Based on the evidence presented above and the circumstances of the case, I’ve decided that there is not enough strong evidence linking Amanda Knox to the murder of Meredith Kercher. The police were careless with their handling of the evidence, which led me to doubt some of their finding. Since the case relied heavily on physical evidence to convict Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede, the evidence should’ve been taken care of better. Considering that a lot of the evidence found was mishandled in some way, I argue that any evidence that might have linked Knox to the crime isn’t enough for a conviction.
The first piece of evidence I’d make an argument against will be the knife. Knox’s DNA that was found on the knife handle could’ve easily been from her just using it to prepare food or any other normal activity that requires a knife. Amanda spent a lot of time at Sollecito’s apartment, which is understandable because they were dating at the time of the murder. It wouldn’t be out of the ordinary for her DNA
…show more content…
Vecchiotti and Zoppis wrote that the bra clasp reportedly wasn’t examined until 46 days after the murder, allowing rust to build up with the sample. According to the Netflix documentary, the police at the crime scene did not handle the evidence correctly; their procedure wasn’t sterile because there were police reportedly working throughout the crime scene without protective suits and latex gloves were not changed as often as they should have been. The bra clasp was also reportedly examined immediately after investigators had already handled and examined numerous other items belonging to Kercher, which were most likely covered in her DNA. This could allow the defense to argue that one of the investigators on the scene accidently brought some of Sollecito’s DNA from somewhere else in the apartment and somehow transferred it to Kercher’s
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
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.
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.
On the night of November 1st 2007 in Peruglia Italy, Meredith Kercher was murdered by being stabbed in the neck. Kercher’s roommate, Amanda Knox had returned home on the morning of November 2nd, from spending the night with her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito. Later, Knox returned to Sollecito’s apartment and explained that she had observed small speckles of blood in the bathroom, the front door ajar, and Kerchers bedroom door locked. Kercher’s body was found half naked, and under a duvet after police broke down the door to Kercher’s bedroom. Knox was interrogated on multiple times without an attorney present. She was slapped on the back of the head and forced to visualize a probable scenario, of which the police took as an admission of guilt and had her sign a statement to the vision. DNA was retrieved from the crime scene, but only pointed to one suspect, Rudy Guede, who had fled Italy on the night of the murder, arrested in Germany, admitted to being in Kercher’s apartment that night, and was later found guilty. No DNA evidence was recovered to implicate either Knox or Sollecito as to being present at the time of the murder. In 2009 Knox and Sollecito were found guilty and sentenced to 25 and 26 years. In 2011 an appeals judge repealed Knox and Sollecito’s sentence based on no proof of their guilt. Knox returned home in the U.S. In 2013 Italy’s Supreme Court, the Court of Cassation, ordered a retrial. Knox and Sollecito were then found guilty of Meredith Kercher’s death. Italy has since called for the extradition of Amanda Knox, but it is still being appealed.
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.
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.
Even though the prosecution presented evidence to the court, the only clear-cut hard fact the prosecution had against Anthony was that she failed to file a report for her missing daughter Caylee and that when she finally did a month after her daughter had gone missing, she proceeded to lie profusely to the authorities on the events that took place. The prosecution focused highly on the forensic evidence of decay located in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car. The use of a cadaver dog to search the vehicle led investigators to be able to determine that a decomposing body had been stored in the trunk of the car. The forensics department used an air sampling procedure on the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car, also indicating that human decomposition and traces of chloroform were in-fact present. Multiple witnesses described what they considered to be an overwhelming odor that came from inside the trunk as it where the prosecution believes Caylee’s decomposing body was stowed. Several items of evidence were ruled out to be the source of the odor, as experts were able to rule out the garbage bag and two chlorine containers located in the trunk as the source. The prosecution alleged that Casey Anthony used chloroform to subdue her daughter and then used duct-tape to seal the nose and mouth of Caylee shut, inevitably causing her to suffocate. Based off the
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?
Casey Anthony was accused of killing her two-year-old daughter Caylee, but because of lack of evidence, Anthony was convicted not guilty. John Cloud, from Time magazine, implies, “And yet virtually no one doubts that Anthony was involved in her child’s death. In fact, her lawyer admits that Anthony know how her daughter’s body would be disposed of” (“Few Doubt That Casey Anthony Was Involved in Her Child’s Death. But Fascination With Her Case Has Made It The First Major Murder Trial Of The Social-Media Age”). They found Caylee’s corpse duct taped by Casey’s parent’s house, in Orlando, Florida. The only evidence they found was in the family Pontiac Sunfire. The stench of decomposing flesh overpowered the trunk of the family’s car. “Why did Anthony let 30 days pass between the time Caylee went missing and the day police were notified?” questioned Tresniowski, “And how could she so blithely dan...
For instance, the defense has denied to present you with the crucial evidence that would prove her innocence: an alibi. Justine was totally unaccounted for on the night of William’s murder, giving her ample time to commit the atrocity of causing his death. The defense has never presented you with anything that could account for her presence at some other location than the crime scene.
Guilt is powerful thing. A person’s whole life can be destroyed seconds after being exposed to the strength of guilt. Even though admitting a sin can seem more difficult than not, that confession can often make a world of difference in the long run. In The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Hester Prynne, and Reverend Dimmesdale, have two very different ways of dealing with guilt. These differences in action are what change the courses of their lives. The actions taken by one character are successful, though the actions of the other put his life in ruins. Hester confesses her sin in public, while Dimmesdale does not. This simple choice made causes a drastic change in each of their lives. When comparing the lives of Hester and Dimmesdale,
“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.
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).
For this study forensic evidence can be considered DNA evidence and/or trace evidence of any kind, included to but not limited to tire tracks, bullet casings, glass shards, fingerprints, and hair samples. Although this study proposes the idea that forensic evidence is more important it currently is not used frequently in the justice system. A study found that out of the cases they examined forensic evidence was collected in 37% of cases but only 18% of those cases were examined (Peterson, Hickman, Strom, Johnson, 2013). Another study found that 38% of participants said forensic evidence was hard to come by while 62% said they had spent time on victim credibility (Menaker, Campbell, Wells, 2016). This shows us that forensic evidence is not used frequently, and more time is spent on making a victim credible instead of finding evidence. It is the purpose of this study to determine if forensic evidence is more important than circumstantial evidence and eye witness testimony. If this can be determined than less time can be spent on things like victim credibility for testimonies, and more time can be spent on analyzing forensic
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.