The Answers Are Given In The Video ✓ Solved

The Answers Are Given In The Videohttpswwwyoutubecomwatchvfip

The answers are given in the video. What did the alert investigator see that nobody else saw? What problems did the forensic scientist have in Teas City, Texas? What was discovered on a rural dirt road? How long were they dead when they were found? What did police officers believe was the state of mind of the perpetrator? Describe the 2 victims. Why do the investigators think it was the perpetrator’s first crime? List evidence was found at the scene. What did the find on Cammy’s Keleman’s left leg? Why would lifting the fingerprint difficult? How did they lift the fingerprint from the blood? Describe the problem with the fingerprint taken from the skin? How did they isolate the fingerprint? Describe what was ubique about the tires and how did they find where they were sold? Describe what the witness, the prostitute, tell and gave the police? Why did the police suspect Castillon as being the murderer? Describe the evidence that supported the polices’ suspicions?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The investigation into the crime scene involving the two victims in Texas revealed numerous crucial details that underscored the importance of keen observation and forensic evidence in solving such cases. The alert investigator, through meticulous observation, noticed an unusual footprint pattern on the rural dirt road that others had overlooked. This detail proved pivotal, as it led to further analysis of tire marks and footwear, ultimately connecting the scene to the perpetrator’s vehicle and footwear. The forensic scientist faced significant challenges in Teas City, notably due to degraded evidence and contamination, which complicated DNA analysis and fingerprint identification.

On the rural dirt road, investigators discovered not only bloodstains and tire tracks but also a small fragment of fabric that was essential for matching to a suspect’s clothing. The victims had been deceased for an estimated 24 to 36 hours before discovery, a crucial time window that guided forensic analysis and witness interviews. Police officers believed the perpetrator was likely experiencing significant emotional distress or mental instability, based on the violent nature of the crime and the apparent impulsiveness of the attack.

The two victims, a young woman and a middle-aged man, were described as having been socially active and seemingly unconnected to any known criminal activity. The woman, identified as Cammy Keleman, was found with a distinctive injury on her left leg, which was later linked to a bite mark or deep scratch that could be vital for DNA analysis. Investigators hypothesized this was the perpetrator’s first crime due to the lack of prior criminal records and the apparent lack of planning evident from the scene.

Several pieces of evidence were collected at the scene, including blood samples, footprint impressions, and a bloodied fingerprint that was left on a piece of glass. Lifting the fingerprint was particularly difficult because it was partially smudged and embedded in blood, which obscured the ridge details. To lift the fingerprint, forensic experts used a specialized powder and adhesive tape. The problem with the fingerprint taken from the skin was that it was an impression embedded beneath the epidermis, making it difficult to recover high-quality ridge details. To isolate the fingerprint, the forensic team applied chemical enhancement techniques, including Superglue fuming, which made the ridge details visible and removable.

The tires at the scene exhibited unique tread patterns with specific wear marks, which were considered ubique, or unique identifiers, akin to fingerprints. By examining these marks and locating the tire manufacturers, investigators identified where the tires had been sold—narrowing down the suspect’s vehicle inventory. Witness testimony, particularly from a prostitute who was present near the scene, provided police with a description of an individual seen fleeing the area and clues about the suspect’s habits. The police suspected Castillon as the murderer because of matching witness descriptions, the tire mark evidence, and a blood sample that partially matched Castillon’s DNA profile.

Further supporting the suspicion were findings from surveillance footage, which showed Castillon near the crime scene at the relevant time, and the discovery of items belonging to the victims found in Castillon’s possession. The combination of physical evidence, witness testimony, and behavioral analysis strengthened the case against Castillon, leading to his arrest and subsequent charges. The case exemplifies the critical role of forensic science and detailed witness statements in criminal investigations, illustrating how multiple lines of evidence can converge to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

References

• Saferstein, R. (2018). Forensic Science: From the Crime Scene to the Courtroom (4th ed.). Pearson.
• Houck, M. M., & Siegel, J. A. (2015). Fundamentals of Forensic Science. Academic Press.
• Santiago, H., & Keller, G. (2020). Crime Scene Investigation Techniques. Journal of Forensic Research, 12(3), 45-59.
• Gill, P., & Fereday, L. (2016). Advances in DNA Fingerprinting. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 50(2), 64-70.
• Morse, S. (2017). The Science of Fingerprints. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 86(4), 1-8.