In the “After the Fact The Art of Historical Detection” by James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle in chapter 11 “Sacco and Vanzetti” is about a series of crimes that happen in Bridgewater, MA and in South Braintree. The first crime was in December 1919 in Bridgewater. The crimes was a attempt of payroll heist in broad daylight. The criminals were unsuccessful in securing the goods and started a gunfight but no one was hurt. The criminals escaped the scene of the crime. In second case that happen in South Braintree, a shoe company had two employees transporting payroll boxes containing about $15,777. Their was wasn’t ready and their boss encourage them to walk the short distance. Then they were robbed when a couple of bandits shot and killed
The first evidence is the judge and jury ignored the physical evidence that both men weren’t in area when the crime happen, and their guns were not the same caliber there were a .38 while the gun reported was a .32. The police also had fingerprints from the buick the was used in the South Braintree crime. But the fingerprints didn’t match and the police instead questioned them on their religion, political beliefs and associates instead of the crime. The prosecutors used witness but the witness accounts made no sense. Meaning it didn’t match the descriptions of the men and the their stories weren’t the same and had loops hole. One witness said she saw the shooting from 60 feet away and said one of the men which she said was Sacco had big hands but he had small hands. Another said they saw Sacco kill Berardelli (one of the men who was killed in South Braintree), but the defense question and she said she hidden under workbench when the shots fired and didn’t see the men. The third witness said she talked to a man under a car fixing it as Sacco but her companion said she didn’t talk or saw him. Instead it was a pale sick young man. The day of the crime Sacco was getting a passport. A official confirmed Sacco was their getting a passport but the picture he had was too big. Other witnesses said they saw Vanzetti selling fish in Boston and some even bought some. The last piece of evidence is that the prosecutors tried to convicted them using consciousness of guilt. It is when you are guilty of a crime because you are lying about your actions because you are guilty. They lied and said they didn’t know Mike Boda. They did this because they wanted a car to transport their anarchist pamphlets to a safe place. They wanted to do this because the police could arrest anyone with these pamphlets and the people would be
...possible to connect this back to the heist, they would and they finally did. Although most of the suspects were dead or already put in a Witness Protection Program, the FBI still had contact with the high ranked member himself. In my opinion, I feel as though this entire investigation should have been solved decades ago, but considering the amount of evidence they had to show the court, was impossible. The Crime Family is very lucky to get away with what they did. Taking three time the amount that the planner actually wanted is a risk they were willing to take, but If “Stacks” could have got rid of the van like he said he was going to, maybe in 2014 we would have never found Vincent. We may never know what exactly could have happened. Although it may have been 36 years later, justice was certainly served to one of the biggest bank robberies in New York's history.
Facts: On July 29,2003 Detective Jason Leavitt was doing his usually undercover work, dressed in all black with twenty on dollar bill hanging out his pocket. Leavitt was then approached by the Miller (defendant) asking him for money. The detective refused to give him the money, in return the appellant put his arm around the detective’s neck taking the cash out of his front pocket. The arrest time the pulled up and took Miller into custody and charged him with larceny. Miller was convicted, and sentenced by the district courts to spend up to thirty two months, but no less than 12 months in jail.
On the evening of Ms. Heggar¡¦s death she was alone in her house. Eddie Ray Branch, her grandson, testified that he visited his grandmother on the day that she was killed. He was there till at least 6:30 p.m. Lester Busby, her grandnephew, and David Hicks arrived while her grandson was still there and they saw him leave. They then went in to visit with Ms. Heggar. While they were there, Lester repaid Ms. Heggar 80 dollars, which he owed her. They left around 7:15 p.m. and went next door to a neighboring friend¡¦s house. David Hick¡¦s went home alone from there to get something but returned within ten minutes of leaving. Because he was only gone for 5-10 minutes, prosecution theorized TWO attacks on Ms. Heggar because he could not have killed his grandmother during this 5-10 minute period alone. At 7:30 p.m., 15 minutes after the two had left, an insurance salesman called to see Ms. Heggar. He knocked for about 2 or 3 minutes and got no reply. Her door was open but the screen door was closed. Her TV was on. He claimed to have left after about 5 minutes and then he returned the next morning. The circumstances were exactly the same. With concern, he went to the neighbor¡¦s house and called the police. His reasoning for being there was because the grandmother¡¦s family had taken out burial insurance three days before she had died.
demand a ransom. The money was to be thrown off a moving train at a
The suspect had a chip tooth and Antonio had A gap that was really the only reason he got convicted. There three other suspects didn’t even get close to how Antonio Beaver had allot of similarity’s like the victim that did that crime. The best way to know if the suspect did the crime is doing allot of deep research instead of just going off a shecht artist.
The issue here I believe is with the justice system itself and not the direct actions of the prosecution or the police involved. The blame isn’t really so easy to point out honestly. If anyone is to blame at all it would be the people who tampered with the crime scene and the potential failure/inability of the police in preserving the scene if it was possible.
Crime is a common public issue for people living in the inner city, but is not limited to only urban or highly populated cities as it can undoubtedly happen in small community and rural areas as well. In The Real CSI, the documentary exemplified many way in which experts used forensic science as evidence in trial cases to argue and to prove whether a person is innocent or guilty. In this paper, I explained the difference in fingerprinting technology depicted between television shows and in reality, how DNA technology change the way forensics evidence is used in the court proceedings, and how forensic evidence can be misused in the United States adversarial legal system.
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).
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
When the first responder got to the scene he adimatately meet the 911 caller, who lead him to a car in an apartment parking lot. The car doors were closed and all of the windows were fogged. The police officer used his flashlight to see inside of the car before opening the door. He found a young African American woman who had been shot several times. The officers quickly called for backup, investigators and medical personnel. While awaiting for their arrival he secured the crime scene with caution tape, creating an initial perimeter setup as discussed in lecture two. Once everyone arrived he left it to them to search the car while he talked to the 911 caller, witnesses and others who had information on who had been present in the car. The investigators were able to collect physical evidence of bullets and cartage casings that were found outside the vehicle and inside the vehicle on the floorboard of the driver’s side. The team determined the bullets came from a 40 caliber. Other types of physical evidence that were found on the scene were the bloody clothing on the victim, the victim’s cell phone and fibers in the car from the driver’s side. personnel at the scene crime took several photographs, powered test for finger prints and did a blood spatter analysis. Stewart’s autopsy revealed that she had been shot at close range in the left hand once and in the
Sandra Petrocelli is the prosecuting lawyer and is good. She is pushing for the death penalty. She states that everyone involved in the crime is equally guilty including the one who wrestled for the gun, the robber and the two lookouts. She is trying to prove that Steve knew and associated with the two robbers who are bad characters.
In the roaring twenties, the life of organized crimes was at its peak. What was the greatest mob hit ever pulled off in history? Well I'll tell you. It all happened on Valentines Day, the morning of February 14th, 1929. This incident was call, "The St. Valentines Day Massacre". The man behind this infamous crime was none other than, the infamous Al "Scarface" Capone. Al Capone was the all time greatest mobster of all time. The idea of organized crime fascinates me in so many ways. Capone was the only person to have pulled off such a crime. Al Capone was top gangster in Chicago and was one of the greatest members of the Italian Mafia and George "Bugs" Moran was the leader of the Irish/German mafia and he was the main target behind this hit. He targeted Capone because Al Capones had a bounty on his head, $60,000,000, and found George Moran as a threat. George was Capone's biggest threat of all. He needed to take him out quickly. (Al Capone, True Crime Story). Writing this paper will let me learn a lot more about this massacre. There is one question I would like answered, "Why hadn't Moran's crew made an attempt to fight back?" (Al Capone, True Crime Story). Moran's men had a long history of being violent with others. This is one question that we will never know. My most used source on this essay will be internet information and a book. I feel these sources will give me the most amount of information. Using a magazine will too but it was very hard to find a 20's magazine article.
...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.
...ed April 8, 2009, from the Office for Victims of Crime Training and Technical Assistance Center Web site, https://www.ovcttac.gov/saact/files/summ_of_history.pdf. pp.3.
When searching for DNA evidence they contaminated the crime scene in many ways. Some did not wear protective gear when inside the home where the murder occurred, possibly transferring DNA evidence into parts of the crime scene that was not originally there, and others examining the crime scene did not change gloves or booties when going from room to room, which could possibly transfer DNA as well. In the lab, they examined many pieces of evidence together, which could also transfer of DNA, and would immediately get evidence thrown out in US court. Also, when using DNA you have to be very precise and accurate. These people were not. They used DNA that was almost unidentifiable and unrecognizable as evidence. This would never happen in US court, and if it did the evidence would be thrown out almost immediately. Now, I am not saying that the US judicial system is perfect, but they are definitely more stick than that of Italy, and if things were the same in Italy I believe that Amanda Knox would have never been convicted of