Four Keypad Entries and One Broken Camera
An equipment yard is surrounded by a fence with one keypad gate and one north gate that has no keypad; the north gate camera has been offline for a week. The keypad log for the night of a theft shows four entries: 2140, code assigned to Alvarez; 2255, Boone; 0030, Cross; 0505, Dyer. The keypad records entries only. The gate opens from inside without a code, so exits are not logged. Codes are assigned one per employee and the department has confirmed that no code was shared. A time-lapse camera on the equipment container shows the lock being cut and a person entering the container, but the person's face is not visible; the footage is timestamped between 0100 and 0500. Statements: Alvarez says she arrived a little before 2200 and left about 45 minutes later. Boone says he arrived just before 2300 and did not leave until morning. Cross says she arrived around 0030 and left around 0115. Dyer says he was not on the property at any point that night. A fuel receipt signed by Cross is timestamped 0247 at a station 20 minutes away.
1. Which statement conflicts with the keypad log, and what exactly does the log prove about who was present between 0100 and 0500?
Read the worked answer
Conflicting statement: Dyer's. He says he was not on the property at all that night, but the log records his code entering at 0505.
Check the other three against the log before accepting them:
- Alvarez: entry 2140 is 'a little before 2200,' and an exit about 45 minutes later is unlogged. Consistent.
- Boone: entry 2255 is 'just before 2300.' His claim not to have left cannot be checked, because exits are not recorded. Not contradicted.
- Cross: entry 0030 is 'around 0030,' exit around 0115 unlogged. Consistent.
What the log proves about 0100–0500: only entries. It cannot establish presence during the theft window, because:
- Anyone who entered before 0100 could simply have stayed.
- Anyone could have walked in through the north gate, which has no keypad and no working camera.
- Dyer's 0505 entry is after the window and, by itself, places him on site at 0505 only.
Conclusion: the log narrows the inquiry but does not identify who was at the container between 0100 and 0500.
2. How does the fuel receipt change the analysis for Cross, and what does it not change?
Read the worked answer
The receipt places Cross at a station 20 minutes away at 0247, which is inside the theft window. If the timestamp is accurate, she was not at the container at 0247.
What it does not do:
- It does not clear her. The container footage runs from 0100 to 0500. She could have cut the lock at 0110, left, bought fuel, and returned - the north gate has no keypad and no camera, so a return on foot or by vehicle would leave no entry record.
- It does not confirm her statement. She said she left around 0115; the receipt is consistent with that, but consistency is not proof, and the receipt proves a transaction time, not a departure time from the yard.
- It assumes the timestamp is honest. Pump timestamps are usually reliable, but the receipt should be corroborated with station video or a card record.
How it should be used in the report: as corroboration of her account, which raises her credibility relative to Dyer, who is contradicted outright by the log. It should not be written up as an alibi, because the window is far wider than the four minutes around 0247.
3. Rank your next three investigative steps and explain why they come in that order.
Read the worked answer
- Work the north gate physically. It is the unlogged route and the camera is down. Look for fresh footprints, tire impressions, cut fencing, and discarded tools. This evidence degrades fastest and is the only path that can place someone on the property without a keypad entry. Photograph and cast before anything else.
- Interview Dyer about the 0505 entry specifically. He is the one person the log directly contradicts, and his explanation is the cheapest fact to obtain. Ask what he was doing, whether he drove, and who saw him. Do not reveal the container footage first; let his account fix itself.
- Process the container for physical evidence. Fingerprints on the cut lock and container edge, touch DNA, and tool marks. This is last because it is slow and because it matters most for whoever the first two steps identify.
Lower priority, and worth saying so: another records pull on the other three employees. It is easy to do and unlikely to change the picture, since the log already accounts for their entries.