Final Project: Cold Case Arrest Warrant Report
Final Project: Cold Case Arrest Warrant Report
This report represents an outline of a homicide investigation. The first section presents the action plan for solving the case. The report also provides a summary of the homicide, armed robbery, and witness statements, and a briefing of evidence and forensic reports. Additionally, it describes the criteria for decision-making and determination of facts regarding the homicide. The report indicates what the investigating officer concludes about the case, in an attempt to obtain an arrest warrant for the suspect.
First, I will manage all evidence collected from the crime scene effectively. Effective evidence management of material involves appropriate recording, analysis, and storage. This minimizes the risk of the loss of crucial evidence useful for an investigation. Secondly, I will conduct research and analysis as a way of managing the investigation. Research and analysis will aid the identification of gaps in the evidence collected, aid decision-making, provide an objective case summary, and generate information to make resource decisions (Geberth, 2013). I will visit the crime scene severally during the research and analysis stage, to gather additional information that could aid the progress of the investigation. Additionally, research will assist in the development of interview schedules for suspects and alibis.
The next step in solving the case will be interviewing suspects, witnesses, and alibis. I will conduct the interviews separately, whereby witnesses will be required to provide a personal account of the events leading to the homicide. I will conduct a final analysis based on the testimonies provided by all interviewees. I will conduct incident, network, subject profile, and criminal pattern analyses; these analyses will offer guidance towards identifying the suspect for this investigation. Incident analysis will entail the examination of the incidents leading to the homicide, an assessment of witness statements, and an analysis of any timeline gaps identified from the witness accounts. A network analysis facilitates the inspection of links between various elements of the investigation (Walton, 2013). A subject profile analysis, on the other hand, will focus on close examinations of the individuals involved in the homicide investigation who include the victim, their family members, witnesses, and suspects. I will use the criminal profiling technique in this analysis to explore the backgrounds of these individuals. The crime pattern analysis will help me integrate related trends in homicide crimes with this investigation, hence facilitating the process (Worth & French, 2008). The final step will be the identification and request for an arrest warrant for the suspect linked to the homicide.
Summary of Homicide
On the night of 8 July 2013, the police department received a distressed call from a man claiming that he found his daughter dead on arrival at his house. The man only identified himself as Matthews, amid sobs on the end of the other line. The police department deployed ten officers and I to the crime scene, where the man was asked to remain until they arrived. Accompanied by a medical team, we verified that indeed the victim identified as Mary, was dead. The medical team examined Mary’s body and found deep wounds on her chest and bite-marks on her forearm. This implied that she had struggled with her assailant moments before her death. The sergeant appointed me the officer in charge of the investigation, and commanded that the crime scene be sealed to minimize contamination of evidence. Upon examination of the scene, we established that Mary’s computer was missing alongside her personal documents from work. The assailant, however, left no physical evidence, at the crime scene. We, therefore, declared the incident a homicide and proceeded to identify possible witnesses to the crime. I launched the investigations on 23 July, by analyzing both the evidence recovered from the scene and the witness accounts.
Summary of Armed Robbery
Mary’s computer and personal documents from work were missing upon examination of the crime scene. According to Matthews, Mary used her computer for work purposes only. The victim was the company’s financial controller, with no known foes. Among the missing documents were the company’s financial reports for the first quarter of 2013, the budget estimates for the third quarter, and employee remuneration reports for the period between January and June. This implied that the assailant’s motive was not personal, but involved financial operations of the company for which Mary worked.
Summary of Witness Statements
The witnesses to this homicide crime were interviewed two times. We conducted the first interviews on 9 July 2013 and the second on 16th the same month. This was done to ascertain that their second accounts did not contradict their first. The first witness to this investigation was Mr. Matthews, the victim’s father. Matthews claimed to have been working all day and only arrived home to find his daughter lying in a pool of blood. Both Matthews and his daughter Mary worked at the same company, which was co-owned by Matthews and his close friend Richard. Matthews named Richard as his alibi, claiming to have worked late with him that day. Richard attested to this claim saying that he could prove that he had been working late with Matthews; this satisfied Matthews’ alibi leaving me with a wider scope from which to obtain possible leads to the suspect. When asked about his knowledge regarding the whereabouts of his daughter that day, Richard said that he was clueless, as he had seen Mary last that morning. Both the first and second witness accounts provided by Matthews’ were similar.
The second witness Richard, Matthews’ friend and company co-owner, reported having seen Mary walk in late to her office the morning of 8 July 2013. Richard, however, said that no conversation between him and the victim ensued as he spent his day attending meetings together with Matthews. Richard’s second account, however, slightly contradicted his first; Richard claimed that he did not see Mary the day she was murdered. He added that he had seen her two days earlier in the company of her colleagues at the firm’s boardroom.
The third and fourth witnesses, identified as Alice and Adam, were neighbors to Matthews. Alice claimed that she heard two vehicles screech loudly earlier in the evening when Mary was murdered. According to her statement, Alice peeped through her window and saw two SUV vehicles with tinted windows leaving Matthews’ compound in a hurry. She, however, remained indoors and did not probe further. The other witness Adam, Matthews’ adjacent neighbor said that he heard loud bangs and screams in Matthews’ compound earlier the same evening Mary was murdered. The statements, which Adam and Alice provided on 9th and 16th, were the same.
I sought to establish from some of Mary’s colleagues whether she had enemies or looked suspicious on the day she died. Margaret, Mary’s personal assistant said that the victim’s behavior on the day she died was suspicious. According to Margaret, Mary came in late that day and was restless throughout the day. Her phone was constantly ringing, but she only picked it three times. Margaret further said that Mary did not leave her work documents in her drawer that day, as was her routine. Probing further, I established from Margaret that Mary’s did not have any known enemies at her workplace. Additionally, Margaret claimed to have seen a tall man visit Mary in the office the previous day before her death. Asked about Mary’s reactions and behavior after the visit, the assistant said that Mary seemed irritable by what ensued in her meeting with the man. She was asked to describe the man, who was later identified at Timothy and of a Russian origin, through criminal profiling. Interviewed later, Margaret provided the same account as her first.
Timothy became a prime suspect for this investigation. Some officers deployed to trail Timothy, captured and brought him for interrogation. The suspect was uncooperative, claiming to have no knowledge about Mary’s death. He demanded to have his lawyer present during the interviews. Timothy, even through his lawyer, was uncooperative and maintained that he knew nothing about Mary and that their relationship was purely professional. We sought to extract a sample of his saliva for DNA testing by offering him a glass of water.
Evidence
Mary’s assailant did not leave any physical evidence at the crime scene. The investigation team, therefore, embarked on identifying other materials from the crime scene that would count as proof. The team collected blood samples from the crime scene for analysis. Upon close examination of the scene, the investigation team found clothing fiber and hair strands all over the furniture. Samples of fiber and hair strands were collected for forensic analyses. Timothy’s saliva sample was given to the forensic experts for DNA sampling. Surveillance footage in Mary’s office certified Margaret’s statement, positively identifying the suspect as Timothy. Additionally, traffic surveillance indicated the presence of two SUVs earlier that evening as identified by Alice.
Forensic Reports
Forensic reports indicated that Mary was stabbed using a blunt knife four times on her chest. She died due to an excessive blood loss and heart failure. The reports showed that the assailant bit the victim’s forearm using canines, which penetrated deep into her skin. The forensic specialists explained that there was a high chance that two individuals, based on the degree of the assault, attacked Mary. The report also showed that the attackers tried to strangle the victim before stabbing her; according to the autopsy report, Mary was bleeding internally around her thyroid gland. The victim’s skeletal system of the head was damaged extensively, indicating that Mary’s head was banged on a hard surface, which made her unconscious.
According to the forensic reports, both the victim and one of the attackers lost some amount of blood during the encounter; Mary belonged to blood group O while one of the attackers had type A blood. The reports also indicated that the assailants were dressed in clothing made with heavy fiber. The victim’s clothing, in contrast, were made of fiber free material. Timothy’s DNA, extracted through a sample of his saliva, however, did not match that of the hair strand; the hair strand obtained from the crime scene was a female’s according to the DNA report.
Determination of Facts
The determination of facts that would link this investigation with the suspects were based on the witness accounts and forensic reports. According to Margaret’s account, Mary has a Russian enemy, named Timothy. The investigation team used the criminal profiling technique to identify Timothy’s traits and establish possible elements that would link him to the homicide. Criminal profiling entails the development of a suspect’s profile to assess whether they fit that of a criminal (Turvey, 2011). The process revealed that Timothy’s profile fitted that of a criminal as he had been linked to such related crimes in Russia. A further assessment on the suspect’s background showed an affiliation between him and Richard; this linked Timothy and Richard to the homicide.
Both Richard and Timothy were interviewed again where investigation officers probed the nature of their relationship. The two were business partners, once accused of fraud and embezzlement of the company’s funds. These facts further proved that Richard and Timothy were linked to Mary’s death. The forensic reports, however, showed that no direct linkage for Timothy and Richard to the homicide. The determination of the assailants, therefore, was necessary to determine how the two suspects were involved in the homicide. The team used the traffic surveillance footage to establish the registration plates for the vehicles used during the homicide. One vehicle was registered under Timothy’s name and the other under a woman named Janet. Janet claimed to have rendered her vehicle to Timothy a week earlier.
The DNA samples for the hair strand, however, were traced to one of Timothy’s female employees, who was also a close friend to Janet. The suspect identified as Natasha, was a trained sniper, specialized in martial arts. The shape of the teeth according to the bite-marks on Mary’s forearm matched Natasha’s, positively identifying her as the female assailant. Natasha testified to have committed the crime, with the aid of a man named John. She said that Timothy offered her a huge sum of money to access Richard and Matthews’ company financial records. According to Natasha, there was no intention to murder the victim, and it happened because Mary became resistant. John was interrogated and confirmed Natasha’s claims, saying that he was only performing his job.
Conclusions
This homicide investigation identifies two assailants, a man and a woman, named John and Natasha. The two were hired by Timothy, Richard’s business partner to access the financial records of Richard’s company. Both Richard and Natasha defended their actions arguing that they were only in the line of duty. According to Natasha, Mary would have been provided she was cooperative. Margaret, Mary’s personal assistant claims to have seen Timothy in Mary’s office a day before she was murdered. The meeting did not go well; Mary did not honor Timothy’s demand. The investigation points to Richard and Timothy, who harbor an intention to embezzle the company’s funds. Mary is a victim of circumstance, only because she was the company’s financial controller. The concepts used in this investigation are criminal profiling, DNA sampling, autopsy reporting, and crime scene reconstruction. Natasha and John should be arrested for the murder of Mary Matthews, alongside Timothy and Richard as their accomplices. Additionally, Timothy and Richard should face a separate charge for fraud.
References
Geberth, V. J. (2013). Practical homicide investigation checklist and field guide. Florida: CRC Press.
Turvey, B. E. (2011). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis. Elsevier.
Walton, R. H. (2013). Practical Cold Case Homicide Investigations Procedural Manual. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Worth, R., & French, J. L. (2008). Homicide. New York: Chelsea House.
