Item #1 Eyewitness Testimony
Eyewitness testimony is always questionable. It is more reliable when a witness is questioned shortly after an event occurs, and is given in a calm and collective state. The time of day and weather must be considered as well, because it would affect visibility. J.P. Dupuis witnessed the event at 6:45 p.m. in April, so we know that it is still light out (unless cloudy). He was able to see that the vandal was a heavy set man and could see what he was wearing. Mr. Dupuis stated that the man was wearing a white t-shirt, jean shorts, and was carrying a backpack. To make this a conclusive piece of evidence, we would need the testimony of the other people that were with Mr. Dupuis. Evidence that the tomb was vandalized would also need to be analyzed.
Fresh paint, spray can, foot prints, fingerprints, and/or anything else that was left behind would be considered evidence. The evidence is not confusing or misleading, because enough details have been given to help and start an investigation. The evidence has told us that the area was lit up enough to see what the man was wearing, what he may look like, and the direction he was heading after painting something on the tomb. Fresh paint would verify what the man painted on the tomb. If fresh paint is found on the tomb, it implies that vandalism did occur. It would be important to pay attention to Mr. Dupuis and his friends during the questioning to make sure that they are not the vandals themselves.
Item #2 ID and Evidence
This evidence is reliable because it states when the officer arrived, how long he was there, and what he collected. Jim stated that he saw a man spray paint three xxx’s on tomb #347, and wrote a short testimony on what he observed. Photographs and a spray can cap was collected at the scene. Jim’s driver’s license information has been collected and the officer’s information has been...