Examination of Paint and Glass - Lab Report Example

Examination of Paint and Glass 27th July Introduction An incident that happened at 270 Leek Road, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire was reported to the criminal investigations department. The offense was criminal damage. This experiment was done to investigate whether Mark Jones, a suspect in that case was responsible for breaking into a house through the back door and a car. This lab report will describe the procedures followed so as to come up with the results and to determine whether Mark was the proprietor of the crime. Background information According to some witnesses, who were neighbors to the house in question, noise of breaking glass was heard and most went there see what was going on. They reported seeing a man in jeans, trainers and a T-shirt running away from the house, down Leek Road. The police were informed and responded immediately. The back door of the house had been broken and the sunroof of the VW Polo. Paint and glass of both the car and the property had been damaged. Both of them were damaged so as to allow entry in the property. The police later arrested a suspect who matched the description of the neighbors, two streets away. His clothes were taken for further analysis in the laboratory. This is because clothes might have had contact with the broken glass and damaged paint; hence some of them might have been left on the clothes. The control samples from the broken glass and damaged paint were taken for analysis. However, the suspect denied any claims regarding being near 270 Leek Road at that particular time of the crime. Aims The aims of this experiment included to investigate whether the debris recovered from Mark’s clothes had any fragments of glass and paint from the damaged property. The experiment was also meant to determine any kind of relationship between the recovered materials/fragments from the suspect’s clothes with the control samples collected; broken glass of the back door and the damaged paint of the VW sunroof. The final aim of the experiment was to discover any evidence that showed or qualified Mark Jones and the perpetrator of the crime in question. Method 1. Preparation work: Several petri dishes had been provided that contained the debris from the suspect’s clothes. The contents were observed and described, while the observations were recorded on the results sheet. The identity of each of them was also suggested. Low power microscopy was used to view the contents, while much attention was paid to any presence of glass and paint. The observations were also recorded, and the magnification used. 2. Physical Examination of Evidence: The suspect items were collected carefully, and a physical examination was done as the observations were recorded on the results sheet. The debris from the suspect’s clothes was collected in a plastic bag by shaking, then put in a petri dish. All observations were recorded. Low power microscopy was used to observe the contents in the petri dishes and if there was any glass present; its color, the number and size of fragments, thickness, and patterns were recorded. For the presence of paint, the color, the number of layers present, layer structure, inclusions, pigments and consistency was recorded. A diagram showing the layer structure was drawn. Low power microscopy was used to record the contents of the control samples, and the magnification of the microscope was also recorded on the results sheet. For the presence of glass, the color, size of fragments, pattern and number were recorded. Same case with the thickness of the broken pieces. For the presence of paint, its color and the number of layers present was recorded. A cross-section diagram of the layer structure was drawn to indicate the consistency. In addition, any presence of inclusions and pigments was also recorded. Comparison of glass: using the patterns, thickness measures and color/tint, the observations of the differences or similarities between the glass from the suspect’s clothes and control samples was recorded. Comparison of paint: While the paint samples were placed vertically so that the layer structures could be seen, examination and comparison was done. This was done under the low power microscope. The cross-sections of the samples was drawn to show the consistency, layer structure, pigments and inclusions that were visible. The similarities and differences between the suspect samples and control were recorded. Results 1. The trousers worn by Mark at the time of arrest contained sand, tobacco, fiber and pieces of glass. The glass is the material of interest in this experiment. There were eight pieces of glass both black and clear and nine transparent ones with a crack on them. There was also paint found in his clothes; they were black in color. 2. The control samples of glass from the back door of the property contained cracks. The glass fragments were transparent. Discussion As seen in this experiment, both the suspect’s clothing and the control samples contained evidence that could be matched to the crime that had occurred. In addition to the techniques used in the examination, comparison microscopes could be better at comparing the samples as one can do it in real time. This is better because it ensures effective comparison as one can judge the layer patterns and observe the consistency in real time (Palmiotto, 2012). Furthermore, to compare the paint materials in the suspect’s clothing and those of the control samples, some chemical examination should have been carried out. This is to determine the chemical make-up/ components of the paint so as to have a clear comparison (White, 2004). If the components of the two categories of samples matched, then the source of the paint is the same. This shows that the suspect in question was present at the time of the crime; which is contrary to what he said. The steps that this experiment took so as to ensure the continuity of evidence was met and that there was no contamination that occurred include: packaging, referencing with exhibit numbers, date and time at the time the evidence was used. The exhibit number and the laboratory reference number is to ensure that the evidence can be tracked and located with ease. This is through recording the lab records. The packaging methods; use of clear bags and sealed with clear tape. Sealing ensures that the evidence is not tampered on and also protects the evidence from degradation/contamination from external sources (Fish, et al., 2010). The date and time show that exact times that the evidences might have been used. However, signature or names of the people that handled the evidence should have been recorded (Lee, Palmbach & Miller, 2001). In the case of any unexpected occurrence to the evidence, the persons responsible know where to look for answers. Conclusion Mark’s trousers contained glasses; clear and black. Some of the glasses contained cracks on them. The sunroof of the VW Polo contained a tint/black color which could match with the black glasses on the suspect’s trousers. The control samples from the rear door contained cracks and transparent, as were those found from Mark’s trousers. Black paint from Mark’s trousers matched to the control samples collected from the damaged car, through their color and consistency. Questions The debris that was recovered from Mark’s clothing contained glass and paint fragments. There is a relationship/ similarity between these fragments and the control samples collected at the scene of the crime; that is the rear door of the property and the VW Polo. The materials from Mark’s clothes; that is the glass, and the paint constitutes evidence that show that Mark might have carried out the crime or was present at the instance the crime took place. References Fish, J. T., Stout, R. N. & Wallace, E., 2010. Practical Crime Scene Investigations for Hot Zones. s.l.:CRC Press. LEE, H. C., PALMBACH, T., & MILLER, M. T. (2001). Henry Lees crime scene handbook. San Diego, California, Academic. Palmiotto, M. J., 2012. Criminal Investigation. 4th ed. s.l.:CRC Press. Palmiotto, M. J., 2012. Criminal Investigation. 4th ed. s.l.:CRC Press. White, P., 2004. Crime Scene to Court: The Essentials of Forensic Science. s.l.:Royal Society of Chemistry . Read More