Dear Jury Members: Imagine going to your work, then asking your boss for a raise and when he says no you go home in anger. Then the next day you get accused of murdering him, even though you didn't. This is what happened to David Elridge and he should be found not guilty and should not be charged with the murder of Mr. Addems. The prosecution might say that he is guilty because he was the only one with a key and he was the last one in the Family Fun restaurant, but that couldn't be further from the truth because he didn't. Just because he was the last one in the restaurant doesn't mean anything because the floors were so greasy and he could have slipped and fell. David Eldridge's footprints were only found on the greasy floor, not in the blood. …show more content…
Investigators said they slipped on the greasy floor when they were trying to get to the crime scene. On the floor, David's footprints were only found in the grease, not the blood. If he had done it, then David Eldridge footprints would have been in the blood, not just the greasy floor. This evidence proves that he is not guilty because how would David Eldrige kill him when his footprints were only found in the grease on the floor and not in the blood and not to mention there was blood force trauma and bruising on the back of his head. Another reason that David Eldridge is not guilty is that Mr. Addem was showing signs of depression and could have slit his own throat open or killed himself. Mr. Adams was showing signs of depletion because his business was struggling and he couldn't afford to raise the prices of the employees that worked there. And he also talked very highly of David Eldrige and said that he was a dedicated employee and worked there for many years and then quit the night before he was found
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
David had strong ties and a compact relationship with his immediate family. During the course of the trial, the evidence was presented which seems to clear him:
I can see where this could have the family thinking differently now that they know someone was outside that looked suspicious but the blood spatter on David’s clothes does in fact places him at the scene while Molly was being beat to death so I believe he did do the crime or was there watching her get murdered. So no matter what the family says David is right where he needs to be and that is behind bars with the other murderers and violent crime
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.
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
2 (A). After spending three decades behind bars, DNA evidence proved Cornelius Dupree’s innocence. Dupree was arrested and eventually wrongfully convicted for the robbery of a woman and a man. He was indicted on both the robbery and rape of the woman, but since prosecuting him for the rape would not extend his 75 year sentenced handed down for the robbery, the rape charges were dismissed. DNA testing was not available at the time to exonerate him for the crimes. Even though he was not convicted for the rape, the evidence clearing him of rape, stood for the robbery too, as they were both connected.
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
As juror number one, I had to research why Johnny should, or should not be tried for the murder of Bob Sheldon, the Soc. I also had to research murder among teens and what happened during the killing of Bob Sheldon. During my research, I found that murder was considered a premeditated killing, and I also found that Johnny can only be tried for murder in Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina because of his age. Johnny was planning on saving, Ponyboy Curtis, who at the time was being drowned by David, the Soc Bob had told him to “give Ponyboy a bath.” In trying to save Ponyboy he pulled out his pocket knife and stabbed Bob Sheldon in the back therefore causing David to release Ponyboy and flee the scene. After finding that information I also found that Bob Sheldon and his group of friends had stopped their car on The Greasers side of town and got out to show them a lesson for taking out their girls. ...
...county has presented was the odor of the car smelling like decomposing human body. The media to me made the case seem more one sided that she was guilty right off the bat the prosecutors must of have the same feeling that will lead up to little evidence they will provide in the court room. In my opinion I do think Casey Anthony is guilty on count of murder she was lien to everyone about everything, steal money from friends and family, and still trying to go out partying when she should have been caring for her daughter. There is not one parent that will go thirty plus days without knowing where their only child is. Even though she lied to law enforcement about her daughter where beings have been for the pass month, it was not enough evidence to convict her of murder in the first degree the charges that the county was actually trying to charge against Casey Anthony.
O.J Simpson should have been found guilty due to his violent actions on June 12th, 1994. There were many actions or causes that led up to his violent act. The main and most known cause of Simpson’s act was “infidelity”. Simpson’s wife Nicole Simpson had been spending too much time with a man by the name of Ronald Goldman. When O.J became suspicious, he took immediate action.
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.
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.
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).