SRA111 IntelGame Template

1.One (1) submission per Semester Project Team

2.Safely save work in this template until answers submitted into ANGEL

3.Do NOT copy/paste shaded cells (-10 points each violation)

4.To Angel, copy un-shaded cells and use Angel paste option “From Plain Text” (-10 points each violation)

NOTE: This exercise mayrequire more than one class period!

QUESTION SET: TEAM NAME/ACTIVE MEMBERS

A) Select Semester Team Name from drop down list

B) List participating/not participating members. Absent members should be listed as “not participating” (unless submittedoutside of class with entire team present)

List Names/PSU email IDs
Participating Members / PARTICIPATING
NOT Participating Members / NOT PARTICIPATING

SRA111 INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS GAME: PART I

QUESTION SET: THREE PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES (25 POINTS)

Given information provided inTable 1 ofthe case, generate three plausible hypotheses that could explain the shootings.

For each hypothesis, use at least one (1) fact/witness statement from the case, and cite where found in the case (e.g., Table, 1/Incident B). Fact/witness statement may be reused as needed. Feel free to add “conjecture” to complete plausible hypotheses.

Hypotheses may help anticipate the next shooting attempt, or even identify the perpetrator. Each hypothesis should:

  1. Describe the shooter, or aspects of the shooter,
  2. Describe the motivation, and/or
  3. Describe the means (e.g., weapon, mode of transportation).

EXAMPLE:

Single white male, prior military experience, using a military rifle (Table, 1/Incident B)to target victims based on racial discrimination.

HYPOTHESIS 1
HYPOTHESIS 2
HYPOTHESIS 3

QUESTION SET: EVIDENCE NEEDED TO DISPROVE HYPOTHESIS (10 POINTS)

Copy ONE hypothesis presented above, and suggest THREE pieces of evidence that coulddiscredit or “falsify” this hypothesis. This evidence may either be fact/witness statement from Part I of this case, or new (i.e., not yet presented).

In parentheses, specify which part of the selected hypothesis is refuted.

The practice to falsify/disprove a belief attempts to overcome framing and confirmation cognitive bias. Identifying new evidence not yet found helps guide investigators.

EXAMPLE

The hypothesis “Single white male, prior military experience, using a military rifle to target victims based on racial discrimination,” could be discredited based on evidence such as:

1)Single white males were also targeted(refutes racial discrimination),

2)A non-white male was seen leaving the scene (refutes white male), or

3)Afemale was seen with the male shooter(refutes single shooter).

HYPOTHESIS SELECTED
EVIDENCE 1
EVIDENCE 2
EVIDENCE 3

SRA111 INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS GAME: PART II

QUESTION SET: SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (25 POINTS)

Despite significant internal disagreement, the SNIPTF team shared this shooter profile with the media:

Single shooter, angry, self-centered, fascinated with weapons and violence, recently suffered a domestic or job related setback, a white male adult, not displaying signs of mental illness, frequented gun shows, liked military books and movies, not in a relationship, not confrontational, hypersensitive and suspicious, and playing close attention to media coverage.

Select THREE pieces of the above profile and indicate whether supported by fact/witness statement from the Case Table 3 (e.g., Table, 3/Incident B),OR indicate from SNIPTF conjecture.

EXAMPLE

Table, 3/Incident B, “The bullet was thought to be from a high-powered military rifle” (supports shootermay have interest in military objects and weapon fascination).

SNIPTF 1
SNIPTF 2
SNIPTF 3

QUESTION SET: SUPPOSITION ANALYSIS (10 POINTS)

After some deliberation, and evidence analysis, SNIPTF is confident that witnesses in Incident E actually observed the shooter leaving the scene.

NumberTWO(2) pieces of specificfact/witness statement, citing location (e.g., Table, 3/Incident B)from Case Table 3that might support SNIPTF’s belief that shooter is driving a white van.

NO EXAMPLE FOR THIS PART (GUIDING QUESTIONS INSTEAD)

  • Was it reasonable to assume a vehicle was being used?
  • What benefits would a van, versus a car or truck, provide?
  • Why a white van specifically?

White Van 1
White Van 2

SRA111 INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS GAME: PART III

QUESTION SET: PERSON OF INTEREST DATA ANALYSIS (30 POINTS)

NOTE:

  1. Use the provided Data Excel File for this part to evaluate three “Persons of Interest (POI)
  2. Open Angel graded assignment to see which three POI’s your team will analyze
  3. Use “save and continue later” option in Angel, if needed
  4. Refer to helpful video tutorial to filter Excel data on POI’s last name
  5. Clear filters before beginning next POI analysis
  6. Verify Excel’s vertical scrollbar (right-side of window) is pushed completely up before analysis

View Video Tutorial.

Open Angel IntelGame submission exercise to obtain your three POI names.

Open the Excel Data file, and filter using POI last name. Be sure to slide Excel’s vertical scroll bar completely upwhen analyzing results, and remove filtering before continuing to next POI.

Use Case Figure 2 and Table 2incident time and location information to analyze each POI,and assign status:

  1. SUSPECT: Further police investigation warranted if POI observed near at least one shooting incident location at time of shooting (plus/minus fifteen minutes of incident), but NEVER at a different location during any incident
  2. INCONCLUSIVE:Further police investigation warranted ifno data available for POI
  3. NOT A SUSPECT:No further police investigation if POI’s vehicle was observed at a different location during the time of ANY shooting incident (plus/minus fifteen minutes of incident)

ASSUMPTIONS

Excel data file assumes License Plate Recognition software accurately recorded driver location and time. In particular, do NOT assume that POI’s could be recorded at one location, after having left a different location. This is not truly real world analysis, as we assume the POI only has one vehicle, and is the only driver of that vehicle.