Drug Activity:
In this activity we tested several different samples of liquids to see if they contained either cocaine or LSD. We were able to determine if these drugs by using an indicator in the sample. We would add a drop of the cocaine indicator and if the liquid turned blue then the substance had tested positive for cocaine, when the LSD indicator was added the substance would turn yellow if positive. We also tested the pH of the substances to help us determine if their might have been a drug added to substance. In this activity we also researched the chemical name, pH, and biochemical tests for each drug. We discovered that cocaine’s chemical name is Benzoylmethyl ecgonine, it’s pH was about 7, and that a biochemical test used to detect cocaine is the immunoassay test. LSD’s chemical name is
lysergic acid diethylamide, its pH is about 4, but I was unable to find any biochemical tests for LSD.
Data:
Sample | pH | Cocaine (blue) | LSD (yellow) |
1 | 6 | + | - |
2 | 9 | + | - |
3 | 3 | - | + |
4 | 7.5 | + | - |
5 | 6.6 | + | - |
6 | 3.5 | - | + |
Create a Profile:
In this activity we had five clues and based on them we had to determine what had happened. Clue number 1 was a set of fingerprints, clue 2 was a medium sized black hair, clue 3 was a note saying that "you will never find her", clue 4 was another hair but this time it was short and black, clue 5 was a red stain although without further analysis of the stain I would not know what exactly the stain was. Based off of clue 4 I believe that the criminal was a male because the hair was short, I believe that the victim was a female based on the note and the longer hair. I also believe that it was a murder because of the clue 3, I do not think that this was a kidnapping because there was no ransom note and the red stain could be blood. My next steps in this investigation would be to send the stain away for analysis and determine if it was blood or not, start running a fingerprint match to determine if the clue 1 was left by the victim or criminal, and if I could identify the either based off of the fingerprints. I would also start looking for people with short black hair as the criminal.
Poison Activity:
In this activity we tested several different substances to see if they contained a poison. The poisons that we tested for on the various samples were cyanide, iodine, metal poisons such as lead, iron, or chromate, sugar, household ammonia, and aspirin. We would drop the indicators in the samples, and if they turned a certain color then we would know that the sample contained the poison. For the metal poisons the indicators we used were KI to test for lead, KSCN to test for iron, and acid to test for chromate. We found that sample one contained only lead, sampled two contained lead and iron, and sample three contained lead and chromate. When testing for sugar we found that none of the samples contained sugar. In the ammonia test we found that sample 1 had a ph lower than 7, it had an odor and that the phenolphthalein was pink, all of these indicate a positive test for ammonia. Sample two had a pH lower than 7 but the odor and phenolphthalein were not a match for ammonia. For sample three none of the tests indicated the presence of ammonia. When testing for aspirin we found that sample 1 had a pH below 7 and that the bromothymol blue did turn yellow indicating a presence of aspirin, sample two and three both had a pH of around 7 but the bromothymol blue did not turn yellow indicating that they did not contain aspirin.. For the cyanide test we found that sample one and three contained no traces of poison, but sample two did contain cyanide. In the iodine test we found that sample one and two did not contain iodine, while sample three did contain the iodine.
Lip Imprint Activity:
In this activity we created prints of our lips on a postcard twice. On one note card we wrote our names and labeled certain characteristics of our lips such as lager top lip, big dip in middle, etc. We then switched imprints with another group and attempted to match the unknown prints with the known ones. In our group we were fairly successful in matching the unknown lip prints with the known ones, but the group that we switched prints with had two wrong matches.
Footprint Activity:
During class we did an analysis of a footprint as a method of gathering information about a criminal or victim. In this activity we first stepped into a box filled with sand to lay down an imprint of our shoe. Then we examined the footprint for discerning characteristics that would allow us to identify a criminal. We also had to record weather conditions such as temperature, humidity, and wind direction and strength. When doing the analysis of my foot I noticed that my shoe had a zigzag pattern on the back heel, and top left side. There was also a box with writing on it on the arc but I was unable to identify what the box said based on the footprint. There was not many individual characteristics of my footprint, but I was able to tell that more weight was out on the ball of the foot and that the size of my foot was 11” long and 4.4” wide. Based on these observations I was able to guess based on the footprint that the criminal was a male because of the size of the foot, but I was unable to identify characteristics of the criminal much further.
Witness Activity:
In class we did a witness activity where we had to cut out basic shapes of a human face such as eyes, ears, mouth, etc., and then we put the shapes together to form a face. The next step of the activity was to match the different shapes up to form a face. We would then take ten seconds and attempt to memorize each aspect of the face. After this we attempted to put the correct face back together using the correct parts. In my group two out of three people were able to correctly put the face back together. The person who was not completely correct was only off by two parts. This was a good activity because in our group we were able to determine how well each group member would be able to remember a face if they had only been able to see it for ten seconds. Overall our group did well in remembering the faces, we only missed 2/18 pieces of the face overall.
Fingerprint Activity:
In class we did a fingerprinting activity where we lifted our own prints off a dark surface using a white powder, and off a clear/white surface using a black powder. We first laid our thumb print on a surface, and then we dusted the area where the print was with either cornstarch or charcoal powder. After this we applied tape over the print and lifted allowing us to be able to see the print clearly. This method worked well for the most part, except if you weren’t careful when dusting you would smudge the print with the brush.
Hair and Fiber Activity:
During class we did a hair and fiber analysis using microscopes. The purpose of this activity was to look at the differences between different types of hair and fibers. We looked at several different types of hair, which were: dog, cat, color treated, African-American female, Asian, and synthetic hair. The fibers we looked were: silk, cotton, and nylon. Each fiber had a very distinct pattern, the silk had a woven pattern as did the nylon, but the cotton was different, it had no distinct pattern and the fibers in the sample appeared to be random. Most of the hairs were similar, but there were some key differences, the dyed hair appeared to have small little cracks in it, but the Asian hair was very smooth. The African-American hair appeared to be a bit rougher than the Asian hair and had a spot on it. The cat and dog hair also appeared to be different; the dog hair had lines running across it, but the cat hair did not, the cat hair also had a certain spot where it narrowed considerably.
Handwriting Analysis/Check Forgery Activity:
When writing my own check I first filled out the check in very neat looping handwriting, were as the sample I wrote was very messy, had no flow, and dark writing, then I ripped up the check to aid in throwing off whoever was deciphering my check. In the check forgery activity when attempting to match the check to the handwriting sample I first identified certain characteristics of the check sample such as flourishes and unusual endings. After I identified these characteristics I was able to eliminate one of the samples, then I looked further into the characteristics of the check and I thought I was able to match it with the correct sample, but I was wrong. This might have been because the correct sample was written very small and the check was written larger to throw me off who wrote the check. The check was also much lighter were as the sample was dark. All of these steps were taken to successfully throw me off the case of the original check writer. The most distinguishing characteristics that were correct though were the flourishes on the cursive writing, and the strange ways the b’s and u’s were written.
When writing my own check I first filled out the check in very neat looping handwriting, were as the sample I wrote was very messy, had no flow, and dark writing, then I ripped up the check to aid in throwing off whoever was deciphering my check. In the check forgery activity when attempting to match the check to the handwriting sample I first identified certain characteristics of the check sample such as flourishes and unusual endings. After I identified these characteristics I was able to eliminate one of the samples, then I looked further into the characteristics of the check and I thought I was able to match it with the correct sample, but I was wrong. This might have been because the correct sample was written very small and the check was written larger to throw me off who wrote the check. The check was also much lighter were as the sample was dark. All of these steps were taken to successfully throw me off the case of the original check writer. The most distinguishing characteristics that were correct though were the flourishes on the cursive writing, and the strange ways the b’s and u’s were written.
