CRIMINAL JUSTICE FORENSICS

After watching “She Was Never in My Car,” discuss the scenario below.

You are given the black hairs collected from the car seat of the possible suspect in this case. These hairs could be human or animal. How would you go about analyzing and comparing these samples? In court, the Defense challenges your findings in this case as circumstantial. How might you defend your trace evidence?

The body of your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims with examples from this week’s required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references.

This Assignment above is already complete your next assignment is to:

Respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts.

You Must Provide Feedback on what they have written.

You should include your thoughts associated with their posted information.

Additionally, you are to contribute to the discussion by adding support or constructive alternatives to your classmates’ posts.

Each response should be a minimum of 200 words.

You are to provide feedback from two students discussion posts

Two discussion posts 200 words each= 400 words total for the two different student responses

See attachment below for two different student responses I provided for you

First Student Response from Julian Lobato

Hello Professor Mancuso and Classmates,

The disappearance of Melissa Brannen occurred on December 3, 1989 at the Woodside Apartments in Lorton, Virginia. She was the 5-year-old daughter of Tammy Brannen, a single mother who lived in the complex. She disappeared while attending a party held at the complex for its residences. A handyman name Caleb Hughes became the prime suspect that very evening through witness accounts. The police went to the house of Mr. Hughes were they found the clothes he was wearing that same night in the washing machine, but not have been washed yet the police seized them as evidence. Police also took the vehicle Hughes had been driving and examined the passenger’s seat for fiber evidence. Fibers were extracted from the front seat of the vehicle. The victim was wearing a Big Bird dress that was purchased at J.C. Penney. Also found were some hairs from a rare rabbit fur coat of Tammy’s that she wore at the party.

So this proved that the victim was probably in the passenger’s seat that evening. As a fiber and hair examiner expert, the first thing I would do is make sure that the evidence collected went through the chain of custody in the right manner so the defense cannot say the evidence was contaminated in any way. I did a microscopic examination from the hair found in the car and compared it to the hairs from the victims brush, but hair could not be positively identified as the child’s hair. But the dyed rabbit hair’s from the defendant’s car seat that I examined was microscopic consistent with hair taken from the coat worn by the child’s mother she wore at the party. There were also blue fibers collected from the passenger’s seat of the defendants’ car which I microscopic examined and found it was consistent with the fibers of the blue blazer worn by the child’s mother she wore to the party. The police obtained a duplicate outfit that was worn by the victim for me and I compared them to the fibers that were in the vehicle and the fibers were microscopic consistent with the duplicate outfit. In addition, I found chemical composition of the fibers found in the car matched that of the fibers taken from the duplicate outfit. And red cotton fibers were also found in the defendant’s car. These fibers were also microscopically consistent with the red cotton in the skirt of the duplicate outfit.

The evidence in case proved that for several hours during the Christmas party Hughes was in the same room with the child and her mother. The evidence also showed that people shed clothing fiber and head hair which can be transferred from one person to other persons with whom there is contact. So all in all the presence of hair and fibers in the automobile did prove to the exclusion of other hypotheses that the child had been in the automobile. The defense can say that the evidence collected was transferred from the victim to Mr. Hughes. The only thing that I can prove was the items collected were microscopic consistent with items found in the vehicle so it would be up to the jury to speculate about the matters on which the evidence collected to find Mr. Hughes guilty or not guilty. I would like to thank all of the investigators and police for helping me in this case without them it would not be possible.

Reference: CALEB DANIEL HUGHES V. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINA http://www.leagal.com/decision/19937431/SE2d906_11296

Video: “She Was Never In My Car”

Second Student Response from Lamonte Hale

The black hairs collected in this case are what are known as trace evidence. There are several ways to analyze trace evidence. Since the trace evidence in this case was black hairs, one of the best methods for analysis would be microscopy. More specifically, you would need to use a comparison microscope. The definition given in our text for a comparison microscope is that “This instrument uses two connected optical bridges and allows you to view two different specimens, side by side in the viewer, simultaneously” (Gaensslen, 2013). Our text also goes on to state that “It is ideal for doing microscopical comparisons, and can be used for hairs and fibers, as well” (Gaensslen, 2013).

In this case, analyzing this trace evidence would be a long and tedious process. You would need to use the comparison microscope to compare the given sample to other samples. First you would need to confirm that the fibers were hair by comparing the sample to types of hairs as well as to types of fibers, both natural and manmade. Once you confirm that the sample is without a doubt a hair, the next step would be to determine whether it was human or animal. In this case, the black hairs were determined to in fact be animal hairs used to produce a jacket. The hairs were believed to have come from a jacket that the mother owned and were thought to have been transferred from the mother to the daughter, and then into the vehicle.

One way this might be disputed is that anyone could have worn a similar jacket to that of the victim and that finding this evidence is merely circumstantial. They keys to supporting this evidence in court though come down to determining just how much of the evidence is in the vehicle. You also have to take into account how many people were at the party when the victim went missing and the number of them whose vehicles also contained this similar evidence, if any. By cutting down the number of potential perpetrators who did not have similar evidence or ties to the victim and mother in this case, you can eliminate a lot of the doubt and skepticism. Not only that, but even if this evidence is circumstantial, you have to take into account any other fibers that were found in the vehicle that could be potentially linked to the victim. One type of fiber linked to the victim and found in the car could very well be a coincidence. Two or three different types of fibers found in the car that could be tied to the victim, her clothing, and her mother’s clothing is a little more than circumstantial.

References:

Gaensslen, R.E., & Larsen, K. (2013). Introductory forensic science. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Morowitz, N. (Writer). (1997). She was never in my car [Video segment]. In C. Maday (Executive producer), Forensic science – The crime fighter’s weapon [Television series episode], Modern Marvels. New York, NY: A&E Television Networks. Available from the Films On Demand database.