%0 Journal Article
	%A Luca Indovina and  Carmela Coppola and  Carlo Altucci and  Riccardo Barberi and  Rocco Romano
	%D 2021
	%J International Journal of Chemical and Molecular Engineering
	%B World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
	%I Open Science Index 171, 2021
	%T Monte Carlo and Biophysics Analysis in a Criminal Trial
	%U https://publications.waset.org/pdf/10011905
	%V 171
	%X In this paper a real court case, held in Italy at the
Court of Nola, in which a correct physical description, conducted
with both a Monte Carlo and biophysical analysis, would have
been sufficient to arrive at conclusions confirmed by documentary
evidence, is considered. This will be an example of how forensic
physics can be useful in confirming documentary evidence in order
to reach hardly questionable conclusions. This was a libel trial in
which the defendant, Mr. DS (Defendant for Slander), had falsely
accused one of his neighbors, Mr. OP (Offended Person), of having
caused him some damages. The damages would have been caused
by an external plaster piece that would have detached from the
neighbor’s property and would have hit Mr DS while he was in his
garden, much more than a meter far away from the facade of the
building from which the plaster piece would have detached. In the
trial, Mr. DS claimed to have suffered a scratch on his forehead, but
he never showed the plaster that had hit him, nor was able to tell from
where the plaster would have arrived. Furthermore, Mr. DS presented
a medical certificate with a diagnosis of contusion of the cerebral
cortex. On the contrary, the images of Mr. OP’s security cameras do
not show any movement in the garden of Mr. DS in a long interval of
time (about 2 hours) around the time of the alleged accident, nor do
they show any people entering or coming out from the house of Mr.
DS in the same interval of time. Biophysical analysis shows that both
the diagnosis of the medical certificate and the wound declared by
the defendant, already in conflict with each other, are not compatible
with the fall of external plaster pieces too small to be found. The
wind was at a level 1 of the Beaufort scale, that is, unable to raise
even dust (level 4 of the Beaufort scale). Therefore, the motion of
the plaster pieces can be described as a projectile motion, whereas
collisions with the building cornice can be treated using Newtons
law of coefficients of restitution. Numerous numerical Monte Carlo
simulations show that the pieces of plaster would not have been able
to reach even the garden of Mr. DS, let alone a distance over 1.30
meters. Results agree with the documentary evidence (images of Mr.
OP’s security cameras) that Mr. DS could not have been hit by plaster
pieces coming from Mr. OP’s property.
	%P 76 - 80