VOCABULARY
Embedded Files
GRAMMAR
Past perfect @TEACHINGTEACUP.pdfgrammar: exercises
grammar: exercises
Complete the sentences with the correct form of the verb in brackets.
1. Past Simple or Present Perfect
1. Past Simple or Present Perfect
a. I __________ (lose) my keys — can you help me look for them?
b. We __________ (go) to Italy last summer.
c. She __________ (never / try) sushi before.
d. I __________ (finish) my homework two hours ago.
e. They __________ (just / arrive) at the airport.
f. I __________ (not see) Tom since the party last weekend.
g. When I was a child, I __________ (want) to be a pilot.
h. __________ you ever __________ (be) to New York?
2. Past Perfect or Past Simple
2. Past Perfect or Past Simple
a. When we got to the station, the train __________ (already / leave).
b. I __________ (call) her after I __________ (receive) her message.
c. They __________ (not eat) anything before they __________ (go) out.
d. My brother __________ (be) tired because he __________ (work) all day.
e. She __________ (feel) nervous because she __________ (never / fly) before.
f. After the teacher __________ (explain) the grammar, we __________ (do) some exercises.
3. Mixed Tenses (Past Simple · Present Perfect · Past Perfect)
3. Mixed Tenses (Past Simple · Present Perfect · Past Perfect)
a. I __________ (never / see) such a beautiful sunset before that day.
b. By the time we __________ (arrive), the concert __________ (already / start).
c. He __________ (study) English for three years and now he finally __________ (pass) the exam.
d. I __________ (break) my arm when I __________ (fall) off my bike last weekend.
e. We __________ (not meet) since we __________ (finish) university.
f. She __________ (be) very happy because she __________ (get) the job she __________ (always / want).
LISTENING
1. What happened in the case Dr. Carter described?
a. Someone wanted to rob and kill the victim.
b. The perpetrator tried to rob the victim but failed.
c. The perpetrator didn't try to rob the victim.
2. What did the killer do on the night of the murder?
a. He only took worthless items.
b. He pretended to be a burglar.
c. He didn't find any valuable items.
3. What did they do during the investigation?
a. They started by eliminating possible suspects.
b. They conducted DNA tests on everyone close to the victim.
c. They tried to find witnesses in the neighbourhood.
4. What led the investigators to think the suspect was a hired hitman?
a. Security cameras.
b. The autopsy.
c. Phone records.
5. What helped investigators identify the suspect?
a. The victim's wife's phone records.
b. The security cameras in the neighborhood.
c. Fingerprints found in the house.
6. Which is true about the trial?
a. The killer and the victim's wife were sentenced to 25 years in prison.
b. The killer will spend the rest of his life in prison.
c. The wife's sentence was reduced because of a lack of evidence.
7. What was the killer's main mistake?
a. He didn't steal anything.
b. He used a gun.
c. He parked his car in front of the house.
transcription
transcription
INTERVIEWER: Welcome to Crime Uncovered! Today, we have Dr. Emily Carter, a forensic scientist, with us. Dr. Carter: , thank you for joining us.
DR. CARTER: Thank you for having me!
INTERVIEWER: Dr. Carter: , You've worked on many cases. What is a particularly interesting one?
DR. CARTER: One case that stands out involved a burglary that turned into a murder. A man was found dead in his home, and at first, the police thought it was a simple robbery gone wrong. The house was a mess—drawers open, furniture overturned—but something didn't feel right.
INTERVIEWER: What made it seem suspicious?
DR. CARTER: The crime scene looked staged. Usually, in a real burglary, thieves take valuable items like money or electronics. But here, nothing valuable was missing. We started to think that the suspect had tried to make it look like a robbery.
INTERVIEWER: So, how did you begin your investigation?
DR. CARTER: First, we collected evidence. We found fingerprints on the victim's door and furniture, all belonging to people who knew him—family and friends. We also noticed there were no signs of forced entry, suggesting the victim probably knew the killer and had let them inside. That immediately made all those friends and relatives potential suspects, so we had to verify their alibis. For those without clear alibis, we conducted DNA tests to rule them out. None of the tests produced a match, so they were all cleared.
INTERVIEWER: How did you find the suspect?
DR. CARTER: Police investigators checked security cameras in the neighborhood and saw a man parking his car in a nearby lot before entering the house about two hours before the body was found. We also examined the autopsy report, which showed that the victim had been shot with professional precision. That made us consider the possibility that someone close to the victim had hired a hitman. The police then traced the victim's wife's phone records and found that she had been calling an unknown number frequently in the days leading up to the murder. When they investigated further, they discovered that the number belonged to an ex-convict who owned a car matching the one caught on security footage the night of the murder. To confirm our suspicions, we ran a DNA test on the suspect, and it matched the biological evidence found at the crime scene.
INTERVIEWER: Incredible! So, you caught them based on the staged crime scene and phone records?
DR. CARTER: Exactly. The crime scene told a different story than what the suspects claimed. Once we had enough evidence, they both confessed. The victim's wife had given the killer a key to the house, which he used to enter.
INTERVIEWER: What happened after their confession? Did the case go to trial?
DR. CARTER: Yes, after their confession, they were both arrested and charged—the wife for conspiracy to commit murder and the hitman for first-degree murder. The prosecution had a strong case because we had physical evidence and direct phone records linking them to the crime.
INTERVIEWER: How long did the trial last?
DR. CARTER: The trial lasted about three weeks. The defense tried to argue that the wife had nothing to do with the crime, claiming the hitman acted alone. However, the phone records, DNA evidence, and security footage were too strong to ignore. Prosecutors also played recordings of the suspect's interrogation, where he eventually admitted that the wife had paid him to commit the murder.
INTERVIEWER: What was the final verdict?
DR. CARTER: Both were found guilty. The hitman received a life sentence without parole, and the wife was sentenced to 25 years in prison for planning the crime.
INTERVIEWER: That must have been satisfying for law enforcement and the victim's family.
DR. CARTER: It was. The victim's family was relieved to see justice served. Cases like this show how important forensic science is. Without DNA evidence, phone records, and security footage, it would have been much harder to prove their guilt.
INTERVIEWER: Thank you for sharing this fascinating case with us, Dr. Carter: . It's incredible to see how forensic science plays a key role in solving crimes.
DR. CARTER: My pleasure! Forensic science is about uncovering the truth, and every case brings us one step closer to justice.
READING
Profiting from true crime stories
True crime stories have become very popular in modern media, appearing in television shows, podcasts, and documentaries. This popularity has made true crime a big money-maker for media companies, attracting millions of viewers and listeners and earning large amounts of money through advertising and subscriptions. But this success also raises important ethical questions: what is fair and respectful to the victims and their families when their stories are shared?
Because of this demand, many companies now create more true crime content to draw in audiences, making it a key part of their business, but not everyone in the entertainment industry is proud of it. The director of Woman of the Hour, Anna Kendrick, decided to donate the profits from her film to charity. She wanted to ensure that her film – which talked about a real-life serial killer – kept its focus on the victims and their families. Kendrick didn’t think that it was right to benefit from the tragic events described in the film.
The increasing popularity of true crime has created concerns about how victims and their families are treated. Many media companies don’t inform the victims and their families about the show that is going to be produced about them. This kind of behaviour can cause pain and emotional harm. However, even when media companies are allowed to share people’s tragic stories, these shows might reveal very personal and upsetting details that those affected do not want to share.
Some critics also say that the way crimes are presented in these shows might have an unexpected effect on viewers and listeners. When shows make events more dramatic, add exciting music, or use special effects, it can make the crime feel like just a story or an action scene instead of something real and tragic. If the criminal is (or is played by) a good-looking or charming person, it can make the offender seem interesting or even likeable, turning the criminal into an idol to admire and praise.
Studies show that women are often more interested in true crime stories than men, and researchers have suggested a few reasons why. One reason is that women might use these stories to learn how to protect themselves, teaching viewers ways to stay safe. Another reason is that many women want to understand the minds of people who commit serious crimes. Finally, women often feel a deep connection to the victims, who are often female. This common trait leads them to engage with these stories and think about the challenges victims face, being something they might have experienced themselves.
What should media companies think about when working on a true crime show?
What does the writer imply about the director Anna Kendrick?
What are media companies often criticised for?
What does the writer suggest about the way in which true crime stories are told?
Women are interested in true crime stories because they learn how to...
How does the writer see the connection between victims and viewers?
WRITING
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse