Question 1
Obtaining the microscopic quantities on the clothes of the victim transferred by the vehicle, completely drying the garment if damp, wrapping carefully and separately, each item by rolling either in a piece of paper or another place for transportation to the nearby laboratory. The strength of the resulting evidence is that, it provides information about the place where the accident occurred. The weakness of the resulting evidence is that, there are no images that confirm that it is the client’s car which was involved in the accident and also, the thoughts of the police are not generally evident. The fact that the evidence has not been delivered to the laboratory for investigation and there may be other vehicle which uses the road on which the accident occurred reduces the impact of the paint evidence (Sterne, Sutton & Ioannidis, 2011).
Question 2
The scattered fragments of white and orange plastic together with the small cubic glasses may exhibit similar characteristics with the plastic and glass materials in the client’s car. Laboratory analysis can attach the fragments with the client’s clothing hence ensuring the continuity of the evidence. Laboratory tests which should be performed include, comparing the fragments collected at the scene with those found in the client’s car, putting the small cubic glass fragments together to check whether they can match the client’s headlights or any other glassy component of the client’s car and performing microscopic and visual examination of fracture patterns and holes which might be present on the client’s car to investigate if there might be two or more fragments which came from exactly the same source (Sterne, Sutton & Ioannidis, 2011). According to Sterne, Gavaghan & Egger, 2000, if there are two or more fragments which have been identified to have come from the same source, then that acts as an evidential value of the result and hence the conclusion is that, it is the client’s car which was involved in the accident.
Question 3
According to Sterne, Gavaghan & Egger, 2000, collect all the bullets found around the door, pick up the double-barreled shotgun and the semi-automatic pistol held by the three occupants of the suspected vehicle, take photographs of the gun shots and keep notes about the weapons condition. Collection process begins with collecting evidence which is most fragile or which is mostly lost easily. Collect the bullets in papers or containers like envelopes, bags and packets. Collect the gun shot and the pistol in separate bags and keep notes on their condition maintaining the potential evidence. The firearms should be kept in separate bags from their magazines and or ammunition. Laboratory tests to be performed include: determination of the shotgun’s gauge and the gauge of the pistol, the manufacturer of the two firearms and the individual characteristics of the firearms. This is done so as to match the results with the bullets collected on the scene. If the bullets match the firearms characteristics, then it is concluded that, it is the three occupants of the arrested vehicle which were involved in the shooting scene.
Reference
Sterne, J., Gavaghan, D. & Egger, M. (2000). Bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. 343 (11) 1120-30. PMID 1105775
Sterne, J., Sutton, A. & Ioannidis, J. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMJ. 343:d4002
