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 permanently organized for this day and attracts over 500,000 spectators and has an average of 30,000 participants (Boston Athletic Association, 2014). On April 15, 2003, two bombs were planted 190 meters apart at 755 Boylston Street, near the finish line and where a large number of people were also located. At around 2.50pm these two bombs exploded, approximately 12 seconds apart (Gessen, 2016). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay 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 electric charge, which ignited the black powder, rapidly increasing the pressure inside the burners before they exploded, sending fragments and shrapnel outward from the explosion. This type of bomb is considered low explosive but, due to its confined nature, the explosion had a greater impact as more pressure was needed for the pressure cooker to explode. In perspective, this type of bomb is relatively simple. It is a fairly simple bomb to make as all the materials are very common and therefore would not arouse suspicion when acquired. Furthermore, the people building these bombs didn't need much knowledge about how the explosion worked. Basic chemistry was all the knowledge needed to build 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 have to have any experience with bomb making or even chemistry. The explosion caused insignificant damage to structures, including shattered glass and minor damage to buildings in the immediate area (Ross, 2016; Conner and Black, 2013). This indicates that it was a low explosive bomb, 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 amount of people attending the marathon, especially at the finish line. This suggests that their aim was to injure and/or kill as many people as possible. It was speculated that they also wanted to use these types of IEDs (improvised explosive devices) in other widely populated places such as Times Square in New York or the 4th of July celebrations in Boston (McLaughlin, 2013; Peltz and Hays, 2013). This strongly 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 densely populated area that they desired. Since the marathon was taking place on a commercial street, there were many security cameras that could potentially have recorded how the bomb got into place, the individual who placed it, what the bomb was hidden in, and other information like this one. In addition to store-owned cameras, people continuously took photos and recorded throughout the day. When the FBI began its investigation, one of the first steps was to collect and look at all the video footage ofsurveillance of the explosion sites before they occurred, to try to determine what had happened. But it was a photo from the public that “solved the case” and identified both the bag that contained the bomb and the person who placed it there (Greenfield, 2013). Through this type of surveillance a "man in the white hat" was spotted. Once they had this information, they used all the surveillance they gathered to follow the "man in the white hat" as he walked through the crowd. Through this type of surveillance, officers determined that there were two perpetrators directly involved. They also had video footage and photos of the two individuals that were clear enough to identify them both. These photos were released to the public to find their identity. The videos, in addition to identifying the people involved, showed the white smoke generated by the explosion (Ackerman, 2013). This was important as it provided information on the type of explosive used. Since military-grade explosives (such as C4) create black smoke, the white smoke observed from this explosion indicated that it was an improvised explosive device. As soon as the area was cleared of people and deemed safe, 30 highly trained forensic experts were scouring the scene for remnants of the explosives and any evidence that might shed light on the device used (Taylor, 2013). Forensic evidence found included fragments of black nylon, metal fragments and even the complete lid of a pressure cooker (BBC, 2018). Evidence like this was a huge discovery, as it potentially could have contained traces such as fingerprints and explosive residue. The remains on the nylon suggested the bomb was contained inside a bag of material. The evidence produced was useful because it made it easier for the police to identify what the explosive material contained, how the explosive created pressure and also how the bomb was placed in this densely populated area without arousing suspicion. From a forensic point of view, the evidence was trapped in the people injured by the explosion. Shrapnel from the bomb 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). People injured by these bullets were taken to hospitals and took the shrapnel with them. This created a problem as it highlighted a limitation within the forensic protocol. It is important to collect evidence and also maintain its integrity. In this case, no protocols were in place and all pathology departments found themselves with unclear guidelines and uncertainty when reviewing and managing evidence from amputated patients and limbs (Brunner, et. al., 2015) . This attack highlighted a lack of protocol within the forensic process and protocols with clear guidelines have since been implemented across the country to handle these trauma-related samples, to maintain the integrity of the evidence (Gates, et.al ., 2014). The Boston Marathon bombing highlighted some modern forensic investigations and insights. In addition to the official investigation conducted by the FBI, a similar unauthorized investigation was conducted online. A group that harnessed the power of collective knowledge and resources worked to achieve the common goal of aiding the investigation in any way possible. This type of cyber-investigation is not new, it has already been used successfully in previous cases (Shaw, 2014). In the case of the Boston bombing, many professionals pooled their skills and experiences within these forums. This type of online crowdsourcing could potentially be very useful. An individual