Decision making in the team process

What process did the team use to make their decision? To determine whether the suspects were guilty or not, I looked at the case facts. Mr. Anderson, who wore a blue shirt, had a red convertible and smoked cigarettes made a statement at the station, which was of great assistance in my decision. In his statement, he said that he had not been near the victim’s apartment and that it was bad that the victim was shot. Apparently, Mr. Anderson must have been at the crime scene to know these two facts: that the victim was shot and that he was shot at his apartment considering the fact that the police had informed Mr. Anderson that Mr. Walker (the victim) had been murdered but not how he was murdered and that he was found at his residence, not his apartment. I wondered how Mr. Anderson knew these facts if he was not in the crime scene. I, therefore, determined that Mr. Anderson had ample time to commit the crime after his meeting with the victim. Two people identified Mr. Anderson as the suspect but although some of the information that they gave is factual, some of it is coincidental. There still underlies a lot of unanswered question and some information that is not yet determined. In this view, therefore, I am inclined to assert that the suspect is guilty although I am not certain that he is. All the same, the aforementioned fact that Mr. Anderson must have been in the crime scene to know where the victim was murdered and how he was murdered, and the fact that other people witnessed the crime strengthen my assertion.
In the second case, I am for the view that the suspect is guilty. This is considering the fact that, in addition to the evidence of dents in the grill and on the hood and a partial plate number, someone makes the claim that they saw the suspect hit the woman.
Was the decision easier to make in the second case? Why?
Yes, it was. Unlike in the first case where some information and facts were more coincidental over and above lacking sufficient facts to convict; the second case was factual, which helped in establishing that the suspect was guilt.
What behaviors were helpful in the team process? Why?
Reviewing all available information and eyewitness testimonies and carrying out an information analysis. This helped in sorting out facts and coincidence prior to making any decision.
What behaviors impeded the team process? Why?
For me, the lack of answers to certain questions impeded the team process. The question such as why children would be playing outside at night, and why they failed to probe the children/ask them questions pertaining to what they witnessed. Additionally, the question as to whether the witnesses in case A were reliable. I would have appreciated knowing if there was any evidence left on the bumper, tissue, hair, blood of the victim in case of B. Moreover, was there evidence that the fallen bag of fertilizer damaged the car grill?
How were decisions made? Did the team use any of their knowledge of MBTI in the team processing or decision making? Why or why not?