Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Patrick Maloney murder
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Patrick Maloney murder
Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Today November 15, 2017, the case of senior police officer Patrick Maloney, who was found murdered in his home October 4, 2017, goes on. After weeks of myself, Alex Wargo, and the prosecuting team putting together evidence, justice will be brought for Patrick Maloney, and his wife, Mary Maloney, will be found guilty of his murder. Starting from the very beginning of the night Mrs.Maloney testified that her and her husband were discussing a “touchy” subject. Although Mrs.Maloney will not confirm the “touchy” subject to the court, a testimony from an unidentified source can fill in the blanks from that conversation. A women came into the police station and told police she was Mr.Maloney’s lover. Is this the conversation Mr. and Mrs.Maloney were having the night he died? Could this be a motive for Mrs.Maloney to murder her husband? Mr.Maloney was killed with a single blow to his head, according to the corner. There was no struggle from Mr.Maloney. However, when police showed up to the Maloney residence, the living room and desk were torn apart. The chair to the desk was knocked over, papers from Mr.Maloney’s desk were scattered all over the floor and over the desk. A small table by the couch was knocked over. Something that caught the attention of investigators was the crime scene itself. If there was no struggle from Mr.Maloney, why would an intruder create one? …show more content…
Tell me this, how does a wife, not know she is killing her husband? Or destroying her living room to make the crime scene look as if there was a struggle, and how does she dispose of the murder weapon by feeding it to her dead husband's co-workers who were there to find out what happened that night? Your answer, she did know. She knew what she had done, and was only trying to save herself from
The blood, hair, and shoe print found at the crime scene were all Anna’s, making it very unlikely someone was there with her when she died. Also, at the scene there was no signs of struggle such as bloody handprints on furniture, or blood trails which would make it less likely to be a homicide. I believe Anna accidentally died by falling down and hitting her head on the table since the table was 41cm tall and had blood on it. The blood spatters on the floor were 10mm, which is the size they make when dropped from 40cm. Once Anna hit the floor, I believe she passed out due to the lack of blood and impact of hitting the floor, later dying of blood loss. I came to this conclusion because accidental is the most reasonable manner of death. There is no struggle, and almost all of the evidence was related to Anna. Also, the table being the cause of her death makes a lot of sense. There is blood on the table and the blood drops fell from the same height as the
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
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.
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).
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.
Sue Grafton once stated: “Except for cases that clearly involve a homicidal maniac, the police like to believe murders are committed by those we know and love, and most of the time they're right.” This is clearly the thought the Boulder Colorado police conceived in the case of little beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey. As many have observed from the onslaught of media coverage, the day after Christmas 1996, six year old Jon Benet Ramsey was found buried under a white blanket, bound, beaten, and strangled to death in the wine cellar of their Boulder home. With such a strikingly rare and glamorous story of a six year old beauty queen dead, who was a part of a “perfect American upper-middle class family”, combined with a lack of a lead and ever mounting suspicion piling up against the parents it was no surprise to find that it was fuel to the media and soon stories sold and became a matter of competition between the press. So, like wildfire, this heart-breaking story spread, stretching across the nation, shattering the souls of the world. News broadcasts, magazine and newspaper articles, and television specials all shaped and molded peoples perceptions of this beautiful child’s murder, especially her parents, John and Pasty Ramsey’s involvement or lack there of. The police and FBI’s merciless quest to connect Jon Benet’s murder to her parents, seemed to cause the them to overlook important evidence, or at the very least dismiss suspicious findings that would otherwise send red flags to investigators. There are many contributors as to why this case remains unsolved including lack of investigative expertise, failure to protect valuable evidence, and focusing too much on the parents as suspects but, ultimately, the over involvement of...
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?
The murder of JonBenet Ramsey has become one of the nation's notorious unsolved murder mysteries. A wide range of crime scene investigators and police officials have searched for clues for JonBenet's killer, but countless authorities have already considered this murder to be one of the most inexplicable cold-cases in America. As the world marks the twenty first year anniversary of the tragic event with still no standing suspects, an abundance of evidence proven through research points to one suspect in particular.
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
This statement led Harrington and McGhee to get arrested and get charged with murder, which led both to go on trial separately. McGhee was sentenced to life in prison based on the testimony, which was given, by Hughes and three other jail inmates, who stated that McGhee had admitted in participating in the murder of Sch...
Mary Maloney was pregnant… Her hormones were all over the place. Patrick Maloney was putting too much pressure on her. By asking for a divorce and treating her really bad. He knew that she was pregnant and still asked for a divorce and was having an affair. He was only going to send money to his kid. Patrick was abusive physically and emotionally.
.... Maloney would leave to be with the other women. This thought though, became a reality for Mary Maloney. Mary Maloney has testified to happening to “stumble across” a will, which mentioned Mary Maloney receiving three quarters of Patrick’s fortune if he were to pass away. Being the wife a detective, Mary Maloney new how to plot a scene. First she would murder Patrick, receive his fortune to care for the unborn child, never have to face him again after he said to her face that he loved another women and had been having affairs with her. Secondly, she would need to dispose of the murder weapon secretly, and create an alibi that would testify for Ms. Maloney. Thirdly, pretend that it was all a dream and that it never happened. Sadly, it was an incredibly easy task for a clever woman such as herself. How is it that money is what shapes our world but also destroys it?
The murder of JonBenet Ramsey has become one of the nation's notorious unsolved murder mysteries. A wide range of crime scene investigators and police officials have searched for clues for JonBenet's killer, but countless authorities have already considered this murder to be one of the most inexplicable cold-cases in America. As the world marks the twenty first year anniversary of the tragic event with still no standing suspects, an abundance of evidence proven through research points to one suspect in particular.
...ing other than a slight sickness. She did everything without thinking.” This last sentence is key, “She did everything without thinking.” This displays that she wasn't thinking at the time of the murder and had no intention to commit murder. Due to the trauma, she could not “think straight”. Thus proving her inability for mind-body coordination.
Today in criminal convictions, it is prevalent and necessary that there is evidence collected in order to hopefully find and put away the people who committed the crimes. Serology is an important factor that allows this to occur. Serology is the study and identification of bodily fluids such as blood salvia and semen in order to proceed in criminal investigations and legal processes. Blood, saliva, and semen can be readily found in sexual assault and homicide cases. In the case of Dennis Maher, serology is something that should have been considered in order to make a conviction. Instead, none of the evidence that was collected was tested to exclude him, and he was put away in jail based on eyewitness identifications. The crimes that occurred in 1983 ended with Dennis Maher, a solider for the United States, being charged and convicted for rape, assault with intent to rape, assault & battery, and aggravated rape in the year of 1984 based on Eyewitness testimony (NEIP, 2011).