Imagine coming home to find one of your parents or siblings collapsed and passed out on the bathroom floor. Wouldn’t you immediately call 911? Context In this case, Mrs. Verbermockle made the decision to call her family doctor instead of 911 and claimed he was unconscious. Most people would call 911, however Mrs. V finds her husband unconscious on the bathroom floor and calls her family doctor! She said that she had not touched him and had only placed a blanket on his body. The doctor arrives and concluded his death to be from a blunt force trauma to the back of his head. The doctor’s discovery suggests foul play and that perhaps Mrs. Verberbermockle knew about it. Although Mr. Verbermockle’s death may appear to be accidental,it is reasonable to conclude that Mrs. Verbermockle murdered her husband in cold blood because of her suspicious behavior, her false statements, and Mr. V’s violent injury.
Arg 1:
…show more content…
V's testimony is not supported by the evidence.For example she says, “I think he must have been taking a shower and slipped on a cake of soap.” However, the soap was in the wrong place for her testimony to be accurate. In most cases, when people step on a bar of soap, the soap shoots away from the body. Therefore the soap should’ve been somewhere across the bathroom, Not right at the base of the shower. Had he slipped on the bar of soap, his body would have fallen back into the shower, not in front of the sink. Pursuant to the evidence, He was found with his toothbrush in his hand, so he was brushing his teeth, not taking a shower As Mrs. V stated. Further examination suggests that his body isn’t even wet and “his” towel is dry and unused on the towel rack. His wet hair may have been staged to make us believe that he had been in the shower. If he had been showering “his” towel would be wet and messed up, and his body would be wet as well. Given all this evidence there is no reason to believe that Mrs. Verbermockle could be telling the
This case was categorized under the criminal law, as the defendant had to go against the Crown. As for the actual case, the incident first came to attention when a 911 call was made from Godoy’s apartment, which was suddenly cut short before the caller was able to be identified. Despite this, a total of four officers headed to the apartment to confirm any suspicions and to question the resident of the apartment, which was found to be Godoy. As the officers arrived and requested access to Godoy’s apartment, a feminine cry was heard inside. It was this time that Godoy was attempting to close the door on the officers to avoid investigation, but as the officers’ suspicious grew stronger, they forced themselves into the apartment, despite Godoy’s
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.
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.
When Mathews heard Clinton begin to yell and hurt Donna through the phone, he called the police. When the police arrived, they noted the disheveled state of the house and the accused’s head injury. Note that, according to Dr. Kim Lenore, a BWS expert, the accused was at the fourth stage of BWS, in which the woman has already realized that she is not at fault for the abuse she is receiving and begins to realize that there is a way out and that she can find it. At this point, however, the defendant lied to the patrol officer and claimed that her injuries resulted from a fall. Dr. Lynn Johnson, Yale Law professor and psychology expert, agrees that this “excuse … is characteristic of the guilt stage. The defense can’t have it both ways.” If Donna had really been undergoing BWS in the way that she and the defense’s expert witness, Dr. Lenore, had claimed, she would’ve had no qualms against telling the police the truth and having Clinton arrested for domestic abuse. She didn’t do this because she had already planned her own way
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
The novel Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer has a very in-depth conflict that is showcased all throughout the novel. In Theo's community, there is a high-profile murder trial about to begin. Mr. Pete Duffy, a wealthy business man, is accused of murdering his wife Myra Duffy. The prosecutors have the idea that Mr. Duffy did it for the one million dollar insurance policy he took out on his wife earlier, however they have no proof to support this accusation (Grisham 53). The defendants do however have the proof that no one saw the murder, for all everyone knew, Mr. Duffy was playing his daily round of golf at the golf course right by his house. As the trial moved on, the jury was starting to lean towards letting Mr. Duffy walk a free man. To this point, there has been no proof to support the prosecutors statements that Mr. Duffy killed h...
Her body had been bathed and thoroughly washed before being placed, it was also completely drained of blood [2]. Two detectives were assigned to the case: Harry Hanson and Finis Brown. 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 in hopes of good evidence. 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.
First, let's examine the facts of this "case." But what, you might wonder, qualifies as a provable fact? For this story, we will assume that any claim made by the narrator that could be backed up by an eye-witness is true. Thus, we know that when Cal enters George's house the night of the murder, George's wife, also in the house, observes them as they drink whiskey. She sees George swell into anger and break two chairs. She also views George as he grabs his shotgun and heads off to Harvey's with Cal. Consequently, in the next few days, she, an eyewitness to the events in her home, goes around, "telling every one that her husband and Cal Long were going to kill someone" (5). Moreover, we know that Harvey Groves is in fact murdered--since his body is found by someone--however, we don't know much about the occurrence of his murder since no outside witness observes the murder--unless, of course, the observer is involved in the murder.
To conclude, despite all the possibilities and other theories of Mrs. Maloney committing the crime out of anger or severe frustration towards Mr. Maloney, there is no credible way to prove it. Mrs. Maloney simply killed her husband as a result of mental anguish, self defense and trauma inflicted upon her. Mrs. Maloney did not plan to kill her husband. She was simply a victim of her situation and could not control her actions. Mrs. Maloney should not be spending time in jail, but safe at home grieving the loss of her husband.
Kathleen Weiand shot and killed her husband Todd. At trial, Kathleen’s defense was BWS; because of Todd’s abuse, she had no choice but to kill him, fearing that if she did not, he would eventually kill her. Defense expert Dr. Len...
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?
I, Hildegard Hedwig Steinberger, a resident of the State of Georgia, make, publish and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament, revoking all wills and codicils at any time heretofore made by me.
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).
Kneeling on my apartment floor, I held the phone up against my ear and frantically cried for help. She laid in a puddle of blood with one of her wrists slit open. I screamed her name and begged her to stay awake. The paramedics barged through the door and lifted her on the gurney, while I remained on the floor in a complete state of shock. My roommate had just tried to end her life. Police officers bombarded me with questions, but I struggled to answer them because all I could do was continuously replay the event in my head. After I finally managed to explain my side of the story to the authorities, one of the officers accompanied me to the hospital where I sat by my roommate’s side awaiting her parents’ arrival.
While reading the case about Mr.Hossack 's murder i saw the wife, Mrs.Hossack, as innocent at first. The children all claimed that the two did not argue for over a year, so why would she kill him now verses a year ago? When the youngest child, Ivan Hossack, came to the stand and "told his story in a straight, unhesitating manner" it made it easier for me to believe in Mrs. Hossack 's innocence. The child even said that he saw his mother aiding his father when he called out for help. If she had been the one to swing the axe, why would she help him and risk getting in trouble? Most importantly, if he was conscious and talking, why wouldn 't he say who to murderer was? He could have easily identified his wife in the dark after being married for over twenty years, and yet he didn 't identify who had tried to kill him. Dr. Dean first stated that the axe did not hit the speech portion of the brain, so he could have been conscious and yelling out for his wife. Dean later stated that the fatal blow from the axe would have left Mr.Hossack unconscious. The murder weapon had blood on in and apparent hairs stuck to one side; "Prof. John L. Tilton of Simpson college... was unable to say definitely that the hair had been