct sequence of events, based on your outlined observations. Explain how you arrived at your determination.

(Insert written response here)

: