A. Identify the problem or crime.

-The problem of the crime is to know who’s the killer of Esme’s Daughter Layla
Macatangay. Because Layla Macatangay found her body in their house covered
in blood. And that is unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
that called a Murder.
B. Provide the list of evidences.
-Evidence # 1- This is from the witnesses and he said that one man wearing a
black t-shirt, with a mask was seen coming out from the house around 7:00 am.
And the witness also said that they didn’t see the mother, Esmeralda
Macatangay, during this time inside the house.
-Evidence # 2 – Every day, Esmeralda Macatangay goes to grocery store from
6:30 AM to 8:00 AM to buy the necessary goods to be sold. It takes around one
hour to get to the grocery store and back to their house. Esme commutes since
she doesn’t have her own car.
-Evidence # 3
-Findings for the Blood Samples Obtained in Layla’s Body and Shirt:

C. Provide the hypotheses or questions that will lead to the culprit.

- Layla was murdered in the grocery store while her mother was shopping, and
the man who was leaving the victim's house could be the assailant.
-Since the mother of Layla is not there is obvious that the murderer is the man
wearing a black t-shirt, with a mask was seen coming out from the house.
-Esmeralda are also in the crime scene because her blood is one of the three
blood found in the body and t-shirt of Layla.
-if the man wearing a mask is his father, what is the reason why he killed her
daughter? It’s all possible that the reason why he killed her son because since
the biological father has an obligations and support to their daughter. He also
killed her because he wants to nothing more to understand, for when the time
come’s he will have no case to sue against him. because he doesn't want to
support and response his obligations.
D. Analysis on the Basis of the Lab/Forensic Results

- For the analysis of basis of the Lab/Forensic Results is we can say that the first
blood sample#1 is Layla’s blood because the DNA of Layla’s from her hair is
matched to the first blood sample.

- For the second blood sample #2. It’s obvious that its different from Layla’s DNA
maybe this from her mother Blood.
 - For the blood sample #3. It’s obvious this is from the other guy man who
murdered Layla’s body.

-This is the blood samples Sent by Police Officer 2: We can see that the blood
present by police is matched in Blood Sample #3 It’s obvious that this blood number #3
will be the murderer and this is her father and for the blood number #2 is her mother.
E. Determine the Most Appropriate Conclusion (and the culprit if possible)
-Layla was murdered by the masked man who went inside her house and was not seen
by his mother. The knife recovered in the crime scene had three distinct fingerprints:
Esme’s, Layla’s, and the Masked Man’s. Layla might have defended herself and was
able to hold the knife. When her mother arrived, she might have touched the knife,
wounding her, without even noticing. This is probably the reason why she said that the
cut was way before the incident happened. And it’s happened around while Esme’s in
going in grocery and buying necessary goods to be sold. Like in the Analysis on the
basis the mask man real identity is her father because it’s obvious there’s a matched
happened in the DNA test and that is match on Layla’s DNA.
F. Continue the Forensic Report Based on your Own Observation.
-Esme politely agrees. In a few hours, the lab result shows that she is negative of
diabetes. The policemen surmise that with the depth of the cut, it should’ve been healed
in a week. Some of the blood sample was also used to do DNA fingerprinting. It’s all
prove that Police test, Esme was not the murderer because she is not diabetic. And the
murderer is a diabetic