More handpicked essays just for you.
History of forensic science essay
• describe the evolution of forensic sciences over time
Advancement in science since forensics was developed
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. Now that I found a motive to as why David Hill would have killed Molly Wright and she was about to lose their company. David still denied murdering Molly after the information was out about the debt she caused the business. Technicians found blood located in the kitchen and living room Pathologist stated the attack took several minutes, going by the marks and the distance of the blood that indicated the distance. The piece of evidence that was found was from David Wright’s clothes and shoes is the most critical piece of evidence and that was the blood splatter. The blood splatter places David Hill at the scene of the crime at the time of Molly Wright’s murder. …show more content…
I can see where this could have the family thinking differently now that they know someone was outside that looked suspicious but the blood spatter on David’s clothes does in fact places him at the scene while Molly was being beat to death so I believe he did do the crime or was there watching her get murdered. So no matter what the family says David is right where he needs to be and that is behind bars with the other murderers and violent crime
We were presented with many facts that all pointed to Mr. Washburn as the murder. In the house all of the entrances were thoroughly inspected by authorities, and they found no sign of ransacking. “[They] examined all the locking mechanisms, all the doors and windows. In [their] opinion there was no evidence of any forced entry” (P.81). When police looked for fingerprints, “They were all of the Washburn family and the maid” (P.81). There was no trace of an outside party; somebody usually in the Washburn house committed the murder. While in the living room, an officer found a drop of blood. The evidence technician was called the next night to run some tests. “He sprayed the living room carpet with luminol. It is a luminous spray, and when it comes in contact with blood it illuminates” (P.82). To both men’s surprise the whole living room was illuminating. After spraying further the men found a trail from the living room through the kitchen to the garage. In the closet the men found a wet mop, which was tested for blood and also came back positive. Somebody tried to clean his or her bloody mess, and try to save himself. The physical evidence proves the killer was somebody who was familiar to the Washburn household.
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.
found behind the guest house was proven by DNA testing to have O.J.'s blood and
...on’s blood was found at the scene of the crime. There may be ways to plant such evidence, but it would be rather difficult to draw blood from a man without him realizing it and planting it at the scene of a crime. I also would have expressed that O.J. had a motive to kill his ex-wife, as well as a history of violent outbursts towards her. With all of the evidence that the prosecution had at their disposal, they should have been able to pin the murder on O.J. beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything pointed to O.J. and showed that he was the murderer. The only thing the prosecution was not able to do was fit the bloody glove on O.J’s hand. The only issue is, the glove was made of leather and had been soaking in blood prior to being found. When leather is soaking in a liquid, it tends to shrink. If only the prosecution had realized this, the case would have been theirs.
Because police detectives did not actually see the body dropped into the river, they could not directly accuse Williams of the crime. This made proving the deaths on him would be a lot more challenging and would heavily depend on forensic evidence. One of the key victim’s in the conviction of Wayne Williams was 11-year-old Patrick Baltazar. When Williams was asked if he knew him, he said that he had never met Patrick. Some of the techniques they used were fiber analysis, DNA sequencing, and hair analysis.
In my opinion, David Cash should be punished for either not reporting to the police or stop Jeremy for sexual assault or murdering Sherrice, because David witnessed Sherrice being molested by his best friend and did nothing about it, he just walked away. Then Jeremy came to David and confessed to him that not only he molested her, he murdered Sherrice less than half an hour ago and David didn’t ask him why Jeremy did it? And since David failed to report to the police when Jeremy informed him about his crime, he should be charged and prosecuted as an accessory for both sexual assault and murder of Sherrice Iverson.
The doctor, however, told the New York Times that it was not true. Many people suspected that the FBI tried to find a scientist to admit he gave information, but were unable to find one to go along with this story. There are several hypotheses as to why David Greenglass may have falsely accused his sister's family of their actions. One was that there was some ill will between families because of the failure of a family business. David tried to downplay the animosity between families due to financial and social humiliation.
Sue Grafton once stated: “Except for cases that clearly involve a homicidal maniac, the police like to believe murders are committed by those we know and love, and most of the time they're right.” This is clearly the thought the Boulder Colorado police conceived in the case of little beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey. As many have observed from the onslaught of media coverage, the day after Christmas 1996, six year old Jon Benet Ramsey was found buried under a white blanket, bound, beaten, and strangled to death in the wine cellar of their Boulder home. With such a strikingly rare and glamorous story of a six year old beauty queen dead, who was a part of a “perfect American upper-middle class family”, combined with a lack of a lead and ever mounting suspicion piling up against the parents it was no surprise to find that it was fuel to the media and soon stories sold and became a matter of competition between the press. So, like wildfire, this heart-breaking story spread, stretching across the nation, shattering the souls of the world. News broadcasts, magazine and newspaper articles, and television specials all shaped and molded peoples perceptions of this beautiful child’s murder, especially her parents, John and Pasty Ramsey’s involvement or lack there of. The police and FBI’s merciless quest to connect Jon Benet’s murder to her parents, seemed to cause the them to overlook important evidence, or at the very least dismiss suspicious findings that would otherwise send red flags to investigators. There are many contributors as to why this case remains unsolved including lack of investigative expertise, failure to protect valuable evidence, and focusing too much on the parents as suspects but, ultimately, the over involvement of...
The Boston Massacre was one the most controversial massacre in American history that teased the coming of the American Revolution. People were taunting a British soldier who was standing “in front of the Boston Custom House” who got very frustrated to the point where he hit somebody. The soldier got overwhelmed by people who came after he hit one of them, called help from his fellow soldiers. When Captain Preston and his soldiers arrived at the scene, people were coming from everywhere, some were trying to fight them and some were just there to watch. Then, one of the soldier shot at the people and his fellow soldiers started shooting after, which killed five people. This what ended it up being called the Boston Massacre. Some might say that the murderer were the soldiers who shot the people, but the real murderer is
The Supreme Court used this evidence, and the fact that the pants and the blood had been transported to the crime lab in the same box, and that a vial and a quarter of autopsy blood were missing, to rule that, if known by the jury, could have created reasonable doubt (House V. Bell, 2006). This, along with the evidence, presented by House, that Mr. Muncey had a history of spousal abuse against Mrs. Muncey, and the fact that he had fabricated an alibi to cover his whereabouts for the time of the murder, could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, had it been presented at trial (House v. Bell, 2006). It was with these facts in mind that the Supreme Court reached a final ruling in this case. The Court’s final ruling was that while House had not presented sufficient evidence to exonerate himself completely, he did present enough evidence to create the question of his actual guilt, and warranted a new trial (House v. Bell, 2006).
...lice or lawyers used their integrity. The police skirted around the law and use evidence that the witnesses said was not correct. They had a description of the suspect that did not match Bloodsworth but, they went after him as well. They also used eyewitness testimony that could have been contaminated.
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.
Judith Wright's poem `The Killer' explores the relationship between Humans and Nature, and provides an insight into the primitive instincts which characterize both the speaker and the subject. These aspects of the poem find expression in the irony of the title and are also underlined by the various technical devices employed by the poet.
The phrase “an eye for an eye’ has been around for some time now. When someone hits you, you hit them back. Many people live their life by this, they strive to get their revenge. When does taking that “eye” become unnecessary or too harsh? It becomes too harsh when lives are being taken. The death penalty is one of the most controversial topics in our history. Capital punishment is wrong and ineffective. The price of the operation cost more than life in prison, and it is morally unjust.