AY2020 Semester 1

G101 Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

Lesson 06: What does the evidence say?
Worksheet (Facilitator)

*The Omnivirt 360o murder scene may not work on CHROME. Try on IE.

1. Suppose A claims that B had stolen her wallet on Monday. Comment on whether you
would accept each of the following information as evidence of B having stolen A’s wallet.
Try to identify possible problems with each.

No. Information Comments

i Video showing B taking A’s wallet Yes. There is a video proof(direct evidence)
from her bag when she was not that is a credible source showing that B did
looking steal A’s wallet particularly when she was not
looking.
ii Photo of B with her hands inside Yes. A photo evidence (direct evidence)
A’s bag proves that B was trying to steal something
from A’s bag.
iii C claiming that he saw B stealing Yes. C is a third witness(direct evidence)
A’s wallet on Monday who saw B stealing A’s wallet. This aids in
the suspicions against B thus supporting the
truth of the claim
iv B confessing to stealing A’s Yes. Upon confrontation with the lecturer she
wallet when questioned by their was complied to tell the truth by admitting her
lecturer. crime. (Direct evidence)
v A saying that in an argument with Yes. B threatens A to ‘watch out for her
B, B had told her to “watch out for money’ in a vindictive way during the
her money” argument, however it does not entirely prove
her intentions was to steal it afterwards. More
inferences are needed. (Circumstantial
evidence)

2. Evidence can be grouped into two types – direct and circumstantial.

Direct evidence supports the truth of a claim directly, without need for any
additional inference*. For example, W claims that X was smoking at the carpark at
9.15am. A CCTV footage of X smoking at the carpark at 9.15am would be
considered as direct evidence as no further inference is required.

Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, does not support a claim directly.
Circumstantial evidence requires an inference* to support the truth of a claim. On
its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. For
example, W claims that X was smoking at the carpark at 9.15am. The testimony
from Y that he saw X buying a pack of cigarettes at a shop at 9am that morning
would be considered ‘circumstantial evidence’, as we need to reason that since X
bought a pack of cigarettes, he intended to smoke that morning. However, this is
not direct evidence since X could be buying that pack of cigarettes for his friend.

*Inference can be defined as a mental process which we reach a conclusion based on specific evidence.

Before evaluating any evidence, we should first identify what is the claim.
 a. Consider the claim ‘Ken shot Jason with a gun’. Identify which information is direct
evidence and which is circumstantial evidence. Explain your answers.

No. Information Type of Evidence Explanation

1 You see Ken walk into Jason’s Direct / There is no
house through the front door. One Circumstantial substantial
minute later, you hear a gunshot evidence to prove
sound. Then you see Ken walk out that ken shot
Jason solely for
of the house.
the fact that he
was present in the
crime scene. More
inferences are
needed to support
the truth of the
claim.
2 You are in Jason’s house. You see Direct / There is
Ken walk in with a gun. You see Ken Circumstantial substantial
evidence to prove
shooting Jason with the gun. that ken shot
Jason because I
was an eye witness
for the crime
committed. Hence,
my testimony is a
direct evidence to
support the truth
of the claim.
Therefore, no other
inferences are
needed.

b. Now go back to Question 1 and try to identify the direct evidence and circumstantial
evidence for the claim.

3. When we examine different pieces of evidence, we may find that some of them
corroborate and some may contradict one another.

Evidence that corroborates is evidence that tends to support a claim that is already
supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the claim. For example, W, a
witness, testifies that she saw X smoking at the carpark at 9.15am. Meanwhile, Y,
another witness, testifies that when he interacted with X at 9.30am, he detected the
smell of cigarette on X.

Evidence that contradicts is evidence that tends to refute a claim that is already
supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the claim. For example, W, a
witness, testifies that she saw X smoking at the carpark at 9.15am. Meanwhile, Y,
another witness, testifies that he saw X doing push-ups at the carpark at 9.15am.

Before evaluating any evidence, we should first identify what is the claim.

a. Consider the same claim ‘Ken shot Jason’.

 To support the claim, a witness tells you this: I saw Ken walk into Jason’s house
through the front door at 8.30am. One minute later, I heard a gunshot sound. Then I
saw Ken walk out of the house at 8.35am.

Which of the following pieces of information will corroborate the witness’s

testimony? Which will contradict? Explain your answers.

1. Jason was found dead on the 3rd floor. It takes 3 minutes for an average adult
male to run up to the 3rd floor.
Contradict. The witness heard the gunshot one minute after ken walked into the
house therefore, ken would not have had enough time to go to the third floor and
pull the trigger on Jason. Thus, does not support the claim that “ken shot Jason”.
2. Jason was found dead on the 1st floor living room, accessed immediately after
opening the front door.
Corroborate. The witness heard the gunshot one minute after ken walked into the
house through the front door therefore, ken took a minute to shoot him since
Jason was at the 1st floor that is immediately accessible by opening the front
door. Thus, the timing Ken entered the house and the gun shot heard was
relatable hence it does support the claim that “ken shot Jason”.
3. A neighbour said she heard a gunshot around 8.30-8.35am that day.
Corroborate. The timing around ( 8.30-8.35am) when the neighbour heard the
gunshot was the same time ken entered and left Jason’s house. Therefore, it
implies that Jason was present at the crime scene and does support the claim
that “ken shot Jason”.

4. A friend, John said he was drinking coffee with Ken at a café from 8-9am on that
very same day.
Contradict. John testified that Ken was with him at the café during the time Ken
was shot hence, less likely ken shot Jason if he was not present at the crime
scene. Therefore, it does not support the claim that “ken shot Jason”.

Evidence that corroborates Evidence that contradicts

Evidence from 2 and 3 Evidence from 1 and 4

4. Apply the concepts to the problem statement

a. Look at the items in the crime scene photo. Comment on how you will make sense of
each of them.
https://www.omnivirt.com/c/33947

No. Item and accompanying information Comments

1 Used tissue This may belong to a neighbour as
 No blood trace found used tissues are commonly found
 DNA tests do not trace at lift lobbies. Unless there is a 4th
it to the victim, her suspect (or accomplice).
daughter and the two
known suspects
(Adrian Lee and
Jackson Tan)

2 Empty cardboard box The pocket knife on top of the

with pocket knife on top empty cardboard could have been
 Fingerprint tests on the Jackson Tan’s ( ex
box and pocket knife boyfriend’s )since he had a pocket
do not trace it to the knife collection at home. However,
victim, her daughter no traces of his or the victim’s
and the two known fingerprints were found. Thus, it
suspects (Adrian Lee either could have been just items
and Jackson Tan) originally there before the crime or
the robber’s( third suspect)
3 1.5 litre coke bottle that The 1.5litre empty coke bottle
is empty found could have been Jackson
 Saliva and fingerprint Tan’s since he has 10 others
tests conducted do not stocked up in his house storeroom.
trace it to the victim, However, no traces of his or the
her daughter and the victim’s salvia and fingerprints were
two known suspects found. Thus, it either could have
(Adrian Lee and been just an item originally there
Jackson Tan) before the crime or the
robber’s( third suspect)
4 Torn half of The Straits The torn half of the Straits Times
Times dated 9 April 2019 dated 9 april 2019 could have been
(Tuesday) Adrian Lee’s since he has a
 Fingerprint tests collection of newspapers at home
conducted do not trace and particularly the same
it to the victim, her newspaper(9 april 2019) found at
daughter and the two the crime scene with the front page
known suspects missing. However, no traces of his
(Adrian Lee and or the victim’s fingerprints were
Jackson Tan) found but one unknown fingerprint.
 There was one set of It either could have been a regular
fingerprints found that person’s newspaper who is not
is unknown related to the murder or the
robber’s( third suspect).

5 Footprint (right foot) This could be the murder’s footprint

Size: US 9
6 A pair of partial footprints
who has a foot size US 9. Adrian
Tan shoe size is 8 while Jackson
Tan’s is 9. Thus, higher suspicions
that Jackson could have been
present at the crime scene and
committed the murder or the
robber’s shoe size is 9 and he
committed the murder or a regular
trespasser’s before the murder.
This could have been jackson’s
footprint or the robber or just a
regular trespasser’s before the
murder was committed.
7 A pair of footprints
Size: US 9
This could have been the same
footprints from Jackson or the
robber’s or just a regular
trespasser’s before the murder
was committed.

8 Blood drips on the floor This is probably the blood drips

from the victim’s body when she
was stabbed.

9 Blood pool on the floor This is probably the blood from the
victim’s body when she was
stabbed and her body lying on the
floor with blood oozing out.

10 Blood splatter pattern on This is probably the blood splatter

recycle bin from the murder slashing the
victim’s neck.

11 Blood splatter pattern on This is probably the blood splatter

dustbin from the murder slashing the
victim’s neck.

12 7 stabs found on victim’s 7 stabs suggest that it is rather a

chest vengeance than robbery. Adrian
and Jackson are more suspicious.
Fingerprints on shirt .
traced back to the victim
only
 13 One stab found on Victim was first stabbed on the
victim’s back  back unexpectedly.

14 One deep gash across There were intentions to murder

victim’s neck her brutally not only rob her.

b. Based on the evidences collected, are there any direct evidence to indicate who
might have murdered Mrs Linda Lee? How does the presence/absence of direct
evidence affect the way you arrive at your conclusion?
No, there are no direct evidence. All the evidences found are circumstantial
evidences that does not support the claim directly. The absence of direct evidence
makes it more difficult to find the murderer because more inferences are needed to
be gathered and investigated to arrive at the conclusion. Compared to the presence
of direct evidence, it will be easier as there is substantial evidence to support the
claim and arrest the murderer.

c. Consider the evidence at the crime scene, the three interview transcripts (attached
below) and the information at Mr Adrian Lee and Mr Jackson Tan’s houses (attached
below). What are some evidence that corroborates who the prime suspect is? What
are some evidence contradicts who the prime suspect is?