What did you find most interesting or surprising about tuesday's discussion? What did you learn that you did not know before? Which of the roles that we covered that day (police, detective, sergeant, csi techs, etc) would you be most interested in? Why?
Next, assume that you are the detective. What are your first steps in the investigation? What questions do you initially have? How will you go about answering them?
During class on Tuesday I was blown away by the concept of simply analyzing everything that has to do with a crime. When we started to break down the lines from the 911 call placed by Michael Peterson I was shocked at how long we could talk about each line and what it could possibly mean. Not only could we break down each line but we could interpret it in numerous ways. When looking at how in-depth we could analyze a short phone call I started thinking about how much in-depth analyzing would need to be done in the other aspects of the case. From the crime scene, to neighbor interviews, to the body, to Michael Peterson's recollection of what happened, a person working to solve this case must constantly be thinking critically and analytically to get things right. I often wondered why cases seem to drag on and on and why people are sometimes convicted years after their offense. One thing that definitely slows this process down is the need to get all the facts straight before going to court. I learned how much work it would be to simply analyze a crime scene and at that analyze everything correctly. I believe being able to read people would also be an important role in analyzing witnesses. This obviously shows how psychology of the law is a great study to have knowledge in. The role I would find myself being most interested in would probably be the detective role. I would enjoy talking to many different people about what happened and trying to make a story of the events that occurred.
As the detective I would start to gather the evidence and information in front of me and begin to try and make a storyboard from all of the following. Questions I would initially ask would include, "What happened? What did you hear? What did you see? Did anything seem out of the ordinary?" These questions would be asked to Michael Peterson as well as his surrounding neighbors. I would hope to use my knowledge of psychology to help me better analyze people in the interview process.
What I found interesting was the level of organization within law enforcement. Although there is much overlap, it seems as though when it comes to investigating a crime scene it is very important that the crucial elements are handled properly. I also found it interesting that such importance is placed on making sure all procedures are followed correctly and not so that the perp is caught, but to make sure the case against them can hold strong. For example, someone messing up the chain of evidence could ruin the entire case and the perp could walk free! That astounds me. While I do think there is a sense of justice, I do also think that there is so much attention paid to the minute details of preparing a case for court. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
I would be most interested in being a CSI. Provided I could handle the more gory aspects of the case, I am very observant and analytical. I think those attributes would be very helpful when looking at a crime scene. I always notice small details and that seems incredibly important when looking for all the relevant details about a crime scene.
As a detective on this case, my first priority would be to talk with Michael Peterson. Assuming of course that no other people were found in the home, he is the best person to talk to to understand what (he says) happened to lead to the death of his wife. Even if he's lying, I would want a feel of his personality and reaction about the entire ordeal. I would ask questions concerning the status of his relationship with his wife (if they were fighting/arguing/etc) and what had happened the night before. I would want an understanding of what kind of mindset the couple was in before she died.
After Tuesday's discussion I was most surprised by all the tasks assigned to each person. I also thought it was interesting that the detectives don't really trust the police officer's judgement or documentation abilities, and that they feel the need to basically start all over when they get there.
I didn't know that the sergeant really doesn't have a lot to do with the investigation. The sergeant basically just makes sure that people are doing their jobs, and taking people's personal information.
I would be most interested in being the detective. They still get to do tasks that the police officers get to do, but they get to further the investigation and learn what really happened.
If I was the detective, I would first record my exacti time of my arrival, and begin with interviewing witnesses-if there are any. Then I would take note of the entire scene and document the conditions. Next, I would talk with the first responders and learn the sequence of events. My first questions would be, "What happened? Was anyone around when the crime was committed? What did they see, hear, or notice anything odd before the crime happened, or anything odd after the crime had been committed-besides the crime obviously." I would ask the witnesses, neighbors, family and friends these questions.
During Tuesday's discussion, I thought that it was interesting all the different tasks each role has. The list of jobs that a police officer, detective, and CSI has is pretty long and I can understand how important each role is. Previously, I didn't have much knowledge about each specific role and all the duties that they have to preform each time a crime takes place. I have family members that are police officers but I've never taken the time to find out all that goes in to their job. I now have a better understand for how important their job is. Although each role is important, I think that the role of CSI is most interesting. I think part of that has to do with the fact that I love the show CSI. I know that certain things in that show are not as realistic or common as assumed, but I feel like their job would be fascinating. They are the people involved with the crime itself and not the paperwork involved. I can see how they would need so much training because they're job is very important to helping solve the crime.
If I was a detective in a certain case, after recording all the times and dates, I would gather all the evidence I have available to me. Even though the witnesses have been interviewed and documented, I would interview them again to hear the story for myself. Some first questions to ask is "What happened"? Questions to ask around this main question are things like what did you see or hear and what were you doing at this time? Depending on the case, I would ask as many questions as I could to get the most information possible.
I actually learned a lot of things on Tuesday because I am not familiar with a lot of crime shows because I don't watch very much t.v., but it was all really interesting.
I was most surprised by how many things each unit (police, CSI, detective) is responsible for. It seems like a lot to remember, but at the same time, some of it seems instinctual. By that I mean that when somebody sees something, like the Peterson case, you would start making assumptions, or at least you would start to formulate different scenarios as to what could have happened. Nevertheless, it would take somebody who is very skilled to perform this type of work.
If I were to make a living by being a police officer, sergeant, crime scene investigator, or a detective, I would have to choose the detective (they do not deal as much with all the gross stuff). As a detective, I would arrive to the crime scene and immediately record the time of my arrival. I would obviously questions what happened, so to gather more information, I would question witnesses about what they saw, heard, or know concerning the incident. I would also interview the police officers who were the first people at the scene about any information they have to help me better understand the situation at hand. Though I would do other various tasks, I would mostly deal with witnesses, whether it be questioning or getting them places they need to be, as well as questioning any suspects.
Before our discussion Tuesday I had never realized there were so many preliminary steps at the scene of the crime before the actual investigation began of figuring out potential suspects and determining what really happened. Although in hindsight it seems logical, I never considered the overlap and specific differences in the tasks between the police, the CSI agents and the detectives. I always figured families of the victim or police hired detectives, I never assumed that they are always involved. I guess from watching CSI shows on TV, I assumed the police did some investigation themselves. I would be most interested in the role of the detective. I always find myself putting together the pieces of things that don't make sense or trying to figure out the sequence of events that might have happened in certain situations. Such as trying to figure out if a roommate is lying or where I may have misplaced something. Therefore, I think I would like the tedious tasks that detectives have and the search of finding relevant evidence and suspects and figuring out what happened at the scene of the crime.
For detectives, their first steps in the investigation is interviewing witnesses and noting immediate surrounds at the crime scene if anything is out of place or seems odd/suspicous. Essentially, looking for anything that doesn't seem to fit quite right with the scene to give any clues to what might have occurred (i.e. the excessive amount of blood on the wall in the Peterson case). Initial questions may include how the police handled the case when they arrived, figuring out what witnesses saw/heard, and if there are any immediate potential suspects. To answer some of these questions I would talk with the police who first handled the case, interview witnesses at the scene, and search the scene for any clues or DNA left behind from the perpetrator.
I know one thing that I would hate doing in law enforcement --- the paperwork! I didn't realize how thorough and exact the documentation truly was until now. I find the role of detective to be very interesting. You constantly have to be thinking "outside the box" in order to be very successful in solving crimes. I can see why the police would have some resentment for detectives. After the police finish then the detectives get a chance to take over the crime scene. Just going over the evidence of the Peterson case got me wondering how this "fall" could have happened. Folks that's a lot of blood for just falling down the stairs. If I were the detective I would start by gathering the evidence and information, lay it all out, and try piecing it all together. I would ask witnesses (neighbors, family, etc), "What happened exactly? Did you see or hear anything? Did you notice anything strange going on in the neighborhood?" Using answers to these questions I would alter theories and ideas to aid in the investigation.
The most surprising thing I found out about Tuesdays class was the amount of people, time, and effort that is actually put toward a crime scene. I knew that there was a lot of stuff involved, but I didn't realize all the steps and information you actually need to gather.
I would most be interested in the detective because I think it'd be awesome to try and solve the crime and figure out what really went on, which is also part of the CSI team. So really, either or would be sweet. I wouldn't want to be the cop because it seems like they always just get crapped on and not taken seriously (granted I'm basing my information off of tv shows).
My first steps with being a detective would be (as stated in class):
record time of arrival, interview witnesses, record EVERYTHING and figure out sequence of events.
I think the question that most detective initially have are along the lines of "who did it, where are they, what happened before this, etc...".
One would go about answering them by questioning the witnesses, gathering evidence, and putting all the pieces together.
I was also surprised by the amount of people, paperwork, and work that goes into each crime scene. I thought that this was pretty amazing, and something that you do not really think about. Because of media, it is almost as though I expect two detectives to come in and just say “Yep, we got a murder here, take some DNA samples and we will figure this out.” Clearly, this is far from the truth, and really does not pay enough respect to all the different people who are involved.
However, I also feel that this process can be quite inefficient. The fact that detectives and police ask many of the same questions, and that they seem to almost completely start over after they get there seems unnecessary. It seems that if there was more coordination between each branch of law enforcement, this process could be quite quicker. But, I only have the basic outline, and I’m sure there are reasons for a lot of this. It just seems if they could get this under control a little more, it would be better for the victim and everyone working to solve the crime.
I really enjoyed Tuesday's class because I learned a lot about what each role does. I also learned that you have to go into a crime scene with no biases, meaning that even though the husband called in the accident, he still may have killed his wife. The way we were able to talk about the crime and try to solve it was really cool. I think if I was going into law enforcement, I would want to be the detective because they do a lot of analyzing and thinking of ways that the crime could have happened. It's almost like they can get into the criminal's head and try and figure out how they killed someone or what exactly happened at the crime scene. They also do a lot of the interviewing, so it would be interesting to find out each person's story in detail.
The detective interviews the witnesses when they get there to get the story from the people that saw or heard what was going on. They also note the surroundings of the scene and the time that they arrived. They do a lot of questioning the witnesses and the suspects and they can take any suspect into custody. They also get the case ready for presentation and prosecution and obtain the info and evidence from the crime scene. One of the things I would do would be to ask the husband everything he and his wife had done that night. I would also ask him where he was when he noticed his wife on the steps and if he had heard her get out of bed or if they were already up. That could determine how fast he could have gotten to her and it could give the detective a clue as to where he was during the accident.
During Tuesday's dicussion I could not help but compare it towards what my sister has been through as an eyewitness in a crime that is very well known in the area. On the day the crime occured she was immediately taken aside by the Iowa DCI (Division of Criminal Investigation). She will be testifying in court very soon along with many other people and I know personally how hard it is on her and the other individuals testifying. The day of the crime many people questioned my sister over and over again about the exact details of what she saw and heard. After questioning counselors and trauma specialists flooded the room and talked to all the witnesses involved. It is a long process and counselors along with lawyers are becoming involved all in the process to prep my sister with testifying. One thing I have gained from this experience is how a crime seems a lot more simpler when you are not somehow personally involved. There is so much work that goes into a trial even if the evidence is cut and dry. One thing I learned from discussion on Tuesday was how a detective and a crime scene investigator differ. Each play a very important role, but differ in ways like an investigator would work more with the types of evidence presented while a detective more or less finds evidence to present to the prosecution. If I were to choose a profession that I would be most interested in it would be a detective. I would feel it would be very interesting to question witnesses and try and find evidence to hopefully put a criminal behind bars. If I was a detective for example in the Carolina v. Peterson case I would first record the exact time I arrived at the scene. Then I would requestion witnesses and make notes on surroundings. In this case the husband was the only witness so I would take written statements from him and possibly run a background check on him. Next, I would record location of body and description of body. Next, I would work with the law enforcement that was first on the scene to make sure I didn't miss anything and then I would help obtain evidence that could possibly be used in court. The question on my mind was where did all of the blood come from if the husband's wife's fall was accidental. It would be most important to get the husband's story and see how he answers why there is so much blood. I would then ask neighbors if they knew of any past fights or problems that the Peterson couple had. Overall, knowing the process and jobs completed by the police, detectives, and investigators, is important in understading how a crime may come to trial.
After class I was really shocked at all the little details that all the law enforcement officials have to go through. It is crazy to realize all the small mundane tasks that each individual who sets foot on the crime scene has to go through. I did not realize that a lot of times the detectives re-do most of the things that the police did when they first arrive at the scene. This may seem redundant and like a waste of time, but I believe that the more people go over things the more likely they are to find something out of the ordinary. Personally, I would be most interested in the CSI 1, principle investigator. They seem like they get to do a lot of the fun things that are depicted on TV shows, such as take photographs, sketches, find finger prints, bag and tag evidence and tons of other things. The only downfall would be preparing reports, but all people involved have to do this.
As a detective I would first note the time of arrival at the scene. One of my first priorities would be to talk to any witnesses (if there are any) so that the story is still fresh in their minds. After this I would probably run a background check on the victim (if there is proper identification) to assist me with further information. After going through the scene I would probably get as much evidence as possible and then prepare the case for presentation. Some questions I might ask would include: when did the crime occur? Do we have and witnesses? Is there someone is custody already? I would most likely find this information out by asking the first responders to the crime scene or by talking to other people on the crime scene.
I found the whole class was really interesting mainly because i am a criminology major and am particularly interested in working in any of the jobs that we covered. Since I have been over this process to a certain extent in other classes I was not exactly surprised by any of the processes that take place. I was particulary surprised about the specific case that we covered. I always knew I wanted to go into the field of criminal justice but didnt actually know what I wanted to do but police work always intrigued me. Then the whole "CSI" boom came, when everyone seemed to want to be the actors on the show CSI. I was one of them so I became interested in that but after researching the actual job I realized it might be a little too much science for me. I am now most interested in becoming a homicide detective. I think the job would be challenging but rewarding. I am aware of the hard work long hours that are accompanied with the career but I am very interested in doing that job one day. I would love to be able to go through a crime scene, gather evidence and track down someone who had taken another life and put them behind bars. As a detective some of the first questions I would have when entering a crime scene is "What actually happened here?" I think this is essential to an investigation before trying to figure out who did it. I think asking witnesses (if there is any) would be very beneficial too, even though in recent history eye-witness testimony has been in question. So the first thing I would do is look over the crime scene meticulously and then ask questions to people that were present or first responders. I also think it is crucual in the initial investingation to find out about the person or persons that are involved with the case. I would do this by running background checks on the individuals and by asking family members and others about them. It would be hard for a detective to solve a crime if they are unaware of the people that they are dealing with.
I found three bits of information interesting from Tuesday’s discussion. First I thought that all of the roles that the Police, Detectives, and CSI do are very interesting. Secondly, I thought it was very interesting that the CSI have two types, the Principle Investigators and the Lead Investigators. I also thought the different types of evidence were very interesting. I never knew that the Detectives basically go over what the Police have done already. I never knew that Detectives and Police have to record that exact time of arrival. The role that we covered on Tuesday that I am most interesting in would be the Detective. This is because I would not be able to stop my job at just gathering evidence or taking photos, I would have to know who committed the crime and why. This is why I would be interested in the Detectives role because they get to interview witnesses, coordinate questioning of witnesses and the suspects, and prepare a case for presentation for the prosecution. I would like to know that I was at some way helpful to the capture of the perpetrator to the crime and to know why they committed the crime.
If I was a detective my first steps in an investigation would be to record the exact time of my arrival on scene, then I would have to talk to Police that are on scene to see what evidence they have collected and any witnesses they have talked to, then I would go observe the crime scene. Finally, I would interview any witnesses that are on scene. The questions I would initially have is what crime has happened, who is the victim, is the perpetrator still on scene, and are there any witnesses. I would answer these questions by talking to the Police who first arrived on the scene of the crime. If the Police cannot answer all of the questions I would go door to door asking if anyone has heard anything or knows anything about the crime that just happened
The main topic that stood out to me on Tuesdays class was how many duties and responsibilites each job force (police, seargent, detective, and CSI's) have. I had no idea that these certain people had this many responsibilies. I didn't know that they had to go into that much detail when expecting a crime scene, starting from the 911 call. I guess I had never even thought of analyzing the person's voice who made the 911 call, to use for evidence. I also didn't know that they had to actually interview the witnesses so many times, but I guess it makes sense now, just to make sure they have their story straight. The role that I would be most interested in would be the detective. I'm not sure if this is because I always dreamed of being one since I was seven years old, but what they all do is pretty interesting to me. I want to be the person on the scene who is right there analyzing all the evidence, and who's paying close attention to detail. The police, I feel, are only in the picture for that first night the crime occured. I could be wrong, but I want to be the person who takes the crime to the next level, and actually solves it. It's always been my dream job, so I feel like a detective would be the job for me!
With being the detective, after recording my arrival time, my first step would be to start asking the police questions, and see what information they have already gathered. I would then go on and question the witness(es), and see what their stories are. I would begin to investigate the crime scene, possibly gathering any evidence that they have missed. My questions would consist of "What happened when you first arrived on the scene?", "What kind of crime is this believed to be (homocide, suicide...)", "Is the witness still on the scene?", "Are there any other witnesses we should know about?", and "What is the name of the victim and what do we know about him/her?" I would go about answering these questions by first talking to the police, and if they can't answer some of them, I would go around asking neighbors, and any other witnesses present, or if they can tell me about either the witness or the suspect. Information on the victim can be obtained by running a background check, if the name of him/her is available.
I loved our class discussion on Tuesday! The content covered was really a review for me because of my Criminal Investigations class and my Applied Criminalistics class. During those classes we went more into depth about the chain of custody and the proper way to search for and collect evidence from a crime scene (including the 5 basic search patterns law enforcement will use to search an area for even the tiniest piece of evidence). It's all very tedious work but may reap major benefits in the end.
Because of the other classes I mentioned before, it's easy to tell that I would love to become an investigator (more specifically, a profiler but we didn't cover that in class on Tuesday). For me, it's more than just being fascinated about the job. It's about helping to protect the community that my children will grow up in from the people who don't think twice about hurting other people.
As a detective, my first responsibility is to document my arrival time. I then would have to speak with the first responders to obtain the initial details about the scene. My initial questions about the scene would be if it was in fact an accident or a crime scene. I also would have questions regarding if there were any witnesses to the event or if anybody had seen or heard anything out of the ordinary prior to the incident. Most of these questions would be answered by the first responders in their disclosure of the scene.
Below I included some of my notes from my Applied criminilastics class about the preliminary investigation. This info is geared more towards the first responders (my professor was an active investigator for the Waterloo PD so he designed the class to educate those looking to become officers on the proper way to respond to a crime scene as the first responders so that they wouldn't comprise the investigation in any way).
-Preliminary investigation
*Questions to ask/things to do
>be aware of any ppl or vehicles leaving the area while responding
>approach the scene cautiously
>assess the scene
*Is this a tactical situation?
*Treat as a crime scene until it is determined otherwise
*does anyone at the scene require emergency care?
*If so, assess the level of care and response needed by medical specialists
*once medical personnel arrive, make them aware of evidence to not be tampered with
*obtain as much info as possible from the victim
After Tuesday’s class I thought a lot about my High School Forensics Class. This class was constructed in a way that we would spend the first week learning several new criminal investigation tool (like blood type matching, what marks different tools leave etc etc). Then at the end of each week we are sent into a “mock crime scene” and all the tools we had learned that week (and weeks prior) were in the crime scene. We would then assign roles to everyone in the group. One person was the lead investigator. The second was the photographer, who took pictures of EVERYTHING. They took pictures of the scene before we entered, when we collected different pieces of evidence, and took pictures when we all left. The sketch artist was 3rd and they were suppose to measure the area and remake the crime scene by scale on poster board. The last person or two were the evidence collectors and recorders. They recorded the time when we entered the scene, what time evidence was recorded, who touched the evidence etc etc. We would collect all the evidence (but we never knew what was evidence and what wasn’t so we collected EVERYTHING), and try to put together a story to match what went on in our teachers crime scene story. Once everyone got their case ready, we would spend a class period where one group is chosen at random to present their evidence to a judge and go against a real life lawyer.
All the things we talked about in class on Tuesday reflected some of the lessons we went over in my forensics class. Through my time actually pretending to be a criminal investigator, I learned the importance of paying close attention to deals and documenting EVERYTHING you do. The methodic method that we learned in the lecture in class mirrored very closely all of the things we had to do to pass my forensics class. The key to making everything work was organization just as in the CSI Model.
What I found most interesting about the class on tuesday was how a lot of the various roles of cops CSI and others overlap.It seems like the police do a lot of the basic and intial building of a case and the detective pieces it together and digs up more information and follows leads. The forensic scientists that process the evidence dont have as much involvement as showed in the CSI shows its basically all passed off to the detective and from there onto the court system after they have the suspect. Personally, I would be most interested in being a detective because it would be intriging to learn the process of interigation and body language. Especially since it really relates to psychology because they also have to analyze the situations and dechiper body language. I actually know a person who worked in a federal prison and was trained on a few interrogaton techniques and it sounded pretty cool. Also there always depicted in movies as really intelligent and witty. I bet they have a high burn out rate though.
If I was the detective I would begin with surveying the crime scene and get ageneeral idea(s) of what happened, then I would promptly interview witness and people associated with the crime.Next, I would compile a list of suspects and possible motives and find oout alibys. Then, I would interrogate the suspects again using more aggressive techniques and then analyze findings . The questions I would have wanted to answer by this point would be: Who would do this? What is there motive? Do they have an allaby? Are any others involved? Is this absolutely the person who did this?
I learned a lot on Tuesday that I didn’t already know. I do watch CSI and Law and Order, but those shows do not show every aspect of a crime scene and the investigation. I did not know that the police handed over the cases to a detective. I though the police and detectives were kind of the same thing. I never realized that the police, detectives and CSI have some overlapping roles. I just never really knew what went into the investigating a crime. I also didn’t realize the number of procedures each person and department has to follow. The thing that schocked me the most is that the ambalence has to wait for the police before they can do anything.
I would be most interested in being a detective. A detective gets to do some of the same things as the police, but they also get to prepare the case for the prosecution. Sometimes the detective works with the prosecution. I am really interested in the law and court room aspect of things. I like that the detective gets to follow the case and find out what happened and who committed the crime
If I were a detective I would record my time of arrival at the scene. I would then interview the witnesses and check out the crime scene and the surrounding areas. I would record a number of things including the location and a description of the body. I would question witnesses and then obtain all the evidence. I would also keep investigating the crime so I could prepare a case for the prosecution. My initial questions would be had anything been contaminated, who is the victim, are there any suspects, what happened and did anyone see anything. I would talk to the witnesses that day and then again in the following week. I would also analyze the evidence to answer my questions too.
I was not in Tuesdays Class, so I was not able to participate in the discussion. But, after reading the other students reflections I can see that there are many surprising aspects of the Peterson case. I am familiar with the case because I did a project on it while it was still in deliberation. The most interesting aspect of the case to me was how there could be so many experts surrounding the case and constantly in contact with Scott Peterson, but he was still able to hold a front of innocence for so long. To me the most interesting part of a case is the Psychological Analyzing that takes place. Physical evidence can only get a person so far into the truth of a case and of course has to be present for a conviction. But, really I think that it is how a person acts that can truly lead to a conviction. I would be most interested in being the CSI tech and connection the physical evidence to the psychological evidence presented. Every aspect of science is important to a case and being a CSI you are held responsible for some of the most important parts of the case.
As a detective the first thing I would do before I even asked a question would be to analyze everyone’s body language and how the attitude in the air was. Then I would not go straight into drilling the witnesses or suspects. I would attempt to get into their head by holding a conversation instead of a questioning. After assessing the situation I would then go into the questioning. But, I would do this not by asking direct questions but indirect questions. I think it is better to catch a person off guard with your questions whether than asking the obvious. I would stick to the subject of their feelings about the situation and then later go into what they saw or experienced.
I was not in Tuesdays Class, so I was not able to participate in the discussion. But, after reading the other students reflections I can see that there are many surprising aspects of the Peterson case. I am familiar with the case because I did a project on it while it was still in deliberation. The most interesting aspect of the case to me was how there could be so many experts surrounding the case and constantly in contact with Scott Peterson, but he was still able to hold a front of innocence for so long. To me the most interesting part of a case is the Psychological Analyzing that takes place. Physical evidence can only get a person so far into the truth of a case and of course has to be present for a conviction. But, really I think that it is how a person acts that can truly lead to a conviction. I would be most interested in being the CSI tech and connection the physical evidence to the psychological evidence presented. Every aspect of science is important to a case and being a CSI you are held responsible for some of the most important parts of the case.
As a detective the first thing I would do before I even asked a question would be to analyze everyone’s body language and how the attitude in the air was. Then I would not go straight into drilling the witnesses or suspects. I would attempt to get into their head by holding a conversation instead of a questioning. After assessing the situation I would then go into the questioning. But, I would do this not by asking direct questions but indirect questions. I think it is better to catch a person off guard with your questions whether than asking the obvious. I would stick to the subject of their feelings about the situation and then later go into what they saw or experienced.
I too was blown away with the amount of people and paperwork that goes into a crime scene and how much time is put towards it. One simple error can blow an entire case. I also didn't know that all the work that police put into a case is simply just handed over to a detective to re analyze.
The position I'd be most interested in would be being a detective. It's less of the gruesome work and more of getting down to the who did it and why.
As a detective arriving on the scene my initial questions would be who is the victim, who called it in, do we have any suspects, what kind of crime does it appear to be, and do we have any witnesses to the crime. After having these answered I would proceed with my investigation and begin my questioning of the people involved and surrounded neighbors.
The class for tuesday was an interesting one, granted I knew most of the people involved because I like to watch a lot of those crime shows. I guess one thing I learned from tuesday was the process of it all down to the different classes of CSI and what the sergeant and detectives actually do that they don't show you on TV. The role I would be interested in would have to be detective like a lot of people who picked it. I would like talking to the witnesses and investigating the crime scene at the first stages. If I were the detective, when I arrived I would ask the officer at the scene what he knew and find any other information available so I was up to par. Then I would analyze the crime scene and see what we were dealing with. After that, I would find out if there were any witnesses, if there is then I would talk to them. If there weren't any then I would try to see what I could find out about the victim and talk to any people he/she knew. The first few questions would be the obvious ones, how did you know the person? Did you know them? How close were you to them? Where were you when this all happened? What did you all see and who did you see? If you watch enough crime shows like I'm sure many of us have in this class, then the usual questions asked are obvious.
I have not seen very many CSI/Law and order kind of shows, so a considerable amount of the information on Tuesday was new to me. The amount of work that goes into a crime scene by so many facets of the law is definitely not a simple thing. The extent to which documentation, photos and small details are analyzed is very impressive, and gives me a lot more respect for all sides of the team handling crime scenes.
If I were the detective, after collecting appropriate paperwork and information from the on-scene police officers, I would then re-interview the witnesses and neighbors, attempting to gain access to any previously missed information. I would then survey the area, for more details. Identify the victim, perform background check, and evaluate any suspects who need to be taken into custody. Witnesses, subjects, and police officers would all need to be questioned for relevant information and details at some point.
The thing that stuck out to me, is the shear amount of paper work that goes into evidence collection,a detail often understandably ignored in the media. The thing that also struck me was the lee way police officers are given in determining the extent of the crime scene in terms of what gets roped off and what doesn't.
The job that most interests me would be that of the detective simply because it involves working out what happened with what sounds like a minimal amount of sticking my hands in a bloody corpse.
If I were the first detective on scene my first thought would be to look around at the scene and see if anything struck me as out of place then start be interviewing witnesses, and checking with the responding officers to get there thoughts on what happened.
The thing that most interested me in Tuesday's lecture was how you can really analyze a 911 call. I never really thought about how one sentence could potentially have so many meanings. Along with that, you can look at how a person doesn't mention something that a normal person would; one way to know a person is lying or possibly guilty of the crime. I think out of all the roles that we discussed in Tuesday's lecture, I would be most interested in the role of a CSI tech. I have always had an interest in this role, because they really can look at all the pieces of evidence and can speculate what really happened, but they also have the ability to prove or disprove a theory based on their analysis of the crime scene and the evidence.
If I was in the role of the detective, my first step would be to record exact time of arrival, interview witnesses, canvas the area & note surroundings, record time, weather, lighting, & number of people at the scene, interview first officer and other police to determine sequence of events, record location and description of body including clothing, run background check (if identity of victim is known), ascertain whether or not any suspects are in custody, coordinate questioning of witnesses and suspects, help question witnesses and suspects (if need be), and obtain evidence/info/documentation. My initial questions of witnesses and Michael Peterson would be along the lines of "What happened?" "What got you alerted to the situation?" "What did you hear?" "What did you see?" "What do you know of the Peterson family?" I would have the questions answered by talking to witnesses, potential suspects, and first responders to get their take on the situation. I would also look at the crime scene to see what my reaction to the evidence and the scene would be.
The thing I found most interesting from Tuesday's discussion is that the police who arrive on the scene don't follow through the whole case. I was surprised that they're just there for the first part of the investigation and then the other people take over. I guess that makes sense, because they need to be available to respond to other things that come up. I just never thought about it much I guess. If I had to pick a role, I would choose the police officer. I would pick this because I wouldn't want to go through the whole process of putting together a case or trying to find evidence of what happened.
If I was the detective I would first scope out the scene, and question witnesses and neighbors. I would ask them how they know the family, what they were doing at the time, how the family acted (if they were friendly towards each other or the neighbors), and try to get a basic feel of what is going on. I would also ask the officers who were the first responders to the crime what their experiences with the scene and witnesses were.
When reflecting on Tuesday class there was many facts which surprised me. Overall the general time line of the events which took place was a lot slower than I expected. When the case was first introduced to the class my mind immediately went to figured out who did it, why they did it, and clues that would lead me to the guilty person. However, when we broke down all the different parts of an investigation from the 911 phone call to the actually questioning and answering of a suspect there was a lot of small details I never considered. For example; when approaching a crime scene i never considered noting the entry and exit and isolating the perimeter with a barrier. Of course I have knowledge isolating the perimeter is necessary however, contemplating where to place to barrier based on how much of the house would be considered evidence never crosses my mind. I would have just blocked off the entire house and assumed the whole house was a clue, and I definitely wouldn’t of zoned in on just the staircase. I would have thought detectives would focus on the entire house as a whole. The other interesting aspect of class lecture was how different the police, sergeant, detectives and CSI's jobs were. I have never considered the fact that each one of them held different responsibilities and I would have guesses the police would be more involved throughout the entire investigation rather than just the first response crew.
(This is a continuation of my last post…I forgot to copy and past it is…)The first steps in my investigations would be to interview neighbors and friends of the family to see if they attend family function, is so do they seem happy? Also, was Kathleen married before Michael, if she was who was it to and possible interview him. After find the answers to these questions I would soon learn that she was married before; from here I would interview the her ex-husband and also create a time line from when she got her divorce to when she married Michael. Next I would talk with the kids to find out details about how they acted around the house and how they got together. Also-which all of this was going on I would also have Michael provide a specific detailed recollection of the incident and what event lead up to the unfortunate case. I recall Kathleen have alcohol in her system so questions as to what they did that night, where they together or was she out with a group of friend. In situations like this if he was not present when she was consuming the alcohol this could lead investigators to ask why they weren’t together? Does she go out a lot with friends? If Michael and Kathleen’s social life was separate there is usually a reason for this. Happily married couples usually have the same groups of friends and interact socially together. These are some of the questions and how they pertain to how I would solve the case. The answers to these questions would then lead me to decide whether or not Michael was still a suspect and how they should go about conducting their case.
What I found most interesting in Tuesdays discussion was the amount of steps involved in every person's involvement with the case. To me it seemed that the witnesses just get exhausted by pretty much everyone official that shows up, and also everyone is responsible for extreme amounts of paper work. I guess I didn’t learn much new things besides the fact that the Sergeant actually shows up at the scene because I thought that like someone else mentioned earlier I thought that he was more behind the scenes in making sure others do their jobs. Of course the most interesting role is that of the detective in the aspect that they are smarter than the criminal because even though they have to jump through hoops to get a lot of their investigation done they still are able to piece together crime.
If I was the detective at the scene I would first get myself a cup of coffee to get myself going because it is pretty late or early however you want to look at it. Then I would look at the crime scene first without any statements to try and make up my mind about what happened before I even talk to anyone. Then I would start of the interview with the main witness, that being Mr. Peterson. First question would be what happened, next how, third where he was when it happened, fourth why there is so much blood on the wall like she was blasted by a sawed-off shot gun. The husband is always a suspect in these sorts of cases and making him sweat would be first priority, and that is why that initial walk through the crime scene without hearing the story is very important. Letting him that you’re on to something is important, the neighbors and outside variable can be interviewed by regular officers and their reports will be taken into consideration at a later time. I believe that there is a big difference in being told a story and making up one for yourself, some may say that it’s a horrible idea to jump to conclusions but that’s not what is happening. All I am doing is coming up with "theories" that I will try to later prove with evidence.
In class on Tuesday I was surprised by a lot of things that were discussed. I thought what was very interesting was the amount of people on a case and how many different jobs there really were in an investigation from the 911 call to putting all the pieces together. There are many steps that need to be followed in order to make a good case and to cover everything or the case could be thrown out. I didn't know about the two different types of CSI, one who is the principle investigator and the lead investigator. I knew that there were CSI but I didn't know this. I think the part that I would be most interested in is the investigation part, or being the investigator. That part has also always interested me, and the job would be changing almost all the time. Another one that I would be just as interested in would be the police. I know from talking in class that investigators don't believe them when it comes to investigation and that would be frustrating but the job would be different and you don't know what you could respond to. Being one of the first people on site would be extremely important. So I would either be interested in the police or the investigator.
As a detective the first steps I would do is see what the police have collected and see where they were at. I would interview witnesses and check the crime scene for the evidence, and see what I see when I first walk into a crime scene. The questions I would ask are something like: What happened? What did you see? Did anything happen that doesn't normally happen? What was heard? Depending on if there was anyone else at the scene I would ask where they at the time of the crime. What happened leading up to the crime days before or the day of the crime? Those are some of the questions I would ask. I would go about answering these questions by interviewing witnesses, friends, family of the victim, people that might have had contact with the victim days before to get the mindset of the victim before. Maybe see if there was any fighting before the crime took place. That is how I would go about it.
What I found surprising about Tuesdays class is that I missed something that I know must have been a fun and exciting lecture. I found out by reading the comments of what I did not know before is that the Sergeants don't necessarily do much they just supervise seeing that things are under control, they don't really deal with the witnesses except when it comes to receiving complaints or personal information and evidence. I would like to have the role as the detective because it seems they have all the fun, and are the most active.
I would arrive with a blank mindset of everything ask the sergeant what was the distress call about or what was the main event, if it was a murder if so who were the main people, and once I get the basic information I ignore any further information and start from scratch, make talk to witnesses, asking them what time did they make the call? What made them make the call? What did they hear? Did they see anyone? If so who? What were they wearing? Of course each question or for some I would constatly would have to include the time. Before this event were they acting differently? By answering them I would just piece everything together and try to make sense of it all by making a story.
I thought this whole case was very interesting up to the point of what we learned! The thing that I found the most interesting was when he called 911 because his wife was at the bottom of the stairs...but the most important thing he did not mention was the huge amount of blood pooling around her. When we seen the picture I was in shock! For me, that would be the first thing that came out of my mouth.
I had no idea the whole process of a crime scene and how long it took. that two different detectives usually come and conduct different areas of work. The poice are in charge of finding out first vital info and surverying the area and roping it off. I found all this to be very helpfull. I also did not know that they did not clean the scene up--they leave it for the family to clean after all the investigation is complete.
For me, I wouldl like to do the part of the detective. I am a type of person that likes to go over and over what a person says. I like to go back and look over other things and form a scenerio for it. I think that I would like the responsibility of a detective, gathering evidence, interviewing everyone that was involved or saw anything, preparing the case for the prosecution, and questioning the suspect and victim if there was one.
Role as detective:
I would arrive at the crime scene and immedietly make sure that the area is properly roped off and secure. I would be taking notes of my exact arrive, the weather, number of people and who was there. I would then talk to the first responding police officers to get the order of sequence, and work my way down the list of people that arrived to work on the case. I would then look at the area of crime scene and take note of everything. I would make sure that photos are taken of the people around the area, the victim, and photos around the house that could possible help out later down the road.
The questions that I would ask is, What did the 911 caller say exactly and what time did he call. I would ask the caller what had happened prior to the call. What made him call, did he hear something, did the person scream, ect. I would then ask neighbors and witnesess what they seen, heard, and knew of. I would just ask anything and everything that would help me answer these questions and come up with an answer to the crime.
The most surprising thing I learned was that a lot of people die from falling down stairs, "reportedly." Aside from that, I think that the husband's attempt to claim that she fell and had that much blood get on the wall was completely ridiculous. Did he really expect investigators to believe that? I'm no detective, but I'm pretty sure that I could figure out that there would not be that much blood.
I would most want to be the detective because they get to work to uncover the facts and see whose stories match up. They spend weeks uncovering clues and compiling evidence. And they (hopefully) get the satisfaction of solving the case.
I would questions the neighbors, friends, and family members to see if the couple had been fighting. I would question the husband to see if his story made sense and possibly try to catch him off guard and poke holes in his story. My initial question is what is the motive? What would cause the husband to want to murder his wife. Does he stand to gain? Insurance monies?
After class on that Tuesday, I was amazed of the analysis of everything. It all started with the 911 call. When I first read it, without the sound, I interpreted it in a whole different way of when we actually heard the real tape of it. We took line by line and tried out all of the possible scenarios from what he was saying. I think the thing that caught him up was not mentioning the pool of blood around her. I think it is very beneficial to have those recordings to go back on and analyze.
Another thing that I found very interesting and didn’t really understand before, was the whole process of things in a dead person’s case. From the first responding officers interviewing, detectives showing up and doing their part, and CSI type people coming and doing their part.
When the defense and prosecution were coming up with their stories I thought it to be very interesting. My favorite part was when they remade the scene from Peterson and his wife out by their pool. They played an audiotape of a girl screaming to see if it was possible to hear her from the pool. They went on to do other things like this to create their stories. I found that amazingly awesome and it really shows the dedication attorneys put in with cases like this.
I would be most interested in being the prosecution attorney. I am a person that really enjoys putting things together and solving issues. I would have hired a great team to help me solve this issue and put together a good and accurate story!
If I was a detective, the first thing I would do was making sure everything was properly secured. I would then head straight to the first responding officer and hear all of his details. I would start my own questioning. First with Peterson, in a different room. I would ask them what they were doing that night, did they have an argument. Did he hear anything unusual, was she acting different when they were together, was the House out of order in anyway. Any possible ways an intruder could have came in? I would keep asking questions based off what he was giving me.