Simple hypotheses generation and ACH were the SATs used in the case study of who murdered Jonathan Luna. The case study detailed an assistant U.S. attorney Jonathan Luna’s personal and professional life, along with his financial issues, infidelities, previous and current cases and of course his confusing unsolved murder. Some key questions to ask one’s self throughout examining and applying SATs are: who murder Jonathan Luna, who called Luna at 11 P.M., why would someone target him, and what evidence was provided or a lack thereof? Also, keeping an open mind and not jumping to conclusions of who murdered him. Going through this case study was a headache, considering there were so many unanswered questions lingering, that the professionals should
…show more content…
The starbursting exercise is basically creating a who, what, when, where, why, how, and hypothesis chart. The who for this case study would be: who had motive, who had opportunity, who was near Luna at the time, who knew Luna would be at the office at 11:00 P.M., who were his two mistresses, and who called him at that odd time. While the what for this case would be: what actually happened, what was the murder weapon, what was he doing out at that time, and what happened to Luna’s penknife between the murder and February when it was found. The when would be: when did he actually die and when did he decide to make a detour. The where would be: where is the true murder weapon. The why is, why did Luna by enough gas for two cars, two sodas and water, why did he travel around the world instead of driving straight, why wasn’t the FBI informant agent questioned more, why was he stabbed multiple times, why did this seem personal, why use a E-Z pass for multiple tolls and then a paper slip at one, why wasn’t the penknife washed away or destroyer between time of murder and being found, and why does this whole thing seem like a cover up. The how would be: how did Luna die, how did his body end up at the murder scene, if it was a “suicide” how did he stab himself in the back and genitals, and how did the murdered know his route. A couple of hypotheses would be: …show more content…
A couple of hypotheses I have are: Luna got to close to some information that he shouldn’t have (remember his boss had lied to investigators that Luna’s job wasn’t in jeopardy and he just wanted to protect Luna’s wife), and also Luna’s “murder” wasn’t treated as such from the moment his body was discovered it was ruled as a suicide, was this all just a part of a big cover-up. Luna’s boss was caught lying, police/investigators didn’t really go after any suspects, yes, they might have questioned them but that’s all. The evidence is: Luna’s own penknife mysteriously appeared three months later in February, vague police reports and evidence was provided, Luna’s boss lied to investigators about whether his job was at risk or not, the “possible” mishandling of the informant in the Smith and Poindexter case and finally making his death seem like an
The starbursting exercise is basically creating a who, what, when, where, why, how, and hypothesis chart. The who for this case study would be: who had motive, who had opportunity, who was near Luna at the time, who knew Luna would be at the office at 11:00 P.M., who were his two mistresses, and who called him at that odd time. While the what for this case would be: what actually happened, what was the murder weapon, what was he doing out at that time, and what happened to Luna’s penknife between the murder and February when it was found. The when would be: when did he actually die and when did he decide to make a detour. The where would be: where is the true murder weapon. The why is, why did Luna by enough gas for two cars, two sodas and water, why did he travel around the world instead of driving straight, why wasn’t the FBI informant agent questioned more, why was he stabbed multiple times, why did this seem personal, why use a E-Z pass for multiple tolls and then a paper slip at one, why wasn’t the penknife washed away or destroyer between time of murder and being found, and why does this whole thing seem like a cover up. The how would be: how did Luna die, how did his body end up at the murder scene, if it was a “suicide” how did he stab himself in the back and genitals, and how did the murdered know his route. A couple of hypotheses would be: …show more content…
A couple of hypotheses I have are: Luna got to close to some information that he shouldn’t have (remember his boss had lied to investigators that Luna’s job wasn’t in jeopardy and he just wanted to protect Luna’s wife), and also Luna’s “murder” wasn’t treated as such from the moment his body was discovered it was ruled as a suicide, was this all just a part of a big cover-up. Luna’s boss was caught lying, police/investigators didn’t really go after any suspects, yes, they might have questioned them but that’s all. The evidence is: Luna’s own penknife mysteriously appeared three months later in February, vague police reports and evidence was provided, Luna’s boss lied to investigators about whether his job was at risk or not, the “possible” mishandling of the informant in the Smith and Poindexter case and finally making his death seem like an