As the three witnesses claim what happened, it proves that all evidence points to James King who is guilty of Alguinaldo Nesbit’s murder. The testimony of Bobo Evans shows how James King was the one that pulled the gun from Mr.Nesbit’s hands and pulled the trigger. Lorelle Henry’s testify shows that she was a witness of James arguing with him at the counter before the gun was pulled out. The testimony of Osvaldo Cruz proves that James had one of the men planning the whole robbery from the starts and every one who was a part of it knew that he was going to be there in the store. Evidence shows that James King did not try to hide the trail of known fact of him being there at the robbery because of the number of people that had known that he
was going to be right there, and bringing Dorothy was no help when the other witnesses could say and prove that he was there that day. Now he has to face the crime and pay the time of taking a man’s life, a man that had a family and friends that loved him so much and grieve that he couldn’t have died a safer and better way.
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
In order for the us, the jury, to agree with the prosecutors, they brought witnesses to the stand. Jacinta Waruiru was the first be called to the stand. She was a witness to the vicious Mau Mau attack. She told us that her family was a loyalist to the British. She was Chief Luka Wa Kahangara’s wife. Mrs. Waruiru told us about the day she and her family were attacked. She told us that the Mau Mau came to her house and killed thirteen members of her family. They killed her husband first and her housewives and their husbands housewives too. While running with a child in her arms, the Mau Mau shot her in the leg, head, and back. At that time she dropped the child, and he/she got shot while on the ground. As Mrs. Jacinta was seeking shelter behind a tree she saw her family get tortured and killed by the Mau Mau. Also she told us that all of her cattle were killed, her family’s house was burned down, and her husband’s body was cut up into pieces by the Mau Mau. The Prosecution also brought Ian Henderson to the stand, a colonial police officer. He was responsible for the capture of the Mau Mau leader, Dedan Kimathi. He came up to the stand and told us about how all he wanted was peace in Kenya. He said that since the Mau Mau have been in Kenya, it had become more tense. Prosecution also brought Evelyn Baring to the stand. he was the governor of Kenya. He told us
The Army CID sent a new, inexperienced investigator named William Ivory to investigate the scene. Ivory decided after looking around the house that MacDonald made up the story of the killers. He also persuaded everyone that he was the culprit. This meant that everyone in Ivory’s chain...
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
We were presented with many facts that all pointed to Mr. Washburn as the murder. In the house all of the entrances were thoroughly inspected by authorities, and they found no sign of ransacking. “[They] examined all the locking mechanisms, all the doors and windows. In [their] opinion there was no evidence of any forced entry” (P.81). When police looked for fingerprints, “They were all of the Washburn family and the maid” (P.81). There was no trace of an outside party; somebody usually in the Washburn house committed the murder. While in the living room, an officer found a drop of blood. The evidence technician was called the next night to run some tests. “He sprayed the living room carpet with luminol. It is a luminous spray, and when it comes in contact with blood it illuminates” (P.82). To both men’s surprise the whole living room was illuminating. After spraying further the men found a trail from the living room through the kitchen to the garage. In the closet the men found a wet mop, which was tested for blood and also came back positive. Somebody tried to clean his or her bloody mess, and try to save himself. The physical evidence proves the killer was somebody who was familiar to the Washburn household.
In June of 1998, a sadistic murder of a middle-aged black man from Jasper, Texas, rekindled memories of lynching practices from the blood stained American past. James Byrd, Jr., 49, was beaten savagely to the point of unconsciousness, chained to the back of a pickup truck by his neck, and dragged for miles over rural roads outside the town of Jasper. It is believed that Byrd survived through most of this experience, that is, until he was decapitated. Three white men, John William King, 23, Shawn Berry, 23, (both of whom had links to white supremacist groups) and Lawrence Brewer Jr., 31, were arrested. Brewer and King were sentenced to death for a racial hate crime that shocked the nation. Berry was sent to prison for life.
She was also given an extensive amount of time viewing the lineup physically and was for the most part hesitant until she pointed out Ronald cotton. In her mind after finally coming to the conclusion that Ronald was her rapist, his face began to become a lot clearer in her head as her rapist and she gained much more confidence in her decision. I took a course in Memory and Eyewitness Testimony and one of the cases we studied in the class was the Ronald cotton case. I found it interesting that Benforado and my other professor Dr. Hildy Schilling both said that in most cases no one is trying to set no one up, they truly do have the intention to catch the
In order to reasonably deduce who the murderer is we first need to use economic reasoning to understand who it is not. Spearman manages to use the economic concept of game theory to explain why two of the most incentivized characters in the novel and the confessors of the crimes, Ricky LeMans and Vernon Harbley, indeed admit to a crime they never actually commit. Game theory as explained by Eric P. Chiang in CoreMicreconomics is, “the study of strategy and strategic behavior and is used in any situation in which one must predict the actions of others and respond by choosing among more than one strategy, each resulting in a potentially
The court must find more evidence and not to depend on eyewitness testimony and to look for the best people as possible. Besides, there more evidence that DNA testing. Eyewitness must be proven in order to arrest the right suspect and question the suspect to get more evidence in steady of keeping in prison for false witness. The police for tracking everywhere the suspect went and people the suspect contact with that time. It will solve the problem by asking the eyewitness question and the suspect questions to see if both things they said
“The trial was brought to a speedy conclusion. Not only did Judge Evans find the twelve guilty, fine them $100 each, and committed them to jail, but five people in the courtroom who had served as witnesses for the defense arrested. […] The police were then instructed to transfer the seventeen prisoners that night to the county jail”(30).
The evidence discovered during the investigation suggested to the police that OJ Simpson may have had something to do with this murder and they obtained an arrest warrant. The investigators believed that they “knew” OJ Simpson committed the murders. His lawyers and him were informed of the arrest warrant and agreed to a specified time when OJ would turn himself into authorities. Investigators are later admonished, by the defense, on how they handled the crime scene.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
She asked him if he could bust some chifferrobe for a nickel. Miss Ewell tells us how the niggro un asked folod her into the house. Before she had the time to react he had run up behind he and got her done on the floor. Traning to fight back she did not stand a chans because he had her round the neck while repiteling hitting her. Miss Ewell sade he had choked her and the took advantage of her. Her story end there sins she can not recole what happened next, all she remembers is Mr. Tate pulling her of the floor. She is surten of him raping her.
Today is the last day of the trial. We have heard all of the witnesses and now we know that we must deliberate. I know that some of the “witnesses” are liars. Some make valid points and I know without a doubt in my mind that Captain Preston is an innocent man and that his men were provoked. As I listened to the witnesses, here is what I came to believe:
Miller remembered the night of the murder after spending 2 weeks with the internal fairs department in the court room, and the testimony of 3 sworn witnesses, one of which was Ms. Miller who claimed that she saw Officer Woods and his partner pull over the Adams and Harris. She is the real reason that Adams was convicted because of her claim of saying that Adams was the man that had shot Officer Woods because she saw him in the driver's seat. Her and her husband make claims that they heard some sort of fire crackers but realized it was gun shots as they were from a distance. Morris uses more reenactments of the shooting and you can see as the camera rolls you see a driver in the driver seat but you can't really make out who it is besides that he has a mustache and the driver window rolling down but the screen goes black as soon as you hear gun shots. We later find out that Miller made claims that she was leaving the gas station where she worked early but was released that she was fired 2 weeks prior from the gas station. But the real reason they were speaking to the police was because there was a knife fight at her apartment and was booked for being drunk and disorderly. Morris shows a newspaper that offers a $21,000 reward for the conviction of the murder. Morris interviews a lady that made claims of talking to Millers husband saying that he hadn't seen a damn thing and that he was pondering the