In the Forensic Case #356228, skeletal remains of both human and animal were discovered in a hunting area. The skeletal remains were of potential victims named as either Robert Rutherford or Stephen Morton. Robert Rutherford, potential victim #1, was an African American, 65 years or age, had a pacemaker, carried a Gerber 650 knife, had unknown religious affiliations, and was 5’ft 6”inches tall. Potential victim #2, was Stephen Morton, a Caucasian 40 years of age, had a heart condition, was a hunter in the same area, also had unknown religious affiliations, carried a Gerber 650 knife, and was 5’ ft 7” inches tall. One anthropologist stated that the evidence supported the theory that the skeletal remains belonged to potential victim #1. Therefore, the prosecution argued that the skeletal remains were that of Robert Rutherford, who went missing four years ago. It is known that the victim and the defendant had some misunderstandings about the hunting area and fought to hunt certain places in the area. On the other hand, another anthropologist stated the opposite and the defense argued that the skeletal remains did not belong to Robert Rutherford, but instead were that of Stephen Morton, who hunted in the area and went missing two years prior to Robert Rutherford. Stephen Morton had no known connections to the defendant, therefore concluding him innocent in the defense’s mind. There are some various similarities found in the case that could point in either the defense or prosecution, therefore the case needs to be revaluated for a third opinion. The crime scene was located in a deer hunting area in a meadow. There were several different types of trees and foliage surrounding the area where the skeletal remains were discovered. The... ... middle of paper ... ...body was found and didn’t want anyone to acknowledge that his deer stand was no more than 400ft from the remains. In the Forensic case #356228, the skeletal remains found in January 2009 in a deer hunting area were those of a black male greater than the age of 45. The jury felt based upon the evidence provided that the skeletal remains found were that of Robert Rutherford and the accused, John O’Hara was guilty as charged. The incidence was speculated to have happened around four years ago, when the defendant and the victim were in a quarrel over the hunting area. Due to the fact that John O’Hara went to confession more in February 2009, indicated that he had a guilty conscience. John O’Hara was known for hunting in the area and based on the evidence provided the jury speculated that he shot Robert Rutherford possibly from his deer stand, resulting in his death.
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.
Kennewick Man has started and added to an immense saga about the ethics involved in excavating and studying the remains of other that passed away long and not so long ago. Kennewick man being one of the hottest topics of the media during the mid-nineties has proved to be one of the most trying ethical dilemmas of our time. An ethical dilemma as described by Kelley Ross Ph. D is a “conflict between the rightness or wrongness of the actions and the goodness or badness of the consequences of those actions” (www.friesien.com). In the case of the Kennewick man the coalition of the tribes are trying to do what is best for their culture and belief by having the Kennewick man buried and the scientists who want to study this strange humanoid that has shown up on the banks of the Columbia River and are acting how they believe this should be handled, with careful study and the need to find the knowledge that this skeleton can provide about America nine millennia ago; and here is the problem that has been floating around this case for little over a decade.
Two detectives were assigned to the case: Harry Hanson and Finis Brown. [2] When they and the police arrived at the crime scene, it was already swarming with people, gawkers and reporters. The entire situation was out of hand and crowded, everyone trampling all over any hopes for good evidence. [2] One thing they did report finding was a nearby cement block with watery blood on it, tire tracks and a heel print on the ground. There was dew under the body so they knew it had been set there just after 2 a.m. when temperatures dropped to 38 degrees.
The show portrays that forensic anthropologists are responsible for almost every aspect of the death investigation, which does not correctly depict the role of forensic anthropologists (Wood,2017a). The method of which components of the biological profile, like sex of the remains, is also incorrectly portrayed as Dr. Brennan estimated the sex using a trait that does not accurately indicate sexual dimorphism (Wood, 2017c). Lastly, the complexity of personal identification, which is one of the most important aspects of forensic anthropology casework (Krishan et al, 2016), is not portrayed correctly as Dr. Brennan and her team based the identification of the remains on one trait that has questionable reliability (Charles & Levisetti, 2011). All in all, ‘The feet on the beach’ episode of ‘Bones’ does not accurately portray the forensic anthropology as it is romanticized for entertainment and overly simplified for a lay person to
In February of 1982 in a Fulton County Georgia court room, fiber evidence came to be the main source that linked Wayne Williams to murder victims, which led to a verdict of guilty during a trial that lasted eight weeks (Saferstein, 2011). The evidence presented in court proved that Williams murdered Jimmy Payne and Nathaniel Cater in April and May of 1981 (Saferstein, 2011). It was also proven in court by way of fiber evidence that Williams was responsible for ten other murdered victims. The time frame of these murders occurred during 1979 through 1981 (Saferstein, 2011). This murder case involved very extensive research on fiber remains which was the strongest evidence source in resolving this horrible crime.
Forensic anthropologists will use their skills and education in order to discover the different traumas that can occur to bones. The different types of trauma that will be discussed in this paper are projectile, sharp and blunt. Projectile trauma is most associated with firearms and bullets. Knowing what type of projectile caused the injury to the bone can help in locating the type of gun used, which can lead to a suspect. “When faced with a skeleton containing projectile wounds, forensic anthropologists should aim to supply as much information concerning the causative weapon as possible law enforcement officials.” according to Introduction to forensic anthropology (Byers, 2011, p. 248)
“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.
Any of these reforms, if they had been done during Hayes’s and Matthews’s cases, could have prevented their wrongful convictions concerning the murder. Between interrogation reform and eyewitness reform, any change in the direction of validating what actually occurred or making sure information was presented in an unbiased manner would have shown great differences in what happened to these two men. These two individuals, wrongly convicted due to two of the six main faults in the process, are now part of 16 exonerated cases from the Innocence project that involved two people accused of a single crime.
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?
There have been several cases in which eyewitness testimony led to the conviction of an innocent person. In one notable case, Raymond Towler was wrongly convicted in 1981 of the rape, kidnap, and assault of an 11-year old girl based on eyewitness testimony in which the victim and other witnesses identified him from a photo. Towler had been serving a life sentence and was released in 2010 after serving nearly 30 years until DNA evidence proved that he did not commit the rape (Sheeran, 2010). In another case, Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl near Baltimore in 1984. Five different eyewitnesses testified that they saw him at the scene of crime. After serving nine years in prison on death row, he was released and paid compensation after traces of semen found in the victim’s underwear excluded him as the person responsible for the crime. Although he was released, he was not formally exonerated for another decade until the real killer was found, Kimberly Shay Ruffner. Ruffner was already incarcerated for unrelated crimes and was identified after the DNA sample from the crime scene was added to state and federal databases and came back as a match for him. Despite the fact that Bloodsworth was a completely different height and weight than Ruffner, five eyewitnesses testified that they saw him at the murder scene (Marshall, 2009).
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.
When someone says forensic anthropology, many minds go directly to beautiful woman working alongside good-looking men while they work to solve a murder in a day’s time, thanks to the media craze with homicide. The recently popular television show Bones, put the field of anthropology in the spotlight. Though the show gives fairly accurate information, many viewers, myself included, have developed a great curiosity for how the work is done. In this paper, I will share with you the answers to many of the questions I have asked myself in my many hours of watching this popular show, including: the process of identifying race, age and sex of a victim, determining whether an injury was antemortem, perimortem or postmortem, and how one is able to interpret the injuries in the case of the death.
Geberth, Vernon J. (1983). Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Technics. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.
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.
Since homicide is a crime in which a life has been ended, it is highly important the investigation surrounding a homicide be taken seriously and be completed effectively. That is, it is critical for the investigator(s), and other branches of the investigation, to be highly trained in preserving a crime scene, as well as interpreting the evidence left at a crime scene, or surrounding the investigation. There are various techniques available to aid in the examination of a homicide crime scene, but none more importantly than what could be told be the body.