Response 1.2: | Law

Research Requirement:

response1.2.docx 100 word response 1 reference/intext citation Due 1/10/2025 Schroeder Post 1 Q1: “Reconstructing the past” intersects with investigative methods by piecing together events, memories, and behaviors to make a timeline. This allows us to understand what happened before, during, and after. Technologies aid this process. For example, forensic analysis, surveillance, and witness statements/ interviews allow investigators to reconstruct the past of an event (crime or incident). Forensic analysis evidence can include fingerprinting and ballistics to help match and imagine certain events like a murder weapon, for instance. Surveillance footage can physically show the movements and locations of suspects. Witness statements/ interviews can give insights into the sequence of events that led up to or during the crime. Reconstructing can enhance past events by clarifying and opening other possible leads to an investigation. Revisiting patterns of criminal activity can alleviate insights in an ongoing investigation. Reexamining evidence can reveal something that was overlooked. On the other hand, reconstructing can complicate an investigation. For instance, it can be complicated by conflicting eyewitness testimonies as people remember differently and factors like trauma. Contaminated evidence can affect the outcome of a case. “Physical evidence is crucial to proving the elements of a crime and it alone can establish guilt” (Vecchi, 2004). On the contrary, physical evidence can also clear a person or disprove a crime. An example of a case where reconstructing past events was pivotal in advancing or hindering the investigation would be the Oklahoma City bombing. Upon reaching the investigation, I remember that the witness made a statement about the truck, but the witness ended up having a connection to that truck used in the bombing. Surveillance footage advanced the investigation by changing the witness to the suspect. However, what complicated this investigation was the investigation that was misconceived where the bomb had come from. In this case, investigators had to reevaluate all the evidence.