Sdavidson11
You are not alone in this journey
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 506
- Reaction score
- 0
Is it standard to destroy notes during an investigation like the csi guy stated after putting them in the computer?
It makes sense to me to destroy them since they are inputting them onto a secure system. Making them less subject to be lost, tampered with or destroyed.
Another question about the CSI guy, why was he called and not his supervisor? Is this normal during a motion.
I would love to know why JB questioned this Tech about the report his supervisor wrote? why not just interview the supervisor - he was sitting right there in the court room! Any thoughts as to why JB chose to question GB instead of MV the supervisor? I can not for the life of me figure out why he did it this way. Unless MV was the next witness he was going to question when he decided he had done enough damage to himself and it would be best if he just shut up!
Another question about the CSI guy, why was he called and not his supervisor? Is this normal during a motion.
I was watching the hearing today with a friend of mine who is Hispanic. After the witness spelled his name, JB pronounced his first name. He pointed out the proper pronunciation and the witness agreed. My friend chuckled. I asked her why and she said JB was trying to connect with the witness by letting him know that he is also Hispanic.
The supervisor's last name is Vincent.
As questioning proceeded I thought she had a valid point.
jmo of an observation...
I was watching the hearing today with a friend of mine who is Hispanic. After the witness spelled his name, JB pronounced his first name. He pointed out the proper pronunciation and the witness agreed. My friend chuckled. I asked her why and she said JB was trying to connect with the witness by letting him know that he is also Hispanic.
The supervisor's last name is Vincent.
As questioning proceeded I thought she had a valid point.
jmo of an observation...
I definitely noticed Baez trying to connect with the witness, too. Oh brother! But what I thought was so funny and Baez just couldn't 'get it' was that Baez kept asking the csi guy why it took him 7 months to type us his report and the csi guy kept telling Baez that it didn't take him 7 mos....csi guy inspected the car, collected evidence, than at the end of THAT day he would sit at his computer and log in all his information. The next day he would do the same thing. When the collection was finished (I assume), the csi guy's report was finished, he turned it into his supervisor, the super signed it off and it was done. But Baez just didn't understand that. He didn't understand the report was done in segments like a diary. And then when Baez was questioning csi guy about Dr. Lee being there and finally the csi guy tells Baez, "you were there"... I really think this case is over Baez's head. He should not be trying this case at all. I'm thinking if KC is found guilty, she's going to get an appeal based on the bad representation she's had.
I put this in the hearing thread but figured it would work here as well because this is directly about it
I am studying to become a forensics investigator and there are differing methods of information retention--1 thing we all had to have was a notebook to keep notes in but there is also paperwork to make notations on.
So say I work for a police dept--I'm called out to a scene--I can(not required to)take notes on what I observe in my own personal notebook--The PD CSI lab has official paperwork to make notes on but that generally happens after return to lab and is based on photographs and sketches from the scene as well as personal observations.
Now when I get back to the lab and start processing the evidence it will be logged onto official paperwork((ie: signed evidence bag 0021713/aa out of holding,,removed blue shirt from evidence bag 0021713/aa,,blue shirt from evidence bag 0021713/aa determined to be made by Hanes RN#17730,,stain observed on front top left shoulder area,,small section of area removed shirt contained in evidence bag 0021713/aa and preserved in vial number 0021713/aa/1,,preserved section in vial number 0021713/aa/1 sent to FBI lab in Quantico for determination====and so forth and so on))
So Bloise very well could have had his own notes but the question becomes if his "own notes" are those in a personal notebook or ones on official paperwork now either way when he has finished examing an item and has made all notes pertinent to that item he is required to generate a report on that item and the report is everything that was observed and tested on the item.
So if Bloise did only the visual inspection and removed a portion of an area for testing he could only report on what he did with the evidence so the report would be incomplete until the results of the testing come back--now when the results come back..I don't know whose job it is to add it to the report((Now I have a question to ask at my next class!))
I guess with all that--Once the report is generated there is no good reason to keep the notes--because everything from the notes would have been entered into the report
__________________
Plus it prevents people outside of LE having knowledge about a crime that was committed---Say I work for a crime lab in Los Angeles as a csi---I work on a scene where a child was murdered and take personal notes to include that a baseball cap with a certain logo is found near the body---3 weeks later my home is broken into and my notebooks are stolen---2 days later the main suspect in the investigation is murdered
It could be argued that whoever stole my notebooks recognized the baseball cap described in them as belonging to the suspect and they were murdered based on that information
Could be or maybe JB was just more comfortable speaking to GB since they are both clear on how to pronounce GB's first name?
Maybe I interpreted it wrong but it seemed to me like JB was trying to point out a Hispanic kinship to GB. So maybe JB figured he could get farther with a fellow Hispanic than questioning his Caucasian supervisor.
JMHO as always.
I definitely noticed Baez trying to connect with the witness, too. Oh brother! But what I thought was so funny and Baez just couldn't 'get it' was that Baez kept asking the csi guy why it took him 7 months to type us his report and the csi guy kept telling Baez that it didn't take him 7 mos....csi guy inspected the car, collected evidence, than at the end of THAT day he would sit at his computer and log in all his information. The next day he would do the same thing. When the collection was finished (I assume), the csi guy's report was finished, he turned it into his supervisor, the super signed it off and it was done. But Baez just didn't understand that. He didn't understand the report was done in segments like a diary. And then when Baez was questioning csi guy about Dr. Lee being there and finally the csi guy tells Baez, "you were there"... I really think this case is over Baez's head. He should not be trying this case at all. I'm thinking if KC is found guilty, she's going to get an appeal based on the bad representation she's had.
I was watching the hearing today with a friend of mine who is Hispanic. After the witness spelled his name, JB pronounced his first name. He pointed out the proper pronunciation and the witness agreed. My friend chuckled. I asked her why and she said JB was trying to connect with the witness by letting him know that he is also Hispanic.
The supervisor's last name is Vincent.
As questioning proceeded I thought she had a valid point.
jmo of an observation...