The Roti Prata Murder Early one morning, police are called to the Jalan Locard E

Question

The Roti Prata Murder Early one morning, police are called to the Jalan Locard Eating House following a call from Mrs Wong, owner of the drinks and beverages stall. They find the body of Mahbub Ali, owner of the “Prata and Briyani Delights” stall, lying face up on the floor in a pool of blood. The body is cold. Part of the floor is covered in a substance that is thick, sticky and brown, yet pleasantly smelling. The stall is in disarray and a large cooking pan is on the floor. Blood spatter is observed on the wall, about 1.5 m above floor level at the point marked BS1 (see diagram on page 3). Complicated blood spatter is also observed on the work bench, in the position marked BS2, and on the panel above the serving area above the position marked BS3. Two sets of sticky brown shoeprints are observed, leading away from the stall. Sketches of a partial shoeprint from each set are shown below. Subsequent examination of the body reveals a deep stab wound to the neck, near to the throat, but no other injuries except for some partially healed cuts on his hands. The wound to the neck is considered to be the cause of death by the pathologist as an artery was severed. The pathologist offers the opinion that death was very rapid. During the autopsy, a small metal fragment is recovered from the body. It appears to be a fragment of a knife blade, broken off by impact with bone. Enquiries amongst the stall owners and regular customers reveal that the deceased, Mahbub Ali, was the most successful stall holder at the Eating House, due to the quality of his prata and briyani. This had caused serious losses for Mr Tan, owner of the “Tan’s Yummy Vegetarian Food” stall and Mr Yeow, owner of “Edwin’s Gourmet Noodles”. Several customers mentioned that Mahbub Ali had been very proud of his cuisine, and this had caused many arguments with Mr Tan and Mr Yeow. During a search of the Eating House and the immediate area, a large knife (knife 1) is found in a drain. It is observed that the blade is worn and damaged, but sharp. However, a similarly old knife (knife 2) is found in Mr Tan’s food stall. A blue fibre is found caught on a protruding screw on the side of the working bench in Mahbub Ali’s stall, at the position marked X.

1. A Kastle-Meyer test on Mr.Tan’s knife is positive. What one explanation should he give to the police about this, or should he confess to the crime ?

2. The fibre found at X is analysed by infra-red spectroscopy. It is compared to the fibres from Mr.Yeow’s apron. A Senior Officer believes that this makes Mr.Yeow the prime suspect. Comment on this. Is the Senior Officer’s comment correct ? What addition test might be carried out on the fibre ?

3. Suggest two methods to determine which knife the metal fragment came from ? The methods should be based on entirely different concepts.

4. Based upon the shoeprints, who is the prime suspect ? Explain your answer.

5. In knife attacks, the victim often has “defence wounds”. These are slash marks on the arms and the hands resulting from the victim attempting to defend him or herself from the attack. Discuss the issue of defence wounds, their presence or absence, with reasons in this case.

Explanation / Answer

1. Kastle-Meyer test is mainly performed to check for the presence of blood. Knife being a sharp object can not only cut foods but it can also make cut on the fingers of the person while using it. So, one good explanation Mr. Tan could give is that the presence of blood would be due to cutting the finger by mistake while working.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.