April 15, 2003 was the day of the Boston Marathon Bombing. It was the third Monday in April, also known as Patriots Day in the United States. The marathon is held continuously for this day and attracts over 500,000 spectators and averages 30,000 participants (Boston Athletic Association, 2014). On April 15, 2003, two bombs were placed 190 meters apart at 755 Boylston Street, near the finish line and where a large number of people were also present. Around 2:50 p.m., these two bombs exploded, approximately 12 seconds apart (Gessen, 2016). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay The bombs were made from pressure cookers filled with nails, ball bearings, screws, various metal fragments and black powder, also known as gunpowder (Spencer, 2013). These were then hidden in backpacks left on the ground. They were detonated by an electrical charge, which ignited the black powder, rapidly increasing the pressure inside the cookers before they exploded, sending fragments and shrapnel flying outward from the explosion . This type of bomb is considered a low explosive, but due to its confined nature, the explosion had a greater impact because more pressure was required for the pressure cooker to explode. In perspective, this type of bomb is relatively simple. This is a fairly easy bomb to make as all the materials are very common and therefore no suspicion would be aroused when acquiring them. Additionally, the individuals who made these bombs did not need much knowledge about how the explosion worked. Basic chemistry represented all the knowledge necessary to make this type of explosive. Recipes for pressure cooker bombs are relatively easy to find on the Internet. This means that the people involved do not need to have any experience in bomb making or even chemistry. The explosion caused insignificant damage to structures, including shattered glass and minor damage to nearby buildings (Ross, 2016; Conner and Black). , 2013). This indicates that this bomb was a low explosive, as the buildings were quite close to the explosion. From the placement of the bomb (on the sides of the road closest to the front barriers), it was clear that the buildings and structures were not the intended targets. These two bombs killed 3 people and injured 264. Of these 264, 16 people lost limbs as a result of the attack (WCVB, 2015). These people knew that there would be a large number of people in attendance at the marathon, especially at the finish line. This suggests that their goal was to harm and/or kill as many people as possible. There was speculation that they also wanted to use this type of IED (improvised explosive device) in other highly populated places like Times Square in New York or the Fourth of July celebrations in Boston (McLaughlin, 2013; Peltz and Hays , 2013). This clearly suggests that their motivation was to injure or kill as many people as possible and that the marathon was only chosen because it contained the crowds and a highly populated area that they wanted. As the marathon took place on a high street, there were numerous security cameras that could potentially record how the bomb was set up, who placed it, what the bomb was hidden in and other such information. In addition to store-owned cameras, people were continually taking photos and recording videosthroughout the day. When the FBI launched its investigation, one of its first steps was to collect and watch all the surveillance footage from the sites of the explosions before they happened, to try to determine what happened. But it was a public photo that “broke the case” and identified both the bag that contained the bomb, as well as the person who placed it there (Greenfield, 2013). Thanks to this type of surveillance, a “man in the white hat” was spotted. Once they had this information, they used all the surveillance gathered to follow this "man in the white hat" through the crowd. Through this type of surveillance, officers determined that two perpetrators were directly involved. They also had images and photos of the two individuals clear enough to identify them both. These photos were made public to find their identity. In addition to finding the individuals involved, the videos showed the white smoke created by the explosion (Ackerman, 2013). This was important because it gave insight into the type of explosive used. While military-grade explosives (like C4) create black smoke, the white smoke seen in this explosion indicates that it was an improvised explosive device. As soon as the area was cleared of people and deemed safe, 30 highly trained forensic experts combed the area. on the scene looking for remains of explosives and any evidence likely to shed light on the device used (Taylor, 2013). Forensic evidence found included pieces of black nylon, metal shards, and even the entire lid of a pressure cooker (BBC, 2018). Evidence like this was a huge find, as it could have contained traces such as fingerprints and explosive residue. The remains on the nylon suggested the bomb was contained in a gear bag. The evidence produced was useful as it made it easier for the police to identify what contained the explosive material, how the explosive created the pressure and also how the bomb was placed in this densely populated area without arousing suspicion . From a forensic perspective, the evidence was rooted in the individuals injured by the explosion. The shrapnel that exploded during the bombing is a very important aspect of an explosion and much of the shrapnel that was part of both explosions was not contained in the crime scene (Gates et al ., 2014). The individuals injured by these projectiles were transported to hospitals and took the shrapnel with them. This created a problem because it highlighted a limitation within the forensic protocol. It is important to collect evidence and also preserve its integrity. In this case, no protocols were in place and all pathology departments were left with unclear guidelines and uncertainties when reviewing and processing evidence from patients and amputated limbs (Brunner, et. al ., 2015). This bombing highlighted a lack of protocol within the forensic process and since then, protocols with clear guidelines have been implemented across the country for handling these trauma-related specimens, in order to preserve the integrity of evidence (Gates, et.al., 2014). The Boston Marathon bombing shed light on some modern forensic investigations and knowledge. Parallel to the official investigation by the FBI, a comparable, unauthorized investigation was being conducted online. A group that harnessed the power of collective knowledge and resources worked toward the common goal of contributing to the investigation in any way possible.