CMRJ329

150 WORDS AGREE OR DISAGREE

First, we have inductive reasoning which is going from particular events to an overall generalization of conclusion (Johnson, 1996). This in turn can lead to a conclusion which is the most probable but not always the most trustworthy or correct. Now by gathering statistical information and observations the forensic examiner creates associations and assumptions about a given situation (Turvey, 2012). We can get a quick example of this by looking at the case. For example, since the wife was raped during the commission of the crime, we can inductively conclude that the perpetrator must be a male individual. As  we continue our observation of the situation and mixed it with other cases in which rape was a part of the crime, we can determine for the most part all clues point to it being a male suspect. So, although we don’t have concrete evidence of this we can still come to somewhat of a conclusion; which could or could not be correct.

     On the contrary deductive reasoning is going from a general to a particular, which is based off of forensic evidence that was collected (Johnson, 1996).  Things such as crime scene photographs, autopsy reports, body positions within a crime scene, and the placement of the blood splatter within the crime scene get looked at and analyzed in an attempt to try and reconstruct the crime scene and find possible trace elements of the perpetrator. trajectory, and blood spatter (Turvey, 2012). Along with this it is also good to know and take into account the perpetrator themselves things such as their behaviors, emotions and personalities during a present and past crime scene. By analyzing all these generalized facts, the investigator can come to a logical conclusion (Turvey, 2012). Some deductive examples shown in our case are for example the bloody foot prints leading out of the trailer, by analyzing this we can get a rough estimate of the persons build. You then add to this the amount of blood splatter within the scene and we can come to the conclusion that the possible perpetrator had a strong and took his time killing and then raping the individuals.

     Now if we apply these two reasoning to the case, we come up with the following:  First, by utilizing inductive reasoning we can come to the assumption that the three teenage males who were seen by neighbors peering into the trailer could be the assailants. Seeing as the couple lived in a community full of young adults struggling to get by these three would perfectly fit the criminal characteristic of possible robbers and even murders if need be. Another assumption that can be made in this case is that the possible culprit is the unidentified black male that was seen around the area during the attack. Since he is neither a resident nor an acquaintance of anyone in the community his presence at the times makes him a clear suspect. If this is the case, then we can assume that the three young males might possibly be witnesses of the crime or could have possible seen something. Also, since most cases that involve rape are related to males, we can assume that the culprit is undoubtedly a male. As for the violent nature of the crime we can also assume that the couple could have possibly known the attacker and the attack was done out of hate.

     Now deductively we can come to the conclusion that the tire iron found near the back of the trailer part is the weapon that was utilized to not only attack the couple but also enter the trailer. As for the inside of the trailer itself we can see marking all over the place along with blood splatter leading us to see that the crime was indeed extremely violent but also took place all over the trailer itself. Next by seeing the bloody foot print leading out we can get a rough estimate of the size of the perpetrator along with possible trace evidence of DNA. Next, by looking at the possible secondary transfers between the victims and the perpetrator possible DNA matches can be made which would pin point the perpetrator. Also, we can assume that because of the violent nature of the attack other possible cases or events could be linked, forensically, to this case and reduce the number of possible suspects since this could point out to the modus operand of a specific criminal.

                                                                        References

Johnson, C. F. (1996). Deductive versus inductive reasoning: A closer look at economics. Social Science Journal, 33(3), 287. Accessed 12 March 2019.

Johnson-Laird, P. (1999). Deductive reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 109-135. Accessed 12 March 2019. https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/69537398?accountid=8289

Malaia, E., Tommerdahl, J., & Mckee, F. (2015). Deductive versus probabilistic reasoning in healthy adults: An EEG analysis of neural differences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(5), 533-544. 12 March 2019. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1007/s10936-014-9297-3

Turvey, B. E. (2011). Criminal profiling : an introduction to behavioral evidence analysis. 12 March 2019. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu