---

How to Begin Your Investigation:

Your boss, K.C. Hammond, P.I., has asked you to take a look at the evidence currently available for the Linda Lawson case. K.C. wants you to develop an initial theory as to whether this was suicide or murder and to decide what steps should be taken next in the investigation.

The steps below will walk you through this process.

Get Organized

1. Review the email from K.C. to make sure you understand the task. It may be helpful to print the email and highlight the important points.
   
   
2. Download the attachments from the email that K.C. Hammond sent. You will be referring to these materials as you complete several upcoming tasks, so make them easy to access.

   To unzip the CrimeScenePhotos.zip file, make sure you have WinZip software to help you open the file. Then find the zipped folder that you downloaded and double-click it. A window with the zipped files contents will open. You can then click Extract all files or drag the files out of the window to the desired location. If you choose to click extract all files, the files will be extracted (unzipped) in the same location as the original file. Double-click a picture to view it in the image viewing software of your choice.

3. Meet with your team and pick a team leader. Contact your mentor with any questions about your team assignment.
   
   
   • You may want to review the General Skills Resources link in the left menu for information on successfully working in teams.

 

Familiarize Yourself with the Case
Before getting deep into the investigation, get a basic idea of what happened in the Lawson case and review the materials that are available to you so far.

1. Begin by reviewing the 911 call and reports from the first responders:
• 911 audiotape
• Police investigator’s report
• Coroner investigator’s report

Try to get a sense for what may have happened, who was present, and the circumstances surrounding the death.

2. Listen to the interviews police conducted with the decedent’s (dead person's) family members:
   • Statements by Mark Lawson and Mary Gardener

Note information that might relate to the cause of death and anything you want to pursue further as part of the investigation.

3. Familiarize yourself with the crime scene and room layout:
   • Photos

   NOTE: Be aware that the photos include images of the decedent (dead person) and the weapon that may disturb some people. Viewer discretion is advised. Talk to your mentor if you are uncomfortable viewing them.

   • Audio description of photos
   • Floor plan

   Get a general sense for the layout of the room, the location of the decedent’s (dead person's) body, and key objects. Again, make a note of anything you want to look into in more detail as you begin the investigation.

 

Investigate the Case
Evaluate the evidence in more detail now and begin to formulate a theory(ies) as to what may have happened to Linda Lawson.

A death investigation is iterative in nature. An investigator gathers evidence and then, based on that evidence, formulates theories as to the cause of death. After formulating theories, the investigator looks for additional evidence to either support or refute those theories, which then might cause him/her to change those theories. This cycle repeats as the investigator continues to gather new evidence and to refine his/her hypotheses throughout the development of the case. K.C. has given you an Progress Report template to help you conduct your investigation.

1. Review the Progress Report template from K.C. Hammond’s email. Throughout the case, you can use this report to help you keep track of the facts, your conclusions about the facts, your theories about the case, and questions that you want to investigate further.
   
   You can decide for yourselves exactly how to use the Progress Report and conduct your investigation. The report has three sections: an “Evidence Tracker” table for keeping track of the facts as you go; a section for recording your current position about the cause of death; and a section for requesting further information you need to pursue your theory(ies) about what happened. Some teams might begin by discussing theories before examining the facts in depth, while other teams might prefer to work through the facts first.
   
   How you keep track of all of facts is also up to you. For example, you might choose to complete the “Evidence Tracker” table column by column, first recording all of the facts and their sources, then considering what each implies, and finally making note of the questions you will seek to answer. Alternatively, you could work row by row, recording each fact and then making note of your conclusions and follow-up questions before moving on to the next fact.
   
   
2. Decide how the team will work together. As a team, you will submit one report to your mentor for review, so you should work collaboratively to produce the report rather than have each member work on a separate piece of the report. This will require planning, so consider how to divide up the work. You may want to review all of the materials together as a group, begin to sort through the facts together, and fill in the template together. Or you may decide to each review the materials on your own and note your findings before coming together as a group to work on the template. There are many ways to collaborate effectively, but it’s important to discuss the options with your teammates and agree on your approach.
   
   
   • You may want to review the General Skills Resources link in the left menu for information on successfully working in teams. The resource on Collaborative Group Work may be particularly useful.

3. Begin your investigation.
   Use the Progress Report to guide you through the investigation process.
   
   
   1. Track your evidence.
      Each of the steps below is one part of the process used to keep track of case evidence, and you can approach them in whatever order you choose. However, you should expect to move back and forth among these steps often as your investigation progresses.
      
      
      • Decide how you will organize, or categorize, the facts using the table in the Progress Report. You can decide upon categories at any time—before you start recording facts, after you have recorded everything, or at some point in between. You might choose to categorize the facts by their sources, or the theory they support, or how important you believe them to be. Organize the information whichever way you find most useful.
        
        
      • Identify and evaluate key facts from the case materials that support your theory(ies). Discuss what the facts lead you to believe (e.g. was there an altercation?), the circumstances surrounding those facts (e.g. how did a particular object at the crime scene end up there?), or why someone may have made a particular statement (e.g., why did the husband say “They asked me a lot of questions, but I don’t remember much.”?). Also consider how reliable the evidence is (e.g., Is the person who made the statement biased in any way? Does other evidence confirm that the wife actually took the gun from the nightstand? Is there a possibility that a test was performed incorrectly?)

        Don't jump to conclusions. Try to remain objective when examining evidence. Your first impression might lead you to an immediate theory, but be careful not to instinctively interpret evidence based on how it fits your initial theory. For example, if your instincts lead you to believe that a physical confrontation and struggle occurred, you might be inclined to interpret a broken doorknob as evidence of that confrontation while ignoring the possibility that the doorknob has been broken for weeks.
        
        

      • Record the facts in the first column of the table. Capture all of the facts that you can by thoroughly reviewing all the case materials you have available. Document the facts you find even if they seem insignificant (e.g., the placement of seemingly unimportant objects at the crime scene). The relevance of some facts may become clear as the case unfolds.
        
        As you record the facts, you may find that the same facts appear more than once (for example, from different sources). It’s okay to list the same fact more than once in the Evidence Tracker, but you should come up with a system to note multiple entries (e.g., “see also fact #3”).
        
        
      • Make note of where you found each fact in the second column headed “Source.”
        
        
      • Write your conclusions about each fact in the column titled “What does this tell us about our theory(ies) of the cause of death?” Make note of whether the fact supports a theory, refutes a theory, or neither, and explain why you think so. If you decide that the fact relates to a particular theory (or possibly more than one), indicate which ones so you’ll remember later how this piece of evidence fits into your reasoning about the case.

      Support your conclusions with sound reasoning based on solid facts. Just as you should question experts, other people will question you.

      • In the last column, record what more you need to know in order to shed light on a fact and your conclusions about it. For example, you may want to look for statistics to support the accuracy of a given test. Or you may want to ask follow up questions related to a key witness’s statement.
        
        
      • Formulate and test theories as to the cause of death. You may find it helpful to brainstorm theories about what could have happened. Then you might compare your theories to the evidence available. Does it support or refute your theory? Maybe the evidence is inconclusive because it neither supports nor refutes your theory. In that case, maybe it leads you to consider a new theory altogether.
        You might also consider your level of confidence in your current theories about the cause of death. How much evidence have you gathered in support of your theory? And how reliable is that evidence? As a team, you might discuss the amount of proof or level of certainty you require to be satisfied that your theory is accurate and well supported.
        
        
   2. Summarize your current position.
      Using part B of the Progress Report, indicate the following:
      1. What are your current theories about the Lawson case - - was it homicide, suicide, or is the evidence inconclusive?
      2. What is your reasoning? Explain how you arrived at your current theory(ies) (e.g., what “path” lead you to your conclusion). Summarize the key evidence (from the Evidence Tracker) that supports your theory(ies).
      3. How do you plan to pursue this theory/these theories? Review your notes from the “what more do we need to know…” column in the Evidence Tracker and summarize your “plan of attack” for each of your leading theory(ies).
         
         
   3. Request more information.
      In most situations, your current facts and theories will lead you to request additional information. However, if you have arrived at a final conclusion about the cause of death and are confident that you have sufficient evidence to back up your conclusion, you may not need to request additional information.
      
      
      1. Refer to the “what more do we need to know?” column in the Evidence Tracker table and write your specific requests for additional information in part C of the Progress Report. Create a prioritized list of your requests for additional information (e.g., the first item in the list is the highest priority). To determine priority, you may consider the evidence that would most strongly support your most likely theories.
         
         
      2. You may also request information not already included in the “what more do we need to know” column of the Evidence Tracker table, but be sure to provide justification for your request. For example, a combination of facts might lead you to request additional information, though no single fact alone suggests anything further is needed.
         
         
      3. Describe the exact information you would like your boss to gather to help you continue with your investigation. Refer to tests, reports, and other information by name. (e.g., do not make broad requests for information such as “any evidence about the gunshot”). Refer to the Death Investigation Process resource that describes what information is typically available as part of the investigation process.

 

Summarize your findings for your boss
Write an email to your boss summarizing your investigation. Include your observations about of the salient facts, your current position or theory of the case, and your next steps toward reaching a conclusion. This email serves as an introduction to your status document, so you should think about what is the most important information to include up front for someone reviewing your investigation work.

 

Submit your work

1. Review your work. Revisit the Progress Report template to be sure you thoroughly completed the tables based on the information you currently have. Make sure all team members sign off on the report.
   
   
2. Review the checklist located in the Submit Your Work section of this task and submit your work to your mentor.
   
   

---

Interpreting Evidence

• Avoid assigning meaning to evidence that really doesn’t have any meaning. In spite of what popular television shows may have led you to believe, there is not always a “smoking gun” that will unlock the secrets of the case. Don’t let your imagination run wild. There are aspects of autopsy and ballistics reports that will be completely irrelevant.
  
  
• Don’t assume that the “experts” are right. Rather than defer to others, instead question their reasoning, regardless of their perceived qualifications. That’s not to say that you should disregard their opinions, but you should always seek to confirm their understanding of the facts and the reasoning underlying their conclusions.
  
  
• Don’t make assumptions regarding a person’s intent (e.g., a witness or suspect) based on his/her reaction to a disturbing event. There are many potential explanations for odd behavior when a person has been involved in a traumatic experience.
  
  
• Pay close attention to the results of tests, and be certain that you understand how to interpret them. Ask yourself these questions: How are the tests conducted? What is the potential for error?
  

---

When referring to a Wikipedia resource, note that while Wikipedia is a valuable resource, unlike some other websites anyone can contribute to or modify the site (whether they're knowledgeable about the topic or not). As a result, the site is subject to constant change by questionable sources. Be sure to cross-check information on Wikipedia with other reputable sites to ensure accuracy.

Crime Scene Description audio files - Use this zip file if you prefer to download the audio clips (.wav files) provided as email attachments from K.C. Hammond.

The Field of Forensic Pathology

Forensic pathology - An FAQ on forensic pathology, including the difference between a medical examiner and a coroner.

Forensic science - An overview of the field of forensic science.

Careers in forensic pathology - A guide to the many career paths combining science and service in the interests of society, justice and public safety. Includes descriptions of educational requirements.

The National Association of Medical Examiners - The national professional organization of physician medical examiners, medical death investigators and death investigation system administrators who perform the official duties of the medicolegal investigation of deaths of public interest in the United States.

Investigation Resources

Death Investigation Process - A detailed overview of the death investigation process, including useful resources on evidence gathering and formulating hypotheses about circumstances surrounding the death.

Forensics Glossary - Definitions of common terms in the field of forensics.

 

Ask the Experts

How might a person's reaction (for example, when learning of another person's death) inform his/her guilt or innocence with respect to the death investigation?

How can the mishandling of evidence affect the outcome of a death investigation case?

Tell me about a time when evidence was mishandled and it affected the outcome of a death investigation case?

How is the coroner (or medical examiner's) role different than the role of the police in a death investigation?