1. Ask yourself what it was: Who, what, where, when and for what purpose, in what way, with what partners? Each of these circumstances you can illuminate one or another side of the case. Separate the accomplices of each other, to determine exactly what and why, what purpose did each of them.
OST to PST Converter ostpstconverter.info - Tool in Microsoft Outlook.
2. Separate findings from doubtful and unknown.
By the property of all human work, especially in terms of our investigators in the minutes of the preliminary investigation almost never reliable.
Microsoft Outlook 2007 outlookrecoverytools.com - recovery tool
General, the basic rule in the study of the preliminary investigation is as follows: significantly only that in such a case sheet says that something, in each row may be a mistake. This circumstance is of practical importance in the preparation of speech: a basic scheme of her can be entered only completely reliable facts.
Special reader outlookpstreader.com - of Microsoft Outlook.pst files.
Of course, the judicial inquiry may be and regardless of the mistakes of the investigator to change much in advance. But in each case common sense tells the speaker that can be considered credible and which should prevent the possibility of error. We can prove that the pedestrian was moving faster than the rider that literate intentionally made mistakes in spelling, healthy pretended madman that a gifted ear could not hear anything that a sighted person could not see. But you cannot prove that the speed limit of human speed limit more horses that illiterate people can observe the spelling, that deaf or blind hears saw. It can be argued that a man gifted with a good memory, I forgot something, but you cannot prove that he was not aware of this fact, if he himself wrote about it differently. We can prove that left-handed shot with his right hand, but cannot prove that he shot himself, if he were three wounds and each was supposed to cause instant death.
3. Do not satisfied with a ready explanation of the facts.
All wrong: the victims, police and the witness and the investigator.
Recognition of people convicted often reveal that the actual details of the crime is quite different from what seemed to be indisputable in court.
4. Look for internal communication events. Remember that its explanation lies in precisely those facts that seem inexplicable or indifferent. Sometimes this requires a great insight, and sometimes the difficulty is that the explanation is too simple.
Do not rush to accept the facts indifferent. As soon as you speak: the defendant for some reason he went there and then, witness some reason left the victim for some reason does not speak about it, stop and try to explain why. Think; do not explain whether all these doubts are a common response.
Discuss the circumstances that fostered crime and make it difficult to commit.