The course that I’ve been taking online in Forensic Science comes to an end this week. Along with the weekly content, we’ve been following a developing case that is based on an actual murder that took place some time ago in Scotland. The first week they presented the scenario; every week since they’ve presented the evidence corresponding to the week’s topic (DNA, fingerprints, etc.). It’s been fascinating.
The scenario: A man called the British equivalent of 911, saying that he’d come across a man in need of assistance. When the police arrived, the guy who called 911 was still there; a car was by the side of the road, and a woman was dead inside. The husband of the woman was shot in the left arm, and said that they were attacked by robbers who shot his wife when she resisted handing over her necklace.
Only problem was, the wife was shot in the side of the head facing the driver’s side of the car, so the robber would have had to reach all the way through the window and across the driver’s side to do that. Doesn’t sound right, does it?
The husband’s story held inconsistencies, and most of us in the class had the initial reaction that he must have done it. His wife was shot in the temple facing his side of the car; he’s right handed, and his gunshot wound was in the left arm; and he’d been having an affair. The weapon turned up, tossed from a pier on the loch by which the car was parked.
But, the instructors’ reactions were, “Oh, of course you all think the husband did it, haha.” As if he didn’t. So I don’t know what to think. We won’t find out until Friday afternoon.
But the course has been great. I’ve been rewriting the crime scene in Talked to Death based on what I’ve learned, and I’ve gotten several questions answered about CSI procedure and what’s possible in forensics.
I’ll share those questions and answers later.