When a number of different witnesses provide descriptions of the suspect, it is considered:
A. acceptable for speed and brevity to combine multiple descriptions into a composite description.
B. good investigative tactics to combine multiple descriptions into a composite description to create less confusion.
C. unacceptable to combine multiple descriptions into a composite description, since doing so creates a chain-of-custody problem.
D. unacceptable to combine multiple descriptions into a composite description, since doing so could hinder the prosecution.
I think it's A, but not sure.
I disagree.
Each witness has a different viewpoint and some may contradict others.
The correct answer is A.
When a number of different witnesses provide descriptions of the suspect, it is acceptable for speed and brevity to combine multiple descriptions into a composite description. This helps in creating a more complete and accurate picture of the suspect, facilitating the investigation process. Combining the descriptions can aid in identifying common characteristics and narrowing down the suspect pool, which can save time and resources in searching for and apprehending the suspect.
To find the correct answer to this question, we can analyze each option and determine which one is the most appropriate.
Option A suggests that it is acceptable for speed and brevity to combine multiple descriptions into a composite description. The intention behind this approach is to summarize and condense the information provided by different witnesses. However, it is important to consider the accuracy and reliability of the composite description. While this may be a common practice in some situations, it can potentially lead to misinformation if not handled carefully.
Option B proposes that it is good investigative tactics to combine multiple descriptions into a composite description to create less confusion. This option acknowledges the potential confusion caused by multiple descriptions and suggests that combining them into a composite description can help reduce this confusion. This approach may be helpful in investigations to streamline information and provide a clearer account of the suspect's details.
Option C states that combining multiple descriptions into a composite description is unacceptable since doing so creates a chain-of-custody problem. Chain of custody refers to the chronological documentation of evidence, which ensures its integrity and reliability. However, in the context of witness descriptions, combining them into a composite description does not pose a chain-of-custody problem, as it does not involve evidence handling.
Option D argues that combining multiple descriptions into a composite description is unacceptable, as doing so could hinder the prosecution. This option suggests that the composite description may not be reliable enough to support the prosecution's case. However, whether or not it hinders prosecution would depend on the specific circumstances and the accuracy of the composite description.
Considering the options, it seems that option B, which states that it is good investigative tactics to combine multiple descriptions into a composite description to create less confusion, is the most appropriate answer. This option acknowledges the potential confusion caused by multiple descriptions and highlights the usefulness of creating a composite description to improve clarity during investigations.