Criminal Observations
The door
The door would be the first area to search is the door. In this case, the angle at which the door is opened would be essential in determining whether there was forced entry or the individual was let in with the consent of the owner of the house. In this case, the door seems to be opened and a projectile hole at 5’4” from the floor height. The angle of 50 degrees from the ground can be used together with the height from the floor to assess the distance of the gun from the door. By doing so, it would be possible to determine whether the gun was fired from a close range or at a far distance. Additionally, the door can be used to obtain fingerprints to be matched with potential suspects of the homicide. The information obtained from this area would be documented to be compared with evidence from other areas within the crime scene. The sign of a broken lock would indicate forced entry into the room. On the other hand, a properly opened lock can indicate that the perpetrator or victim entered the house without any resistance from the occupant (Schlesinger et al. 2014).
Table
The second area would be the table located on the left side after opening the door. The table has a knife on the top. In this case, it would be appropriate to examine the area for bloodstains on the knife. Additionally, the type of knife on the table would be an important detail to identify whether the owner had obtained it from the house or purchased it as a weapon. The table is standing normally in the room and thus shows that it was not interfered with during the incident. If the knife happens to have bloodstains, they may carry the potential of the DNA of the stabbed victim. Consequently, important details like fingerprints of the perpetrator may remain on the knife’s handle, thus making it an essential element in the investigation. The fact that the knife is placed on the table in an orderly manner may indicate that it was placed without any hurry (Gardner, 2011).
Sofa
The sofa would be examined to identify missing portions. In this case, missing elements of the sofa may indicate a potential struggle between the victim and the perpetrator. In the presented case, the cushions are spread on the floor. This area may indicate an earlier struggle or fight between the victim and the suspect. By observing the condition of the sofa, it is possible to identify bloodstains on the cushions or other parts of the sofa. This state may indicate a continued struggle after the victim was stabbed near the table.
Scattered Clothes
By observing the way clothes lie on the floor, one is able to tell whether there was a struggle. In this case, it would be important to record the condition of the clothes on the floor and indicate a potential fight between the victim and the perpetrator. Additionally, the clothes would be examined for blood stains to help in locating the point where the victim was shot.
Coffee table
The coffee table would be observed to determine potential temperament. In this case, the coffee table appears to be upturned. This condition may be useful in determining the extent of the struggle between the victim and the killer. Also, it may provide important details regarding where the fight or struggle started. On the other hand, the table may have been turned by an angry person during an earlier argument.
Lamp on Floor
The lamp on the floor would assist in supporting other elements suggesting a potential fight between the killer and the victim before the shot was fired. The lamp may also have been used as a weapon. In this case, the lamb would be helpful in obtaining fingerprints and also any present DNA. This would indicate that a person had been hit using the lamp. Additionally, any breakage could be used to determine the force used to throw the lamp. In this case, slight damage would show that the lamp fell independently due to the movement of the table caused by the struggle.
The Corpse
The corpse would be observed to determine the cause of death. In this case, the victim seems to have a gunshot wood on the center of the forehead. This area can be used to indicate the position of the shooter. As such, the shooter was standing before the victim before they made the shot. The position of the bullet wood can be useful in suggesting that the killer was standing in front of the victim. Consequently, these details would reveal that the victim had seen the shooter before he was killed. The position of the corpse would be an important element in assessing the exact location of the shooter.
The details obtained from this area can be compared with the elements from the previous areas to make certain conclusions. In this case, the initial details suggested that the perpetrator shot a bullet that went through the door at 5’4” from the floor. In this case, the height of the victim would be recorded. The height of the victim would, therefore, be compared with the height of the projectile entry at the door. The details in the picture indicate that the gunshot originates from the forehead. Thus, the gun was fired from the direction of the door. The relationship between different details at the door and the victim would determine whether the killer fired the gun from outside. At this point, if the gun is determined to be fired from the outside, it would be possible that the killer was the one responsible for the disorienting the room including throwing the cushions on the floor, turning the table and dropping the lamp (Schlesinger et al. 2014).
Directives and assignments for additional personnel
With additional personnel in the scene, some of the members would be assigned duties of collecting and matching fingerprints. For instance, the fingerprints from the door handle and knife would be matched to identify matches. Additionally, another team would be required to mark the areas in the scene to create an overall diagram. In this case, the parties would connect the details on other areas to the victim. On the other hand, a photographer would be obtained from the personnel to take detailed pictures of the condition at the moment. As such, the pictures would incorporate images of evidence from other areas. The photographer would focus mostly on the forehead and rear of the victim.
Consequently, I would require pictures of the victim and the door from a distance to obtain the perspective of the crime scene. It would also be appropriate to require the team to collect any bullet remains on the floor. The team would also take pictures of the cushions on the floor as well as the knife on the table. The picture of the lamp on the ground and the unturned table would also be taken during the process. Besides the photographer, there would be an individual for recording the details of the victim. This would entail observing the victim’s race and determining gender through observation. In this case, the victim appears to be a black female.
Notably, the team would be instructed to determine the distance between the victim and the killer at the time of the shooting. This would involve calculations from the height of the projectile from the floor and the angle from the ground. By doing so, it would be possible to ascertain whether the killer made the shot from outside the room and through the door. The personnel would also determine the height of the victim. This would help in comparing the victim’s height with the height of the trajectory from the floor. In this case, a match would indicate that the bullet from the door was the one that killed the victim. The personnel would assist in identifying any other injuries on the victim apart from the gunshot wound on the forehead. As a result, additional injuries would indicate that the victim was physically attacked by the killer before being shot. In this case, it would suggest that the killer had been inside the house and opted to get out before deciding to kill the victim with a gunshot (Gardner, 2011).
Reference
Gardner, R. M. (2011). Practical crime scene processing and investigation. CRC Press.
Schlesinger, L. B., Gardenier, A., Jarvis, J., & Sheehan-Cook, J. (2014). Crime scene staging in homicide. Journal of police and criminal psychology, 29(1), 44-51.