Who to prosecute for the murder of Chelsie Vapolt?

1.Draw a character web showing how the victim is related to the individuals interviewed in the case file. Mrs. Rose Steveson Mr. Consuele Suarez ( Sister of Mrs. Christini ( Housekeeper of Mrs. Valentini ] Christini Valentini ) Mr. Grace Steveson ( Mother of Mrs. Chris- tini Valentini ) Mr. Patrick Valentini Mrs. Christine ( Husband of Mrs. Valentini Christini Valentini ) Mr. Joshua Rojas ( Ex-boyfriend of Mrs. Christini Valentini ) Mr. Sam Kang [ Neighbour of Mrs. Mrs. Sandra Amaya Christini Valentini ) ( Dog walking service )2001 A DAY BEFORE CRIME At 11:15 pm an 911 Emergency call has gone from Los Angeles County.. . 2001 A DAY BEFORE CRIME CASE FILE - CHRISTINE VALENTINI (TIMELINE) At 9:00 pm - Mrs. Valencini changed all the 2001 beneficiaries to Mr. Josh. A DAY BEFORE CRIME At 8:02 pm - Mr. Joshua Rojas talked with Mrs. Valentini . 2001 CRIME DAY Mrs. Valentini was pronounced DOA at 01:23 am3. Were any abnormalities noted in the autopsy? If so. describe them and research what may have caused them. Be sure to cite your sources. The body had been injured. and the healing process was underway. The accideri occurred tw0 weeks before the death. The recent consensual sexual activity has shown effects in the body. The case le and the autopsy report are the sources. What should have caused the death? What evidence supports this conclusion? The cause of death was some intercourse and a rape that occurred as a result of it. The body was discovered by the pool. and the water from the pool was discovered inside the Victim's body. so the evidence backs up the inference. 4. Who is the prime suspect at this point? 1llli'hat was his:r her motive? The prime suspect at this point is Mr. Pam Vatentini. His motive was to kill her and he was not satised with the relationship of his wife with her Ear-boyfriend Joshua Rojas. He wanted to kill her because he was unhappy with his wife's relationship with her sic-boyfriend Justus Rojas. CSI Part 2-Evidence Analysis 1. Evidence #1 appears to be dog hair on the victim's bathrobe to me. The DNA evidence is very comparable to the dog's hair strand. The medulla is quite thin and does not take up the hair shaft. 2. Evidence #2 appears to be cat hair from what I saw in the picture. The DNA evidence is very comparable to that cat's hair strand. The medulla appears to be in very small blocks, constantly. 3. The shirt from Patrick's closet is surely human hair to me. Human hair has one of the most inconsistent and thinnest medullae and this evidence shows just that. 4. Both clothes collected from the victim's hand and shirt from Patrick's closet contain bodily fluids. The UV light test showed there were fluorescent parts of both of the pieces of evidence. 5. The pieces of evidence that contain blood are the rock that was found in the planter and the sample that was found in the laundry room. I reached this conclusion due to the results of the Kastle-Meyer blood tests. The + control substance was sustained that had Karen's blood on it and showed in pink. The tests rely on an indicator solution that changes color when oxidized, just like an apple slice turns brown when oxidized exposure to air. 6. Looking for the results of the DNA electrophoresis: A. It is yes because it appears that lanes two and four match and also lanes 3 and lanes 6 appear to match as well. Lanes 7-10 also all appear to be containing the same DNA samples as well. B. The mixture of the DNA fragments plus the restriction enzymes for each of the DNA evidence shows that lanes 2 and 4 both had the same length and fragmentation speed of the fragments moving towards the positive end of the gel. 7. I surely believe that the real prime suspect would be Patrick Vinson because the main piece of evidence to me would be the bloody Rock, which did indeed contain evidence of Patrick's DNA. In addition, the pants that were also found in the laundry room were very suspicious as there were some bloodstains that seemed to belong to Karen. Moreover, I would say that this would be the only evidence to claim that Patrick did because there was no human hair found on the victim's clothing would refute this evidence, as it seemed to be animal hair. Explanation: Evidence #1 is very obvious because the DNA is very comparable to that of a dog's hair strand. And also appears to be solid all the way through. Evidence #2 is very obvious as well. You can determine it from looking at the hair. And also does not take up the whole strand like a dog's but does take up the majority of the strand. Evidence #3 is surely a human hair for me because you can determine it by looking at that evidence and I do not doubt that this is indeed human hair. The indicator used in the Kastle Meyer test changes from colorless to bright pink when oxidized Both the rock and the pants returned as Positive. The shirt as well from Patrick's closet came out negative of blood traces. It could possibly mean that an animal or someone with an animal didExplanation: Evidence #1 is very obvious because the DNA is very comparable to that of a dog's hair strand. And also appears to be solid all the way through. Evidence #2 is very obvious as well. You can determine it from looking at the hair. And also does not take up the whole strand like a dog's but does take up the majority of the strand. Evidence #3 is surely a human hair for me because you can determine it by looking at that evidence and I do not doubt that this is indeed human hair. The indicator used in the Kastle Meyer test changes from colorless to bright pink when oxidized. Both the rock and the pants returned as Positive. The shirt as well from Patrick's closet came out negative of blood traces. It could possibly mean that an animal or someone with an animal did this crime because of evidence found. However, it would still not account for the bloody rock that does have Patrick's DNA.1] David Vapolt could have been murdered by Chelsie Vapolt because of the evidence found in their house and evidence from the victim's body. 2] The evidence I have to support this hypothesis is the hair analysis found in this case. 3] The animal hair found in Chelsie's and David's are confusing because that evidence is what points out to me that this murder may have been done by a different suspect. 4] Based on the evidence, the facts that I'm certain of is the cloth collected from Chelsie and the shirt from David's closet. All remaining evidence are not connected so to my knowledge I'll sayI have to say nothing else of evidence is true and lacks that evidence enough to think it has a connection with the murder. You have analyzed and scmtinized the evidence, so now it is time to make your case as the prosecutor! First, you need to decide who to prosecute for the murder of Chelsie Vapolt. Then. you will write a legal brief that utilizes the facts and evidence from the case to make an argument for why the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This legal brief should contain the following elements: - Your hypothesis for the case. The hypothesis should clearly state who the defendant is, the crime that they are being been charged with, and their motive. (Note: there can only be ONE defendant!) 0 Possible charges include : - Murder: Suspect intentionally killed the victim and planned out the entire crime beforehand. - intentional manslaughter". Suspect intentionally killed the victim in the heat of the moment. A crime of passion without forethought. - Accidental manslaughter: Suspect accidentally killed the victim. The murder was unintentional. - A narrative of the case -- You should provide a brief overview of the key facts of the case and a timeline of events. explaining howr they support your hypothesis. You can utilize the timeline and character web diagrams that you developed in C5! week 1 as part of your narrative. [Make sure that you provide a text explanation for any diagrams that you include!) - A discussion of the key evidence that supports your hypothesis. An effective brief will include multiple types of evidence from the case le, autopsy report, hair analysis, UV light testing, Kastle'Meyer blood test, and DNA analysis. Do not discuss every single piece of evidence that you analyzed for the case. Rather. you should select the key pieces of evidence that support your argument. To receive full credit, you must include a minimum of three different pieces of evidence. For each piece of physical or DNA evidence that you discuss, you should clearly and concisely explain the results of your analysis and how those results support your argument. Make sure you describe how the evidence ts into the larger narrative about your case. - A narrative of the case -- You should provide a brief overview of the key facts of the case and a timeline of events, explaining how they support your hypothesis. You can utilize the timeline and character web diagrams that you developed in CSI week 1 as part of your narrative. [Make sure that you provide a text explanation for any diagrams that you include!) - A discussion of the key evidence that supports your hypothesis. An effective brief will include multiple types of evidence from the case le, autopsy report, hair analysis, UV light testing, Kastle-Meyer blood test. and DNA analysis. Do not discuss every single piece of evidence that you analyzed for the case. Rather. you should select the key pieces of evidence that support your argument. To receive full credit, you must include a minimum of three different pieces of evidence. For each piece of physical or DNA evidence that you discuss, you should clearly and concisely explain the results of your analysis and how those results support your argument. Make sure you describe how the evidence ts into the larger narrative about your case. - Rebuttal of the arguments that the defense could use to show reasonable doubt about the guilt of the defendant. Pick a minimum of two facts or pieces of evidence and describe how the defense could use them to bring doubt to your case. Explain how you would counter the defense's argument. To support their argument, the defense may utilize different pieces of evidence than you did or they may use the some pieces of evidence but provide a different interpretation