The movie “blood brother” narrate a story happened in 2005. The protagonist is Peter and his brother George. In the mother day’s yesterday night, Peter was shot by a gun. But neither prosecutor and defense lawyer knows who was held that gun and shot. In this movie, the researchers had done some experiments, and they all got their own conclusion about the suspect. The prosecutor thought that his brother had reason and motive to kill him. However the defense lawyer claims that he was killed by himself, and this case is suicide. They all have convincing opinions and evidence to prove that they are correct., I think this story is realistic. Because George has fought with Peter, which is the testimony of George, and he thought Peter could not live with him, and then George killed his brother. The split of his T-shirt just showed that he is very close to the victim because the Harrell’s experiment demonstrated that such a tiny blood drop could only happen in the two-feet distance person. But the length of the distance from the dead place to the chair which he said that he was sitting on that chair when he shot himself was about 6 feet long. And the gun’s safety button is on, which means the button must be touched by something after it had been shot. It is not reasonable. …show more content…
It impossible for him to sit in the chair because he could not have such a blood drop in his T-shirt if he sat on the chair. But there is not a blood drop in the chair’s cushion. That means, he must sit above that cushion, because the cushion was fastened in the chair. The opinion between the Harrell and the defense lawyer is contradicted. The defense lawyer, Maddox, also had explained why the gun’s safety ring was turned on. The one of the possibilities is that Peter shot himself and the gun attached to the wall, then bumped into the pen which was over the mouse pad and at that moment, the safety ring hit the pen and was turned
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused.
The knife that served as the murder weapon was sourced from the kitchen. Their bodies, which were burnt quite badly, were found in their bedroom, which was upstairs. This crime scene was uncovered by fire officers who responded to a 000 call by a neighbor at approximately 3:34am, after Jeffrey had told him his parents and his brother were dead. At this point, Jeffrey creates his alibi that his brother Christopher is responsible for the murder of their parents and setting the bodies on fire, but it was he who murdered
Live Performance Review of Blood Brothers On the eighth of July 2004 our Drama Class travelled to the New Theatre to see the sentimental Production of the musical Blood Brothers written by Willy Russel .Blood Brothers was musically directed by Richard Beadle and the performance was directed by Bob Tomson and Bill Kenwright. It was designed by Andy Walmsley and the lighting was done by Nick Richings.
but she was also very keen to play Mrs. Lyons as she had never played
also uses a lot of ironic devices in the play. It’s ironic due to the
The novel Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer has a very in-depth conflict that is showcased all throughout the novel. In Theo's community, there is a high-profile murder trial about to begin. Mr. Pete Duffy, a wealthy business man, is accused of murdering his wife Myra Duffy. The prosecutors have the idea that Mr. Duffy did it for the one million dollar insurance policy he took out on his wife earlier, however they have no proof to support this accusation (Grisham 53). The defendants do however have the proof that no one saw the murder, for all everyone knew, Mr. Duffy was playing his daily round of golf at the golf course right by his house. As the trial moved on, the jury was starting to lean towards letting Mr. Duffy walk a free man. To this point, there has been no proof to support the prosecutors statements that Mr. Duffy killed h...
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
When a death occurs suddenly, unexpectedly and from unnatural or unknown causes, a forensic scientist has the duty to gather and analyze evidence to determine whether the victim died from a previously undiagnosed disease or infection or from a homicide, suicide or accident (Lurigio, 2009). When considering suicide as the probable cause of death, we are looking at the act of intentionally killing oneself through one’s own effort or with the assistance of another (Sever, 2009). The resolution of the manner of death by a forensic pathologist as suicide is based on a series of factors which eliminate natural causes of death, homicide and accident (Geberth, 2013, p.55). The cause of death is also determined by the medical examiner in conjunction with the crime scene investigator; however, it can only be determined after a thorough investigation is concluded. Therefore, in the complicated process of doing a death investigation there are several mistakes that should be avoided, which are discussed in Geberth’s article, Seven Mistakes in Suicide Investigation (2013). Mistakes in doing any death investigation affect the integrity of the evidence in determining the cause of death and in its admissibility in court.
July 15, 1999, was an ordinary night for Kristopher Lohrmeyer as he left work at the Colorado City Creamer, a popular ice cream parlor. Kristopher had no idea that his life was about to end. When Michael Brown, 17, Derrick Miller and Andrew (Andy) Medina, 15, approached Kristopher and demanded his money and his car keys. Before the boys knew it shots had been fired and Kristopher was dead. About an hour after the fatal shooting of Kristopher Lohrmeyer, all three men were in custody and telling their version of the night’s events. Michael and Derrick who had run away after the shooting confessed to police and named Andy as the shooter. According to the three boy’s testimony, they had only recently met and needed away to get some quick cash, so they developed a carjacking scheme and headed to Andy’s house to pick up 2 stolen handguns. The three boys were uneducated and had spent most of their time on the streets in search of drugs. The judge ruled that they would be held without bail and there was probable cause to charge them all with first-degree murder (Thrown Away, 2005).
First and foremost, is the case of Peter Reilly. Peter Reilly was convicted of manslaughter at the age of nineteen in 1974 (Lender, 2011). Reilly had found his mother dead in their home (Lender, 2011). Peter Reilly was interrogated without legal council for over an entire day’s t...
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
Many people in London are not willing to accept murder as a form of justice as previous research reports and most especially the family of Mark Duggan. Duggan’s family together with many other people opposes the lawful killing arguing that the killing was not properly justified. On the other hand, the state of London carried out investigations and found out that the killing was vindicated and thus it was a lawful killing according to the metropolitan police. The report given by the government to mark the accountability of the killing of Mark Duggan lawfuly took a period of three and half years to be written and had been announced to the public and the family of Mark Duggan. The mother of Mark Duggan, Pamela Duggan said that the state’s report was just like a slap in the face because it took much time to come up with the report and thus Pamela as the mother of Mark did not trust the report. To some extent, Pamela Duggan was right because it is impossible for a state of a nation to carry out investigations for the killing of one person for a period of more than three years meaning that the investigations had been interfered with by government officials in the fear of being blamed of having murdered someone. At each and every stage of the investigation, the state has been seen to avoid the blame of having murdered Mark Duggan and
brother, did the actually killing, but his mother in father aided in the coverup of the crime.
Love is a theme, shown by the two women who love their sons but show
It is a story that provides the ultimate explanation of how two different people who are witnesses to a crime give completely different psychological recollections of the same event. The author reminds us that truth depends on the telling. Someone must step forward and tell that truth.