Category: Forensic science

draw this floor plan, i need i recreated using powerpoint.

So basically i need to draw a sketch of my school 4th floor, as a csi would draw a sketch, but i just need the sketch to be made on powerpoint. I attatched the actual floor plan and the other file is an example from another student on the board, all you have to do is recreate the floor plan on powerpoint and make it look like the student example.

The paper should be a minimum of 1,700 words in length, excluding title page, abstract, and reference page. The presentation is to be a PowerPoint with 7 slides, not including the title page and references and this will primarily focus on a specific aspect of Forensic Science. Graphology and forensic documentation examination include historical perspective, and how this discipline as evolve. How has technology and computers influenced this discipline?

Cybertechnology & Forensic Psychology: Types of Identification (Facial Reconstruction)

Key roles and responsibilities of forensic psychologists include:

Forensic psychology requires specialized training in both psychology and an understanding of legal systems. Professionals in this field often work in settings such as courts, correctional facilities, law enforcement agencies, or private practice.

This must be in APA format and include a cover page, abstract, discussion, conclusion, and references. Your paper should go beyond the obvious, be written at a graduate level, and be at least 750 words in length, not including the title page, abstract, and references. You must use at least three resources to support your position. Remember, all resources, including James, S. H., Nordby, J. J., & Bell, S. (Eds.). (2019). Forensic science: An introduction to scientific and

investigative techniques (5th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. ISBN: 978-1-4398-5383-2 but not limited to, journals, magazines, and/or books must be properly cited using APA style.

explore the documentary Child of Rage, ( &rco=1) with an emphasis on finding best practices and the importance of forensic protocols in structuring interviews. In this activity, your task is to find 5 examples of real-life cases reflecting interviews using poor forensic practice. In finding these examples, place an emphasis on cases involving children, adults, and the elderly. Supply a summary of the case, proper documentation of the location of the case, the specific errors in protocol, and what happened in the case. This review will be 4 pages. The specific steps are as follows: Conduct independent research finding 5 examples of real-life cases reflecting interviews using poor forensic practice. Of the 5 examples, at least 1 must include a case involving a child, 1 involving an adult, and 1 involving an elderly individual. Write a report including the following sections: Introduction to the report Overview of the importance of proper interviewing protocol 2 paragraphs documenting each example of a real-life case 1 paragraph conclusion Include no fewer than 6 scholarly resources. Ensure the report is at least 4 pages long.

For this set of case notes you will provide the results of the clothing examinations performed in the textbook using the stereo microscope.

We are doing a LOT of sub-itemizing in this one. I apologize in advance for the tedious nature of having to input the year repeatedly. If you ahve a short cut for that like cutting and pasting or a ctrl+F substitution, that’s fine. Just doublecheck to make sure you don’t accidentally input the year into something that should not be a year!

You need to use the PSUCL-001-… system we introduced in the last module.

Thinks to keep in mind: Do I use a dot or a dash? Remember its a dash if the new evidence is found or came to us that way and we do not change its form, and its a dot if its something we the analyst have created. So, hair, fiber, or powder? Thats a dash because we didnt change its form, we just collected it. A stain we swabbed or something we cut? We created a new stain by taking a portion of the original one and transferring it to a new swab, or we cut a hole into the original and made a new piece out of it, so dot. Did we create (.) or find (-) glass chips? Also remember that could mean you have items with essentially the same number, except one might be -01 and the other .01.

I will leave an example of the PSUCL -011 SYSTEM CASE NOTES I HAVE ALREADY COMPLETED THE TEXTBOOK DOWNLOAD WILL BE BELOW AND THE INFORMATION YOU PULL THE CASE NOTES INFORMATION FROM WILL START ON PAGE 95 CHAPTER 5 CLUES IN THE DUST

MORE EXPLANATION ON ITEMIZING FOR CASE NOTES:

The first thing you will have to do for the sexual assault kit is sub-itemize the items in the sexual assault kit. Why do we do this? So we can keep track of the evidence and what is being done to it as it moves through the lab. A secondary purpose is to demonstrate association – as a larger piece of evidence is divided for examination, we need to have a naming convention that let’s us track where that evidence started and how it ended up. So what do I mean by that? Say you have a bag with bloody clothes in it taken from an assault victim. There is a shirt, pants, and underwear in a bag labeled item 2. The clothes are covered in blood. The suspect is currently unknown and you are being asked to test the blood on the items in certain places to see if it all belongs to the victim or if there might be blood from the suspect as well. To do this, you have to examine each of the three clothing items and take swabs and cuttings of multiple stains in multiple places from each garment. How difficult do you think that would be if you had to refer to each garment, stain, cutting, and swab as item 2?! You would either never know which you were talking about, or you’d have to waste time and energy describing each item every time so we knew which item 2 it was you were talking about (item 2 – swab number 4 taken from the second stain on the left shoulder… etc.). Or, instead, you can come up with a naming system that let’s you quickly and easily label evidence in a way that you can keep track of new things being made or found while also letting you follow the provenance (or origin) or each piece. Spoiler alert: we do that second thing.

Naming Convention

Let me start by saying that we are not following the convention in the book that used the parenthese for sub-itemzing. We are following the typical practice used in the PSU Forensic Science program to allow our future majors a chance to learn the naming convention before getting into upper-division courses. If you are struggling with the conversion in the book to our comneclature, let me know.

We start by associating the evidence item with a case number. For us, that is PSUCL##-001 (with the ## being the last two digits of the current year). To individual items of evidence we then add a -01, -02, -03 convention to the end of the case number. For example, PSUCL26-001-03 would be the third item of evidence from the first case received in 2026.

So for the book, Lisa’s SAK is item 1. In our naming convention in the year 2026, we are going to call that SAK bag PSUCL26-001-01.

We’re then going to label each item in the kit with a new designation that shows, while it came from the SAK bag, it is its own evidence item. For this, we are going to add letter as “-A”, “-B”, “-C”, etc.

For our case, that would look like this:

PSUCL26-001-01

Lisa W. Sexual Assault Kit containing:

PSUCL26-001-01-A

Lisa W. Sexual Assault Kit test-tube of blood

PSUCL26-001-01-B

Lisa W. Sexual Assault Kit toxicology blood sample

PSUCL26-001-01-C

Lisa W. Sexual Assault Kit vaginal swab

PSUCL26-001-01-D

Lisa W. Sexual Assault Kit cervical swab

Notice how we can quickly see that each of these items exist within or on a “parent” item, in this case -01 that SAK bag, but with the letter we can also quickly tell that they are different things.

So how do we tell the difference between an item that is as it was found and an item we create as examiners? Great question!

When sampling (in this set of test, we are taking some cutting from a swab), a designation should be used to identify each individual sampling. That letter should be preceded by a dot instead of a dash, indicating that the analyst created the item. For example, if the evidence number for a bloodstained shirt is PSUD25-001-03, the first stain examined should be labeled PSUD25-001-03-A (because we didn’t create the stain, it was aleady there so it gets a dash “-“). If we take a cutting of that stain for DNA analysis, the cutting should be given the number PSUD25-001-03-A.01. Using the dot “.” instead of a dash here lets us and anyone looking at our notes know that this cutting is something we created from the evidence, not something that came to us like that. If we were to take a second cutting from the same stain, we would label that as PSUD25-001-03-A.02, because that stain is A and it’s our second created evidence. But if we took a cutting from a different stain, we would need to identify that it is now stain B and not stain A, and then we would indicate it was the first cutting from that stain like PSUD25-001-03-B.01. And so on.

I won’t lie – it is VERY confusing at first learning this new system. I’ve provided some additional examples of how the system works below that will hopefully help you understand it better. Note that the case number is NOT the one we are using – it’s just an example so do not copy it directly.

EXAMPLE- Sex Assault Kit from Case PSU24-003:

PSU24-003-01 Box containing SAK Kit Specimens

PSU24-003-01-A Envelope marked Hairs

PSU24-003-01-A-1 Hair 1 within a pharmacy fold

PSU24-003-01-A-2 Hair 2 within a pharmacy fold

Notice that in the example above, there are two hairs in the same envelope. Those hairs, being given and not created evidence, are given dashes and not dots in their labeling.

PSU24-003-01-B Envelope labeled vaginal swab

PSU24-003-01-B-01 Swab

PSU24-003-01-B-01-A Hair found on swab (dash is used as this is not analyst created just something that was on there already that was found)

PSU24-003-01-B-01.A Cutting of swab (dot is used because cutting is analyst created)

For the example above, notice that we have two things happening here: 1) there is a hair found on the swab, so we give that a dash and a letter because it was given evidence and not created evidence and 2) the cutting of the swab is called dot and the letter because we created the cutting. So both are named as an “A” because they are the first we identified, but they are delineated by the dot or the dash as to whether they were given/found evidence or created.

PSU24-003-01-C Envelope marked Underclothing

PSU24-003-01-C-01 Underwear

PSU24-003-01-C-01-A Hair on underwear

PSU24-003-01-C-01-B Stain on underwear

PSU24-003-01-C-01-B.01 Cutting of underwear stain

For the example above, notice how there are two additonal found pieces of evidence, -A and -B, and then a cutting was created from one of them, -B.01. Does the naming system make sense when you see it lined up like this?

What are the similarities and differences between local, national, and international cybersecurity threats? How do these threats differ in terms of scale, motivation, and impact, and in what ways are they similar? If you were responsible for securing a company, what cybersecurity strategies would you prioritize to protect against these varying types of threats, and why?

Instructions are listed in the document below.

disregard the section about “Highlighted excerpts from the cited sources used must be attached to the back of the term paper submission in an appendix and clearly labelled. Including more than just the excerpts (for instance, including the entire journal article) will result in the marker not considering that source when assigning a grade.” T

Instructions are listed in the document below.

disregard the section about “Highlighted excerpts from the cited sources used must be attached to the back of the term paper submission in an appendix and clearly labelled. Including more than just the excerpts (for instance, including the entire journal article) will result in the marker not considering that source when assigning a grade.” T

For your Final Project, you will select three case studies from the Final Project Case Studies document located in this weeks Learning Resources. Each case study exemplifies a different type of offender (e.g., juvenile offender, sex offender, violent offender, family violence offender, white-collar criminal). For each case, you will take on the role of a forensic psychology professional who has been asked to conduct a case analysis of criminal behavior for a trial defense team. You have been asked to focus on the type of crime, relevant criminological theory, the offenders behavior, and factors that may have led to the behavior. Your case analysis will leverage the defense in court. For each of the three cases you selected, complete the following: Describe key aspects of the case. Evaluate whether developmental risk factors and correlates of criminal behavior influence criminal behavior. Explain your rationale. (Apply learning from the Week 2 Assignment.) Evaluate if the crime(s) presented should be categorized as expressive or instrumental. Explain your rationale. (Apply learning from the Week 3 Discussion.) Evaluate whether the offender is a criminal. Explain your rationale. Apply a specific theoretical approach to the criminal behaviors displayed. (Apply learning from the Week 4 Assignment.) Note: While assessment is an important part of the work that forensic psychology professionals complete, be aware that you will not be conducting forensic assessments of the offenders in the case studies you select for the Final Project. Present your Final Project in one of the following ways: Option 1: Written Paper Write a 10- to 12-page paper (not including references, title page, or abstract). Your paper must include a minimum of 10 scholarly references (not including Learning Resources from the course). User-created websites, such as Wikipedia, will not be accepted as scholarly sources. Your paper must be in Word, double spaced, and APA formatted. Use the APA 7 Course Paper TemplateLinks to an external site. to complete your paper. Key Aspects of the Case* *Applies to all 3 cases. 20 to >17.0 pts EXCELLENT This section clearly, accurately, and with specific detail provides the key aspects of the case. 17 to >15.0 pts GOOD This section satisfactorily provides the key aspects of the case. 15 to >13.0 pts FAIR This section vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy provides the key aspects of the case. 13 to >0 pts POOR This section is missing information or contains inaccuracies. It does not adequately provide the key aspects of the case. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDevelopmental Risk Factors and Correlates* *Applies to all 3 cases. 40 to >35.0 pts EXCELLENT This section clearly, accurately, and with specific detail evaluates whether developmental risk factors and correlates of criminal behavior influence criminal behavior and provides a clear and accurate rationale. 35 to >31.0 pts GOOD This section satisfactorily evaluates whether developmental risk factors and correlates of criminal behavior influence criminal behavior and provides a somewhat accurate rationale. 31 to >27.0 pts FAIR This section vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy evaluates whether developmental risk factors and correlates of criminal behavior influence criminal behavior, and the rationale is vague or inaccurate. 27 to >0 pts POOR This section is missing information or contains inaccuracies. It does not adequately evaluate whether developmental risk factors and correlates of criminal behavior influence criminal behavior. No rationale is provided. 40 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExpressive or Instrumental Crime* *Applies to all 3 cases. 40 to >35.0 pts EXCELLENT This section clearly, accurately, and with specific detail evaluates if the crime(s) presented should be categorized as expressive or instrumental and provides a clear and accurate rationale. 35 to >31.0 pts GOOD This section satisfactorily evaluates if the crime(s) presented should be categorized as expressive or instrumental and provides a somewhat accurate rationale. 31 to >27.0 pts FAIR This section vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy evaluates if the crime(s) presented should be categorized as expressive or instrumental, and the rationale is vague or inaccurate. 27 to >0 pts POOR This section is missing information or contains inaccuracies. It does not adequately evaluate if the crime(s) presented should be categorized as expressive or instrumental. No rationale is provided. 40 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIs the Offender a Criminal?* *Applies to all 3 cases. 40 to >35.0 pts EXCELLENT This section clearly, accurately, and with specific detail evaluates whether the offender is a criminal and provides a clear and accurate rationale. 35 to >31.0 pts GOOD This section satisfactorily evaluates whether developmental risk factors and correlates of criminal behavior influence criminal behavior and provides a somewhat accurate rationale. 31 to >27.0 pts FAIR This section vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy evaluates whether developmental risk factors and correlates of criminal behavior influence criminal behavior, and the rationale is vague or inaccurate. 27 to >0 pts POOR This section is missing information or contains inaccuracies. It does not adequately evaluate whether developmental risk factors and correlates of criminal behavior influence criminal behavior. No rationale is provided. 40 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTheoretical Approach to the Criminal Behavior* *Applies to all 3 cases. 40 to >35.0 pts EXCELLENT This section clearly, accurately, and with specific detail applies a specific theoretical approach to the criminal behaviors displayed. 35 to >31.0 pts GOOD This section satisfactorily applies a specific theoretical approach to the criminal behaviors displayed. 31 to >27.0 pts FAIR This section vaguely and/or with some inaccuracy applies a specific theoretical approach to the criminal behaviors displayed. 27 to >0 pts POOR This section is missing information or contains inaccuracies. It does not adequately apply a specific theoretical approach to the criminal behaviors displayed. 40 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and FormattingParagraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focusedneither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria. —OR— For Professional Presentation: Professional Presentation: Clarity, Flow, Organization, Context, Audience, Purpose, and Tone 50 to >44.0 pts EXCELLENT Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. —OR— Presentation content is clear and logical and very well organized. Presentation content is clear and demonstrates awareness of context, audience, and purpose. The assigned content and number of required slides is carefully followed. Tone is highly professional, scholarly, and free from bias. Style is appropriate for a professional presentation. 44 to >39.0 pts GOOD Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. —OR— Presentation content is clear, logical, and/or organized but could benefit from minor editing/revision. Presentation content demonstrates a good amount of awareness of context, audience, and purpose. The assigned content and number of required slides is followed but with a few inconsistencies. Tone is professional, scholarly, and free from bias. Style is appropriate for a professional presentation; however, it could benefit from minor editing/revision. 39 to >34.0 pts FAIR Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%79% of the time. —OR— Presentation content is somewhat clear, logical, and/or organized but could benefit from significant editing/revision. Presentation content demonstrates some awareness of context, audience, and purpose but could benefit from editing/revision or an aspect of the content requirements is missing. The assigned content and number of required slides is followed but with several inconsistencies. Tone is adequately professional, scholarly, and free from bias. Style is somewhat consistent with a professional presentation; however, it could benefit from some editing/revision. 34 to >0 pts POOR Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity <60% of the time. —OR— Key sections of presentation content lack clarity, logical flow, and/or organization. Presentation content minimally or does not demonstrate awareness of context, audience, and purpose. More than one content requirement is missing. The assigned content and number of required slides is not followed. Writing is not reflective of professional/scholarly tone and/or is not free from bias. Style is inconsistent with that of a professional presentation. 50 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and FormattingEnglish writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation are used. —OR— Professional Presentation: Originality and Accuracy Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation are used. 30 to >26.0 pts EXCELLENT Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. —OR— Presentation content clearly reflects original thought and writing. Content is in depth and accurate. Title slide is provided. The assigned number of peer-reviewed articles, or more, are well synthesized into the content and presented as citations. 26 to >23.0 pts GOOD Contains a few grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. —OR— Presentation content reflects original thought and writing. Content is accurate. Title slide is provided. The assigned number of peer-reviewed articles are synthesized into the content and presented as citations. 23 to >20.0 pts FAIR Contains several grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. —OR— Presentation content somewhat reflects original thought and writing. Content is somewhat accurate but includes some errors. Title slide is provided but may not be complete. Less than the assigned number of peer-reviewed articles are synthesized into the content or presented as citations. 20 to >0 pts POOR Contains many grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the readers understanding. —OR— Presentation content does not reflect original thought and writing. Content is inaccurate. Title slide is inaccurate or missing. Few or no peer-reviewed articles are synthesized into the content or presented as citations. 30 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and FormattingAPA format: The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. —OR— For Professional Presentation: Professional Presentation: Written Summary 40 to >35.0 pts EXCELLENT Uses correct APA format with no errors. The assigned number of peer-reviewed articles, or more, are well synthesized into the content and presented as citations. —OR— Written summary clearly reflects original thought and writing. Content is in depth and accurate. The assigned number of peer-reviewed articles, or more, are well synthesized into the content and presented as citations. 35 to >31.0 pts GOOD Contains a few APA format errors. The assigned number of peer-reviewed articles are synthesized into the content and presented as citations. —OR— Written summary reflects original thought and writing. Content is accurate. The assigned number of peer-reviewed articles are synthesized into the content and presented as citations. 31 to >27.0 pts FAIR Contains several APA format errors. Less than the assigned number of peer-reviewed articles are synthesized into the content or presented as citations. —OR— Written summary somewhat reflects original thought and writing. Content is somewhat accurate but includes some errors. Less than the assigned number of peer-reviewed articles are synthesized into the content or presented as citations. 27 to >0 pts POOR Contains many APA format errors. Few or no peer-reviewed articles are synthesized into the content or presented as citations. —OR— Written summary does not reflect original thought and writing. Content is inaccurate. Few or no peer-reviewed articles are synthesized into the content or presented as citations. 40 pts Total Points: 300