NEW ASSIGNMENT · EVIDENCE INTAKE

The Case of the
Vanishing Meteorite.

A rare space rock has disappeared from the school science exhibit. Four people had access. Several clues survived. None tells the whole story.

No account required · Saves on this device

EXHIBIT 07 — IRON METEORITE

LAST SEEN: YESTERDAY · 7:30 PMSTATUS: MISSING

EVIDENCE / 001

INCIDENT REPORT

The situation

INCIDENT ID: SW–001–AUNCLASSIFIED

At 7:10 a.m., the science teacher discovered that a small iron meteorite was missing from its display case in the school's science wing. The case was open, but there was no sign of forced entry.

Investigators found a partial fingerprint on the inner latch, a damp sock print on the tile floor, white powder on the workbench, and a handwritten note near the radiator. Each could be connected to innocent activity or to the disappearance.

Four people had been in the science wing the evening before. All four have explanations. Your job is to determine which explanation fits the evidence best and what remains uncertain.

Your responsibility
Follow the evidence. Do not accuse someone based only on motive, a matching pattern, or one laboratory test.

STEP 02 · SCENE RECONSTRUCTION

Look closer.

Inspect the four numbered evidence markers. A clue can be relevant without proving who left it.

0 / 4EVIDENCE COLLECTED

SCIENCE WING · ROOM 114ILLUSTRATED RECONSTRUCTION · NOT TO SCALE

SELECT A NUMBERED MARKER TO INSPECTDIAGRAM FOR LEARNING · NOT ACTUAL FORENSIC DOCUMENTATION

STEP 03 · EVIDENCE ANALYSIS

The forensic lab.

Compare the recovered samples against reference evidence. Record what your data supports, and what it cannot establish.

04LAB STATIONS

LAB / 01

Fingerprint comparison

Pattern class + distinguishing ridge features

BIOLOGICAL PATTERNS

Recovered latch print

≋

Pattern: loop. Features in this classroom simulation: a ridge ending above a fork, with a small island to the left of the core.

Reference prints

AveryLoop · island on right

RowanArch · no matching central fork

JordanWhorl · circular ridges

CaseyLoop · ending above fork · island on left

A pattern class alone cannot identify one person. Even a classroom feature match cannot tell when a print was left or prove involvement.

Investigator's notes · Which comparison is strongest? What is the limitation?

LAB / 02

Footprint measurements

Compare length, measurement uncertainty, and overlap

MEASUREMENT

Recovered sock print

HEELTOE

24.8 cm recorded length. Estimated measurement uncertainty: ±0.3 cm.

A range of 24.5–25.1 cm is consistent with the measurement.

Reference foot lengths

Avery23.2 cm

Rowan26.1 cm

Jordan24.7 cm

Casey24.9 cm

Measurements that overlap within uncertainty are not enough to tell two people apart. A foot length is not an individual identifier.

Investigator's notes · Which comparisons fall inside the uncertainty range?

LAB / 03

Powder reaction test

Compare observed reactions to vinegar

CHEMICAL REACTIONS

Recovered powder observation

Small sample mixed with vinegar: vigorous bubbling. The same test was applied to powders found in the four work areas.

Reference test observations

AveryNo bubbles; grains dissolved

RowanNo bubbles; cloudy suspension

JordanGentle, slow fizzing

CaseyVigorous bubbling

An acid reaction may suggest carbonate or bicarbonate, but bubbling alone does not identify a unique substance or its owner. Sample amount changes the apparent intensity.

Investigator's notes · Which observations are similar? What else could explain them?

LAB / 04

Ink chromatography

Compare relative dye travel distances (Rf)

SEPARATION SCIENCE

Recovered note chromatogram

Solvent front: 5.5 cmBand distances:1.4 · 3.1 · 4.4 cm

Reference ink results (Rf)

Avery0.20 / 0.55 / 0.80

Rowan0.25 / 0.48 / 0.78

Jordan0.25 / 0.56 / 0.80

Casey0.25 / 0.56 / 0.80

Rf = distance moved by dye ÷ distance moved by solvent front. Two pens can share a chromatogram. Matching bands support similarity, not unique ownership.

Investigator's notes · Which inks are indistinguishable with these measurements?

STEP 04 · PERSONS OF INTEREST

Four explanations.

Access is not guilt. Motive is not proof. Read each statement before deciding.

04PERSONS OF INTEREST

POI / 01STAGE CREW

Avery Quinn

Student stage technician

Reason for being there: Helped take down the showcase lighting. Says they left just after 7:20 p.m.
Possible motive: Was frustrated that the exhibit occupied equipment needed for the theater production.
Statement: “I only went near the lights. I never opened the display.”

POI / 02ROBOTICS

Rowan Ellis

Robotics team member

Reason for being there: Worked in a nearby classroom after school. Says they used the side hallway around 7:40 p.m.
Possible motive: Upset that the science showcase received funding while the robotics team did not.
Statement: “I complained about the budget, but I didn't touch the meteorite.”

POI / 03ART CLUB

Jordan Reyes

Art club member

Reason for being there: Painted the exhibit signs. Says they stepped into the science wing at about 7:30 p.m. to retrieve markers.
Possible motive: Wanted the exhibit space for an art installation scheduled that week.
Statement: “That blue note might use my type of pen. Lots of us bought the same pack.”

POI / 04SCIENCE CLUB

Casey Morgan

Science club exhibit assistant

Reason for being there: Prepared a bubbling chemistry demonstration at the bench. Says they left by 7:35 p.m.
Possible motive: Wanted to take the meteorite to a regional science event, but permission had not been granted.
Statement: “I helped set up the case earlier. I didn't take anything that night.”

?

Check your assumption

Which clues could have been left during ordinary exhibit setup? Which evidence connects a person to the disappearance itself, rather than simply to the room?

STEP 05 · SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT

Your case report.

You are recommending the most justified next step, not deciding guilt beyond all doubt.

FINALINVESTIGATOR REPORT