Investigative Report Writing. Randy Odleman Murder Investigation - Term Paper Example

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT WRITING I. Synopsis: the Randy Odleman Murder Investigation                  Raleigh Police Department On Friday February 17, 2012 just after midnight, we received a phone call from one Bob Smith of Maiden Lane, Raleigh concerning a murder: The murder of Randy Odleman had taken place in Room H, along Maiden Lane, Raleigh. II. Victim Statement: We located the victim, now deceased in the alley behind the rooming house – where he lived.  His body had one gunshot in the leg and two in the back.  We found a trail of blood from the back porch of the rooming house to the location of the dead body, 50 feet away. The victim was laying face down already dead by the time we located the body. However, we did not locate the murder weapon. The deceased had a criminal record from 2 years ago – for the Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Manufacture, Sell, or Deliver – and another charge of Assault on a Female victim one year ago.   III. Witness Statements: The only witness we found was one, Bob Smith of Maiden Lane, Raleigh who also tipped us about the commission of the crime. In his recorded statement, he explained that he lived across the street – directly, from the rooming house where the crime had occurred.  He further stated that he had been home alone, reading a book when he heard several shots thus notifying the Raleigh Police Department. He stated that the rooming house had many visitors, late in the night, who drive up and enter the premises for a short period of time then leave.  Further, he stated that he had called our station in the past be - because he had suspected that someone in the rooming house may have been dealing in drugs. He also stated that he was not aware of any other person, who might have witnessed the crime, but suggested that the inhabitants of the rooming house might have witnessed the same. In addition he stated that he was aware that the deceased had assaulted a certain woman leading to his arrest, prosecution, conviction and sentencing. IV. Suspect Statement: We were able to identify four suspects in relation to this murder case, and here are the Questionnaires as filled by each of them: Murder Investigation Suspect Statement Name: Ronald Wilkens   Position: student at NCSU                Date: 18th February, 2012 Worksite: N/A                Murder Date: 17th February, 2012   Time: about 11: 54 PM Thank you for helping us in examining this incident so that we can help prevent anyone from getting murdered in the future. Accuracy is very important in helping us get to the root cause of this murder. The information you give will be used against you in a court of law, should face prosecution. Please describe what you saw and heard in a chronological order. What were you doing just before the incident? I was just out riding to unwind after a long month of sitting for exams. What were you doing when the incident occurred? I had just entered into Maiden Lane, Raleigh when I heard gunshots and a lot of commotion. What did you do after the incident occurred? I panicked and decided to take off, when you bumped into me and started interrogating me. Please answer the following questions: Was it your first time to be in the vicinity of the crime scene? Not really, I once visited a relative who used to reside here, who has, since relocated to Miami. Did you know the deceased? What sort of relationship did you share? I did not know the deceased and thus no relationship existed between us Did you have any personal differences with the deceased? No, I had never – even seen him. When was the last time you saw the deceased? I never did Have you ever been to the deceased’s place of residence? No, never. Did you ever engage in any business ventures with the deceased? No, not at all. I certify that this statement is true and accurate to the best of my recollection. RW     18th February, 2012 Signature Date Murder Investigation Suspect Statement Name: Tim Highstring   Position: mechanic     Date: 18th February, 2012 Worksite: Rolic Mechanics Ltd                Murder Date: 17th February, 2012   Time: about 11: 54 PM Thank you for helping us in analyzing this incident so that we can help prevent anyone from getting murdered in the future. Accuracy is very important in helping us get to the root cause of this murder. The information you give will be used against you in a court of law should you face prosecution. Please describe what you saw and heard in a chronological order. What were you doing just before the incident? I was taking drinks alone at my house, to drown my sorrows What were you doing when the incident occurred? I did not witness the murder. The last thing I remember doing was drinking before I probably blacked out, since I did not hear or see anything regarding the murder of Randy What did you do after the incident occurred? I do not remember anything. Please answer the following questions: Was it your first time to be in the vicinity of the crime scene? I stay in the nearby to the scene of crime Did you know the deceased? What sort of relationship did you share? Randy was a good friend of mine, though we had drifted apart due to having different goals in life Did you have any personal differences with the deceased? Not really, apart from normal differences that regular friends experience. When was the last time you saw the deceased? Four days ago Have you ever been to the deceased’s place of abode? Yes, on several occasions Did you ever engage in any business ventures with the deceased? At one point we worked together in my current workplace before he quit looking for greener pastures. I certify that statement is true and accurate to the best of my recollection. TH     18th February, 2012 Signature Date Murder Investigation Suspect Statement Name: Milton Rankle   Position: Unemployed     Date: 18th February, 2012 Worksite: N/A                Murder Date: 17th February, 2012   Time: about 11: 54 PM Thank you for helping us in analyzing this incident so that we can help prevent anyone from getting murdered in the future. Accuracy is very important – in helping us in getting to the root cause of this murder. The information you give will be used against you in a court of law, should face prosecution. Please describe what you saw and heard in a chronological order. What were you doing just before the incident? I was trying to eat and then sleep What were you doing when the incident occurred? I was asleep What did you do after the incident occurred? I decided to run away for safety Please answer the following questions: Was it your first time to be in the vicinity of the crime scene? No, I stay there Did you know the deceased? What sort of relationship did you share? I did not know him Did you have any personal differences with the deceased? Yes, he had refused to give me money or food When was the last time you saw the deceased? Who are you and what are…who are you and what are doing up this late? Have you ever been to the deceased’s place of abode? I do not know Did you ever engage in any business ventures with the deceased? I wanna go home now I certify that statement is true and accurate to the best of my recollection. MR     18th February, 2012 Signature Date Murder Investigation Suspect Statement Name: Cindy Sarles   Position: Unemployed     Date: 18th February, 2012 Worksite: N/A                Murder Date: 17th February, 2012   Time: about 11: 54 PM Thank you for helping us in analyzing this incident so that we can help prevent someone from getting murdered in the future. Accuracy if very important in helping us get to the root cause of this murder. The information you give will be used against you in a court of law, should face prosecution. Please describe what you saw and heard in a chronological order. What were you doing just before the incident? I was cooking dinner What were you doing when the incident occurred? I was listening to loud music while dancing to it What did you do after the incident occurred? I had just turned off the music –when you knocked at my door. Please answer the following questions: Was it your first time to be in the vicinity of the crime scene? No, I stay around Did you know the deceased? What sort of relationship did you share? I used to spot him in the neighborhood, but I didn’t know him personally Did you have any personal differences with the deceased? None, that am aware of. When was the last time you saw the deceased? I saw him months ago from a distance Have you ever been to the deceased’s place of abode? No, never Did you ever engage in any business ventures with the deceased? No way. I had never interacted with him at a personal level I certify that statement is true and accurate to the best of my recollection. CS     18th February, 2012 Signature Date V. Investigative Notes: Investigative steps taken and results obtained. We conducted the investigation by first observing the environment in which the crime occurred, interviewing of the witnesses and gathering general facts – which helped us deal with the four suspects. We then listed the basic information of the witness and suspects, whom we interview through questionnaires in order to place the events in a chronological order as they happened, and no pertinent information was left out. Lastly, we checked the accuracy and the veracity of their statements should they be asked to repeat their statements at a court (Henry 134). 2. Type of crime scene processing and results currently available. We conducted a crime scene search and processing, by carefully documenting the conditions at the crime scene and recognizing all relevant physical evidence. We secured the crime scene through taping, to avoid contamination and interruptions. We further canvassed with the residents who gave us further information about the second and fourth suspects.  After the scene was secure, we determined an organized approach. The organized approached insures:  a thorough and legal search is conducted; expeditious processing without compromise; proper scene documentation; proper methods and techniques for evidence recovery; and the proper use and knowledge of resources and equipment. Other areas include: ensuring that all pertinent evidence is recovered; proper handling and packaging of evidence; proper distribution points for evidence analysis; and proper safety precautions are adhered to. We worked together under supervisor, in photographic log recording and the preparation of a crime sketch which helped us unravel the murder. We took photographs of: the entire area before it was entered; the victim; major evidence items before they were moved; and all latent fingerprints and other impressions – evidence before lifting and casting were accomplished. We drew sketches to be used along with the reports and photographs to document the scene.  After the evidence had been photographed and sketched, we collected it using gloves and we then packaged it to maximize its integrity. We therefore followed all the steps of scene processing namely: securing the scene, conducting interviews, examining the scene (walk-through), photographing the scene and bagging and tagging. 3. Evidence collected. We managed to obtain both physical and biological evidence. We obtained such physical evidence as fingerprints, tire tracks, footprints, fibers, paint, and soil.  Further, we also obtained biological evidence including bloodstains and DNA. Upon obtaining a search warrant and searching through the apartments of the second and fourth suspects, we found them with drugs and the deceased’s documents respectively. 4. Neighborhoods canvass results. We engaged other people from the deceased’s neighborhood in order to solve the mystery surrounding his death. Most of the neighbors were cooperative, thus giving us information about the second suspect owing money to the deceased – and that the deceased kept demanding him, to pay him back. Further, some of the people who wanted to remain anonymous told us that the fourth suspect had been a long time girlfriend of the deceased, but had parted ways after the deceased left her in a very brutal and inhumane manner – thus making her become bitter and swearing to revenge. The neighbors also intimated that the second and fourth suspects are long term friends, and it is the former who introduced the latter to the deceased. 6.  Show-ups, line-ups, BOLO’s, specialized units, or specialized investigative   Procedures utilized. We conducted show-ups and line-ups which were both live i.e., involving the actual suspect and several other fillers, and by photo array, i.e., involving a picture of the suspect and several other fillers.  This helped the witness and other residents to identify the suspects and give us more information regarding the same. We further used the Criminal Investigation Agency (CIA) in order to narrow down the suspects to the second and fourth ones (District Attorney Investigative report). 7.  Conduct of suspect interrogation / Miranda. We interrogated each suspect, while complying with the Miranda rights by informing them that both exculpatory and inculpatory statements made in response to questioning while in police custody will be acceptable at trial. This would be the case, only if the assessment can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult an attorney before and during the questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by the police – and that the defendant not only comprehended these rights, but voluntarily waived them. We therefore, asked specific and unique questions to each suspect as follows: To Ronald Wilkens, we accused him of committing the offence since we had found him at the vicinity of the crime scene alone, and at odd hours of the night. He quickly defended himself that he had had a rough time at school and was thus unwinding by himself to release the tension. We exonerated him based on his tone, simple denial of the commission of crime, eye contact and body gestures. He seemed sincere about what he was doing at the crime scene – and he cooperated with us during the investigation (Larry 26-30). Tim Highstring was very defensive upon being accused of the crime. He could not maintain eye contact and kept fidgeting.  The fact that he had lied to us about not being close to the deceased and concealing the fact that he owed the deceased money, further confirmed that he had a motive to commit the murder. He was not able to dispute the fact that he owed the deceased money – neither could he explain his possession of the drugs, which were linked to the deceased. Further, forensic analysis linked him to the crime scene, but he could not defend himself (Jetmore 2-5). Milton Rankle upon being accused of committing the murder was not coherent, which made us conclude that he had a mental problem. We further deduced that he did not know the accused, as he was a lunatic and was not in his lucid moment at the time, thus we exonerated him. Cindy Sarles is most culpable – as major evidence linked her to the crime. She was very defensive, denied the crime with arguments and changing positions to suit the situation. Further she was not able to give alibi as pertains to the day of the crime, and she could not rebut the evidence alluding that she had been a long term girlfriend to the deceased and the relationship had been called off recently. Moreover, she did not convince us that she did not have the motive to kill the deceased, as she had promised to revenge. Further, since most of her earlier statements had been rebutted, we considered her to be incredible (David 25-33). 8.  Arrests made. Upon being granted warrants of arrest, we arrested the second and fourth suspects on the probable cause of committing the murder. We have reasonable suspicion to believe that the two suspects are the most culpable for the offence committed. This is based on the grounds, that they had personal differences with the accused thus they had the motive to commit the crime. Further, the second suspect was not perturbed about the demise of the deceased, while the fourth suspect was not cooperative about us searching her apartment – where, upon search we found incriminating evidence linking them to the murder (Seidel 20-30). 9.  Investigator’s observations and professional opinions. We have come to the conclusion that the second and the fourth suspects committed the offence, since they had the motives to commit it. For instance, the second suspect seems to have had the motive, since the deceased kept pressurizing him to pay the debt owed to the deceased. He could have wanted to put an end to it – to avoid the embarrassment since the deceased’s neighbors knew about it. Further, they seem to have fallen out, as they were once close but later drifted apart, thus there was bad blood between them. Further, some of the physical and biological evidence links him to the crime – these including DNA, tire tracks, soil and foot prints as per the forensic analysis (Barrett 74). The fourth suspect is also culpable, since she was bitter about her brutal relationship with the deceased. She had even sued him for assault, and had promised to revenge, for his breaking up with her. She was not able to prove alibi on the fateful night, thus kept giving inconsistent statements thus tainting her credibility. The forensic analysis also linked her to the crime scene through fingerprints, fibers, hair, bloodstains and shoe tracks (Inbau 67). Locard's Exchange Principle dictates that evidence, both physical and biological, is to be found at the scene of a crime because the perpetrator always leaves something behind by having contact with victims and the objects there. Similarly, he or she will often take something away with them, which can be found on a search of their person, their garment, a vehicle, or their premises. Such evidence is often found in minute quantities and known as trace evidence. Impression marks are another important kind of physical evidence. When an item like a shoe or a tire comes into contact with a soft surface, it leaves behind a pattern showing some or all of its surface characteristics, known as an impression. The collection and the analysis of impression evidence found at the scene of a crime can often be very important to an investigation. The collection of objects, marks and impressions that make up the physical evidence of a crime is a specialized task. The general principles of preserving physical evidence and assuring a secure chain of custody apply – whatever the crime. We have proved the foregoing evidence thus we can prove a criminal case against the two, to the required legal standards (Becnel 78). 10. General conclusions. We are certain that the suspects have been analyzed correctly in order to avoid innocent people from being locked up in prison. We are convinced that the evidence gathered can sustain a criminal suit in a court of law. We therefore urge the prosecution to take up this case and institute charges against the two suspects in order to upholding justice, for the deceased and his relatives and friends. VI. ATTACHED DOCUMENTS 1. Crime Scene Security and Processing Check List 2. Crime Scene Assignments 3. Crime Scene Entrance Record 4. Canvass Questionnaire Works Cited Barrett, Scottie. The Viscount's Addiction. Macon, GA.: Samhain Publishing, 2008: 74 Becnel, Philip. Private Investigator Entry Level (02E): An Introduction to Conducting Private Investigations. Cleveland: Universe Publishing; 2 edition. (January 20, 2010): 78 David, Ingram. "Investigative Reporting, writing techniques." the news manual. (2008): 25 -33. District Attorney, Orange country California. Investigative report. Los angles: government publication, 2008. Henry, Lee. Henry Lee's Crime Scene Handbook in Timothy Palmbach, Marilyn T. Miller (Eds): 134. E-book. Inbau, Fred. Et al. Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 4th Ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. (February 1, 2004): 67. Jetmore, Larry. "Ivestigative Report Writing." Daily journal. (2008): 2 -5. Larry, Jetmore. "Investigative report writing." law officer magazine. (2008): 26-30. Seidel, Jon. "How to write a criminal investigation report." The marieta daily (2009): 20-30. Read More