Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Principles of criminal investigation
Crime investigation process
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Principles of criminal investigation
The tag line for the program indicated a family dog witnessed the murder and would be instrumental in solving the case. In the impoverished area of Palm Beach County, Florida, Jeff Lamb returns home and places a frantic call to 911 reporting his wife has been injured. His wife, Cathy, has been bludgeoned to death while two of the family’s large dogs are also beaten fatally. A third dog was found unharmed in the bedroom. The house gave appearances of a forced entry, but the only items Jeff could find missing were two small diamond earrings. Blood splatter on walls and the furniture indicated a violent attach. No weapon was found at the scene, but appeared to be a blunt object with a hexagon shape on the end. The two dogs had blood on their muzzles and indications that they had fought to defend Cathy. Their …show more content…
Jeff claimed the dog was in the bedroom during the murder, but bloody footprints left by his dog contradicted his statement.
The prosecutions story was that Jeff used his fiancé’s car to leave his work, drive home, and kill his wife. He changed his shirt, and shoes but not his pants. He was unable to see any blood splatters and neglected the key piece of evidence. As he was leaving the house, he received a call from the neighbor which placed him in the vicinity of his home. Back at work, he threw the murder weapon on the roof of a building and finished his shift.
It was apparent that Jeff Lamb planned his actions carefully. It is explicable why he answered a phone call close to his house. Equally confounding, is why he didn’t destroy all the clothes he was wearing during his heinous act. The first thought is the one about criminals always make a mistake and get caught sooner or later. However, the truth is probably that all the criminals who are extremely careful and meticulous are rarely ever
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
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
On 1997 four men were convicted of the rape and murder of Michelle Basko. The four men were Joe Dick, Daniel Williams, Eric Wilson, and Derek Tice. Detective Robert Ford believed that the four U.S. navy men were all guilty of the crime. One of the victim’s friend claimed that Daniel Williams, was Michelle Basko’s murderer. Based on the information provided by Basko’s friend, Ford suspected that William was guilty. With that, the series of harsh interrogations led by detective Robert Ford began. Detective Ford began his interrogatories with a label that Williams is the suspect. The psychological abuse he used, led Williams to make a false confession. After closing the case, the DNA results did not match the one in the crime scene. Instead of releasing Williams, it was believed that Joe
The book Murder in the Bayou: Who Killed the Women Known as the Jeff Davis 8?, written by independent journalist and private investigator Ethan Brown, tells the horrific true story of the bayou town of Jennings, Louisiana located in the heart of the Jefferson Davis parish. During the four year duration between 2005 and 2009, the town of Jennings was on edge after the discovery of the bodies of eight murdered women were found in the filthy canals and swamps. The victims became known as the “Jeff Davis 8.” For years, local law enforcement suspected a serial killer, and solely investigated the murders based on that theory alone. The victims were murdered in varying manors, but when alive they all shared many commonalities and were connected to
I think the detectives did a sloppy job in collecting evidence for the murder. Mark Fuhrman saw a finger print on the gate of Nichols home. and it wasn't found by the collectors who were collecting it. the evidence of the murder. O.k.
The Cosmopolitan magazine mentions a theory of the murderer killing himself after killing the young beauty pageant contestant. A man named Michael Helgoth was charged by the Ramsey family. Cosmopolitan states,”Not only was Helgoth seen wearing shoes similar to those in a footprint found in the Ramseys' basement, but one of Helgoth's former coworkers also claimed that he'd been acting incredibly suspiciously around the time of the murder”. There was also a comment from the Cosmopolitan magazine stating, “The same former co-worker also claimed that someone close to Helgoth had a tape recording of him confessing to the murder, but police never investigated it”. More information was given, for example Helgoth mentioned an odd comment that was made about how interesting it would be to crack a human skull.
Police found Katie Eastburn and two out of three of her daughters stabbed repeatedly with their throats slit. Mr. Cone, a janitor the night the Eastburn woman was murdered, positively identified Timothy Hennis as the suspect. Hennis is a United States army sergeant who recently bought the Eastburn’s dog the night the girls were murdered. An eye wittiness identified Hennis as the man leaving the Eastburn’s home the night in question. Upon receiving a warrant, law enforcement searched Hennis’ home in search for any evidence. From chapter ten, it is discussed further that it is crucial to be as detailed and specific as possible in a warrant. They took Hennis into custody on the charges of three murders and a rape. Unlike the defendant in the film My Cousin Vinny who was not informed of the charges until after they received a confession, Hennis was well informed of all the facts of the Eastburn case. The crime Hennis was sentenced for is categorized as a felony crime because it will result in a punishment of a year or longer. Before the case went to trial, Hennis was offered an opportunity to admit to the charges against him, but he refused. The chance Hennis was offered is known as a plea negotiated where the defendant admits to the crime without going to trial. The first trial occurred in 1986. The evidence presented against the defendant was strong where the jury came to the conclusion that he was guilty and should receive the death penalty. Shortly after the trial ended, Hennis and the sheriff received an anonymous letter declaring that Mr. X murdered the Eastburn girls.
The Murderer David Berkowitz: Son of Sam On June 1st 1953, Elizabeth Falco gave birth to a baby boy named Richard David Falco in Brooklyn, New York. He was the result of an affair between his biological parents, Elizabeth (Broder) Falco and Joseph Klineman. His father was married to another woman at the time and refused to let Elizabeth keep the child. A few days later, Nathan and Pearl Berkowitz, a middle-aged Jewish couple, adopted him.
... any of the DNA provided by the Vaninced victim support one report showed a piece of genetic material the penis of Steven branch but could not be linked to any victim.The penis of Steven branch that could not be linked to any victim or any defendant in the meantime our investigators were obtain DNA samples in the air cigarette butts world swabs from people who had some connection to the events is included samples from several people including Steven branches stepfather Terry Hobbs.The result of that analysis in May 2007 show that rope used to tie up Michael Moore could be associated with very hot provided a result the prosecution right after learning of it much more recent analysis by Mr. Fedora show that hair found on a tree root through Tree Stump at the crime scene could be associated with the DNA samples provided by Terry Hobbs.
In the United States of America, our justice system is here to serve and protect people of the world. Unfortunately, some are able get away with crimes and others are fairly judged. This often happens because their is nothing proving a clear path of innocence or guilt. In the book Monster and the documentary Murder on a Sunday Morning, this can be demonstrated throughout. Based on the information given, the verdict of Steve Harmon seems to be incorrect while the verdict of Brenton Butler seems to be correct.
I took pictures of all of the blood stains and collected the knife and fork as evidence.
...t his the evidence in front of a jury. Still believing in his innocence Jeff is filing for parole after fourteen years of eligibility. He is hoping to meet parole board criteria so he can be released on parole.
Is Steve Harmon innocent or guilty you decide. Steve Harmon is put on trial of the murder of Mr. Nesbitt and the robbery of his drug store. During the trail Steve Harmon is seen as guilty by the prosecutor Sandra Petrocelli. The witness Allen Forbes testimony proves that the gun used in the murder was registered under Mr. Nesbitt. This helps prove that the gun was used in the murder and the robbery and the gun was later found in the store. This witness helped me prove that Steve Harmon could have used the gun to kill Mr. Nesbitt or had taken part in the robbery at some point in the crime. “I went around behind the counter and I saw Mr. Nesbitt on the floor—there was blood everywhere and the cash register was open. A lot of cigarettes were
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
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).