Based on the evidence presented above and the circumstances of the case, I’ve decided that there is not enough strong evidence linking Amanda Knox to the murder of Meredith Kercher. The police were careless with their handling of the evidence, which led me to doubt some of their finding. Since the case relied heavily on physical evidence to convict Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede, the evidence should’ve been taken care of better. Considering that a lot of the evidence found was mishandled in some way, I argue that any evidence that might have linked Knox to the crime isn’t enough for a conviction.
The first piece of evidence I’d make an argument against will be the knife. Knox’s DNA that was found on the knife handle could’ve easily been from her just using it to prepare food or any other normal activity that requires a knife. Amanda spent a lot of time at Sollecito’s apartment, which is understandable because they were dating at the time of the murder. It wouldn’t be out of the ordinary for her DNA
…show more content…
Vecchiotti and Zoppis wrote that the bra clasp reportedly wasn’t examined until 46 days after the murder, allowing rust to build up with the sample. According to the Netflix documentary, the police at the crime scene did not handle the evidence correctly; their procedure wasn’t sterile because there were police reportedly working throughout the crime scene without protective suits and latex gloves were not changed as often as they should have been. The bra clasp was also reportedly examined immediately after investigators had already handled and examined numerous other items belonging to Kercher, which were most likely covered in her DNA. This could allow the defense to argue that one of the investigators on the scene accidently brought some of Sollecito’s DNA from somewhere else in the apartment and somehow transferred it to Kercher’s
The first piece of evidence that led to this theory was ice tray that was located at the crime scene. Due to the chromatography paper which was tested in Forensic Lab 7, it was revealed that the ice tray was poisoned by the one and only Beverly Hilis. In the Forensic Report it states, “The ph in the ice water was 9”(Forensic Report). This is significant, because this was the exact same ice tray Max used in his drink. The only person that was able to poison Max at the crime scene was Beverly. This is important, given the fact that the chromatography tests results showed that the ice tray was poisoned, Beverly could have made the poison because she is use to performing experimental things especially being a Chemist. Another piece of evidence that led to suspicion was Dez’s towel which was found at the crime scene. In the Preliminary Report it states,“ I took my dog down to the beach for a walk around noon”(Preliminary Report). If Dez was not near the beach house during the time of the murder then it raises the suspicion of why his towel was located at the crime scene. In addition to Dez’s towel being at the crime scene there was also the smell of cologne on the towel. In Forensic Lab 4, after testing out each of our suspects (Dez, Beverly, Chloe, and Ray) cologne we concluded that the cologne does match Dez. Due to the Forensic Report it stated, “The smell that
There is lots of evidence in the Lizzie Borden murders, but is it enough to say Lizzie Borden killed Mr. and Mrs. Borden? Mr. and Mrs. Borden were killed in their home on August 4th 1892. Their daughter Lizzie Borden was the suspected killer. She was found to be innocent, yet many people still think that Lizzie borden murdered her parents that day. There is a lot of evidence that points to Lizzie being the killer. A lot of things she did and said were very suspicious. Lizzie Borden is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I reviewed the Molly Wright case over and over making sure I had all the information concerning the murder correct in my mind. First thing I thought about was why; did Mr. David Hill kill Molly or what would he gain from it, I read where Wright had caused their market trading business to go in a debt totaling over $20.000 with loans and credit cards. This would have made David angry enough to have killed her and from the case file Molly was stuck 15 times and had defensive wounds on her hands this murder in my opinion she was killed out of rage and that helps when trying to identify the murderer and have a stronger case when it goes to court.
However, police should have acknowledged that individuals can make mistakenly identify the wrong person, especially an individual who had just tragically witnessed his wife’s death, and that the positive identification can not be the only evidence used to confirm the identity of a suspect. In addition, a search was never conducted on Butler’s home to see if any evidence was there. Unless my memory fails me, police officers also did not perform a gun residue test on Butler to see if he had recently fired a gun. Regardless, police did not find any physical evidence, such as blood, on Butler’s clothes or body. In fact, there was no forensic investigation of evidence conducted at all. Mary Ann Stephen’s purse was later discovered in a trash can, but it wasn’t until after the acquittal of Brenton Butler that a fingerprint belonging to the real killer was found on her purse. Overall, the ethical issues involved in the Brenton Butler case are astounding. The best solution to resolve those issues is to thoroughly perform job duties with integrity. Investigators had to know that more evidence than just a positive identification made by one, rightly upset individual was not substantial enough to confirm the identity of the
Casey Anthony was accused of killing her two-year-old daughter Caylee, but because of lack of evidence, Anthony was convicted not guilty. John Cloud, from Time magazine, implies, “And yet virtually no one doubts that Anthony was involved in her child’s death. In fact, her lawyer admits that Anthony know how her daughter’s body would be disposed of” (“Few Doubt That Casey Anthony Was Involved in Her Child’s Death. But Fascination With Her Case Has Made It The First Major Murder Trial Of The Social-Media Age”). They found Caylee’s corpse duct taped by Casey’s parent’s house, in Orlando, Florida. The only evidence they found was in the family Pontiac Sunfire. The stench of decomposing flesh overpowered the trunk of the family’s car. “Why did Anthony let 30 days pass between the time Caylee went missing and the day police were notified?” questioned Tresniowski, “And how could she so blithely dan...
For instance, the defense has denied to present you with the crucial evidence that would prove her innocence: an alibi. Justine was totally unaccounted for on the night of William’s murder, giving her ample time to commit the atrocity of causing his death. The defense has never presented you with anything that could account for her presence at some other location than the crime scene.
Guilt is powerful thing. A person’s whole life can be destroyed seconds after being exposed to the strength of guilt. Even though admitting a sin can seem more difficult than not, that confession can often make a world of difference in the long run. In The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Hester Prynne, and Reverend Dimmesdale, have two very different ways of dealing with guilt. These differences in action are what change the courses of their lives. The actions taken by one character are successful, though the actions of the other put his life in ruins. Hester confesses her sin in public, while Dimmesdale does not. This simple choice made causes a drastic change in each of their lives. When comparing the lives of Hester and Dimmesdale,
“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” clearly demonstrated the role of a prosecutor in the courtroom. Albeit in a negative manner, Hunter effectively bridged the functions of the police to the criminal justice process during the trial of Metcalfe (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 150). The murder trial of Metcalfe provided a frightening view of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical behavior of a prosecutor. Hunter betrayed the public he served by conspiring with Lieutenant Merchant to fabricate DNA evidence to ensure victory in the courtroom.
First and foremost is the Michael Mosley case. Michael Mosley was convicted murdering a couple ten years ago (Wurtman, 2011). Two other men were cleared when Mosley’s DNA was found at the scene of the murder (Crowe II, 2012). Also, there was a palm print on the wall and further DNA on the sheets in the bedroom (Wurtman, 2011). In contrast to all the evidence, Mosley’s attorney offered an alternative reason and painted a picture of different events to explain Mosley’s DNA’s presence (Wurtman, 2011). However, the jury didn’t buy the defense’s story, and Michael Mosley’s conviction led to a call for the DNA database to be worked on with the most interesting fact being that Michael Mosley had no DNA in the system until seven years later than the crime (Crowe II, 2012).
The officers tampered with evidence and made a false discovery that he was the person and that is how he was convicted (Innocent Project N.D.). Many forensic methods have been implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or nothing to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011).
On Thanksgiving evening, November 27, 1992, Sergeant Kenneth Mathison and his wife Yvonne drive their 1988 tan Ford van along Route 131 in Hilo, Hawaii. The rain is pouring down and before he knows it, Kenneth Mathison is awaiting police assistance as he cradles his wife’s dead body in the back of their van. Mathison, a sergeant of 25 years with the Hilo Police Department was allegedly informing his wife, a maternity nursing professional at the Hilo Medical Center, that he was being investigated in his second paternity suit. According to Mathison, when Yvonne heard the news, she jumped from the passenger side of the van. While he was looking for her in the blinding rain, Mathison purportedly ran over his wife. He then carried the body into the van and secured it with yellow rope in the back before attempting to find help. Will the forensic evidence support Mathison’s account of that fateful evening?
For this study forensic evidence can be considered DNA evidence and/or trace evidence of any kind, included to but not limited to tire tracks, bullet casings, glass shards, fingerprints, and hair samples. Although this study proposes the idea that forensic evidence is more important it currently is not used frequently in the justice system. A study found that out of the cases they examined forensic evidence was collected in 37% of cases but only 18% of those cases were examined (Peterson, Hickman, Strom, Johnson, 2013). Another study found that 38% of participants said forensic evidence was hard to come by while 62% said they had spent time on victim credibility (Menaker, Campbell, Wells, 2016). This shows us that forensic evidence is not used frequently, and more time is spent on making a victim credible instead of finding evidence. It is the purpose of this study to determine if forensic evidence is more important than circumstantial evidence and eye witness testimony. If this can be determined than less time can be spent on things like victim credibility for testimonies, and more time can be spent on analyzing forensic
According to the Innocence Project (2006), “On September 17, 2001, Chad wrote the Innocence Project in New York, which, in 2003, enlisted pro bono counsel from Holland & Knight to file a motion for DNA testing on Tina’s fingernail scrapings.” The state had tested the DNA that was under Tina’s nail from the first case but at that time it was inadequate and could not be tested. It was not until now that we have the technology capable enough to test it. In June 2004, the test came back negative to matching both Jeremey and Chain Heins but did come from an unknown male. The state argued that it was not enough to overturn the conviction so Chad’s attorney asked the state to do some further testing and to compare the DNA from under the fingernails to the hairs that was found on Tina’s body. It was in 2005 that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement confirmed that there was a match between the DNA under Tina’s nail and the pubic hair. According to LaForgia (2006), “this particular type of DNA, the report stated, was found in only about 8 percent of Caucasian American men.” During this process there was a new piece of evidence that Chad’s attorney had learned about during the appeals process, a fingerprint. There were some accusations that the prosecutors never disclosed this information about this third fingerprint and if they did it was too late. The jurors did not even know about this fingerprint and if they did this could have changed the whole case. This fingerprint was found on several objects that included the smoke detector, a piece of glass, and the bathroom sink. It was soon discovered that this fingerprint matched with the DNA found on the bedsheets that Tina was on. This was finally enough evidence to help Chad Heins become exonerated in
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
Forensic science has been in practice for centuries; the first textbook on forensic science was printed in China during the 1200's; in the early 1800's, a technique was developed the first test to identify arsenic in the blood stream; the early 1900's lead to the development of using fingerprinting to identify victims and suspects. While these discoveries where important in criminal investigation, they were only the beginning. Only recently has forensic science significantly refined its techniques and accuracy. Today scientists can locate, identify and trace the tiniest of particles, and identify victims and suspects, beyond a reasonable doubt through DNA analysis. This evolution in forensic science is a prosecutor's dream; while a defense attorney's nightmare. Forensic science has made great strides.