On Friday 11, 2016 at approximately 11:45, strands of hair were examined under a microscope to determine which suspects were at the scene of the crime. At 2:00am, a woman arrived home and caught two burglars in her house. She tried to run but she was attacked. She has no memory of her attackers. The purpose of our lab work is to find out who attacked the women by examining hair found at the crime scene.
The hair evidence was collected at the crime scene and sent to us to examine. Hair from suspects was also collected and sent to us to examine. All of the hair was examined under a microscope under high magnification. We drew sketches of all the hair and identified the cuticle, cortex, and medulla. We identified all of the unique characteristics …show more content…
The most compelling piece of evidence in the case is that the hair on slide 10 and slide CS1 are both colored blue. Both hairs don't have medullas and the cortex and cuticle have the same characteristics. We know that the hair on slide 6 and slide CS3 are from the same source because no other hairs had fragmented medullas and they were similar in color too. What is not so compelling is that someone else could also have the same color of hair and a fragmented medulla that was not considered a suspect, but the chances the hairs do not belong to the same individual are 1 in 4500 (Sapp). To make sure the hair belongs to the suspect, a DNA test would have to be conducted (Hughes). I do not think anything was irrelevant in the case because every piece of evidence helped us identify which hair from the suspects matched the ones at the crime scene. Our conclusion is irrefutable because their was only one suspect with blue colored hair and that hair sample matched the hair sample found at the crime scene. There are no other processes that could explain how two of the suspect's hair got to the crime scene. The had to be in the victim's home for their hair to be found there. In conclusion slides 10 and CS1 matched and slides 6 and CS3 matched, therefore those two suspects were at the crime scene at attacked the
The hair evidence was collected at the crime scene and sent to us to examine. Hair from suspects was also collected and sent to us to examine. All of the hair was examined under a microscope under high magnification. We drew sketches of all the hair and identified the cuticle, cortex, and medulla. We identified all of the unique characteristics …show more content…
The most compelling piece of evidence in the case is that the hair on slide 10 and slide CS1 are both colored blue. Both hairs don't have medullas and the cortex and cuticle have the same characteristics. We know that the hair on slide 6 and slide CS3 are from the same source because no other hairs had fragmented medullas and they were similar in color too. What is not so compelling is that someone else could also have the same color of hair and a fragmented medulla that was not considered a suspect, but the chances the hairs do not belong to the same individual are 1 in 4500 (Sapp). To make sure the hair belongs to the suspect, a DNA test would have to be conducted (Hughes). I do not think anything was irrelevant in the case because every piece of evidence helped us identify which hair from the suspects matched the ones at the crime scene. Our conclusion is irrefutable because their was only one suspect with blue colored hair and that hair sample matched the hair sample found at the crime scene. There are no other processes that could explain how two of the suspect's hair got to the crime scene. The had to be in the victim's home for their hair to be found there. In conclusion slides 10 and CS1 matched and slides 6 and CS3 matched, therefore those two suspects were at the crime scene at attacked the