Diagnostic Forensic Case Study

Per your request, Diagnostic Forensic Solutions™ has assigned two of the finest forensic scientists at our disposal to this case; Danielle Criswell and The Omnipresent Potato. To analyze the evidence provided, our scientists ran a DNA Comparison, a Glass Analysis, and an Impression Analysis. According to the DNA Comparison, neither Mr. Hatfield’s blood nor Mr. McCoy’s blood matched the samples collected from the crime scene. It should be noted that Mrs. Hatfield refused to give a DNA sample to investigators. The Impression Test also gave us somewhat unclear results. It indicated that the shoes worn at the crime scene were men’s size 10 Nike, and Mr. Hatfield owns such a pair of shoes. However, this in and of itself is not conclusive. The Glass Analysis confirmed that the glass around the car was all from the shattered windshield. Based on this evidence, we can exonerate Mr. Hatfield and Mr. McCoy as the drivers of the vehicle. We would recommend a Toxicology Analysis and Fingerprint Comparison to
Mrs. Hatfield is the most likely suspect in this, since she admitted to passing the dog table scraps when her husband was not in the dining room, although it is also possible that she could have threatened her. She opened the door for the dog, and started the car. Mrs. Hatfield likely returned to the house after the car exits the driveway. Determined to frame Mr. Hatfield for insurance fraud, Lady Geneva von Hindenburg smashed the car into the tree; knowing that Hatfield would accuse Mr. McCoy of this act and and attempt to receive a large insurance payout. However, she did not foresee injuring herself and leaving blood evidence at the scene, which is why she (along with Mrs. Hatfield) did not provide a DNA sample at the request of police investigators. Lady Geneva von Hindenburg then fled the scene, leaving the footprints of Mr. Hatfield’s shoes all around the scene of the