When have you had to think critically about an issue?
- S: Expert Witness Report on DNA.
- T: Choosing between RMP and Product rule in order to determine likelihood that the DNA profile could have been contributed by an unrelated individual.
- A: After researching critically into both tests, the RMP test was chosen as I had access to full DNA profiles and so it was better suited to the task.
- R: Managed to obtain significant results from the statistical tests which helped me develop my conclusions on who contributed to the sample profile.
Explain a situation where you have had to take in information quickly and accurately?
Explain where you’ve had to separate information and decide on its relevance?
S: During the debrief of the crime scene during the crime scene investigation assessment in stage 2.
T: Had to listen carefully to the debrief which was provided in a very short amount of time to replicate real life circumstances.
A: Successfully dissected the debrief in order to pull out the key pieces of information with respect to the brief and crime.
R: The brief indicated that blunt force trauma was used, so I successfully prioritised a heavy lamp to analyse rather than a sharp kitchen knife which had little relevance.
How have you solved a problem proactively by understanding the cause of the problem?
- S: Obtaining reference profiles of the Ibuprofen tablets using the Raman spectrometer in the research project.
- T: Had to obtain Raman reference spectra of the Ibuprofen tablets. The glass slide substrate was producing lots of fluorescence in the spectrum.
- A: Covered the slide in aluminium which inhibits fluorescence, and used thr short working distance lens so the NIR light wouldn’t travel to the slide.
- R: Obtained clear reference spectra of the Ibuprofen.
When have you had to refer to a procedure or precedent, prior to making a decision?
- S: Writing an expert witness statement on DNA analysis despite not being an expert in DNA profiling.
- T: Had to produce a 25 page report on a DNA analysis of 3 profiles and the investigation sample to determine the contributor
- A: carried out in-depth research on the appropriate procedures in the process.
- R: This reference to procedures allowed me to produce an indepth expert witness report which won me an award, and allowed me to decide between RMP and Product rule
Describe a time when you had to consider the pros and cons of making a decision?
- S: Working on dispatch at Tesco.
- T: If one side of the department falls behind, I may have to change the priority of my work in order to help catch up with the workloads.
- A: Have to consider how this may benefit that side, whilst also considering the impact that may have on the side I was already working on.
- R: Through carefully considering this, I mostly successfully redistribute my workload in order to catch back up.
