Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
False Confessions and Miscarriages of Justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: False Confessions and Miscarriages of Justice
After reading the various statements of what happened it seems Tajomaru 's testimony was the most accurate and he is the most probable to have perpetrated the murder. In the different testimonies offered the information given seemed to indicate him. In comparing the stories, Tajomaru 's confession seemed to most line up with the description given by the woodcutter. There was also inconsistencies with the other testimonies presented by the other two suspects in the proceedings. Also the policeman 's testimony pointed to Tajomaru as the murder. In Tajomaru 's confession he mentioned several things that lined up with the account given by the woodcutter. The place were the murder was committed, in a grove of bamboo and cedar trees. That he fought a sword duel with the victim thus trampling the …show more content…
The woodcutter had mentioned the trampled grass and bamboo leaves in his account saying it looked like there had been a fight. In addition to this, Tajomaru mentions he had killed the victim in a sword fight. This lines up with the wound the woodcutter said he saw on the body [a sword-stroke wound]. Also there was the piece of rope the woodcutter saw which the murder said he had used to tie his victim up with. Moreover, Tajomaru also gives a plausible reason for why he killed the victim, which was his desire for the victims spouse. Finally he even admits to the murder himself, opening himself up to the punishment and defacement to his honor for the crime. There is no reason for him to do this given in the story other than he is responsibly for the murder. The other statements given by the wife of the victim as well as the victim himself through a medium had parts that did not fit the woodcutter 's testimony. In the wife 's story she claimed that she stabbed her husband in the chest with her small sword but this wound not have created the wound that
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 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?
Tragically, the butchered upper-torso of Winter’s once-robust body was stumbled upon by his father, who had noticed the absence of his son since Sunday, March 11 (Smith 2002, 25-26). Unsurprisingly, an investigation occurred to obtain the identity and whereabouts of the murderer. When the various pieces of the body are found in differing areas of the town, theory begins to formulate that the murder was conducted by one of the two butchers in town; Adolph Lewy, a Jew, and Gustav Hoffman, a Christian, due to the precision of the cuts made upon Winter’s body (Smith 28).
...id that he was drowning Ponyboy and that Johnny had only pulled out the knife for self defense. I got this evidence from chapters 6 through 8.
... there might have been enough evidence to find him innocent. Through reading the book, it was clear that the jury was going to convict him and almost certainly it was based on race. The prejudice and racism that was so clearly seen not only in the novel, but also in historical context, was so great that Kabuo never stood a chance of getting a fair jury trial. That is he never would have been acquitted of the crime had the Judge have not dismissed the jury in light of evidence, both physical and written, turned up by Ishmael that all but proved Kabuo's story and innocence.
Others may believe the narrator/caretaker form “The Tell-Tale Heart” is the most unreliable because he had killed very violently for no reason. In “The Tell-Tale Heart”, the narrator says, “I cut off the head and the arms and the legs….There was nothing to wash out- no stain of any kind- no blood spot whatever. I had been too wary for that. A tub had caught all-ha! ha!” (Poe 3). The belief that the narrator in “The Tell-Tale Heart” is the most unreliable is incorrect. The narrator in “The Tell-Tale Heart” had killed very violently for a reason while, in “Strawberry Spring”, the narrator describes the murders, “But Springheel Jack killed her just the same, going unerringly for one of our own. The false spring, the lying spring, aided and abetted him - he killed her and left her propped behind the wheel of her 1964 Dodge to be found the next morning and they found part of her in the back seat and part of her in the trunk. And written in blood on the windshield - this time fact instead of rumour - were two words: HA! HA!” (King 4). The narrator in “Strawberry Spring” was violent for no reason. The narrator in “The Tell-Tale Heart” was violent because he was trying to not get caught after he killed the old man. There are huge reasons for why they were violent and the other narrator in “The Tell-Tale
The sentencing of underage criminals has remained a logistical and moral issue in the world for a very long time. The issue is brought to our perspective in the documentary Making a Murderer and the audio podcast Serial. When trying to overcome this issue, we ask ourselves, “When should juveniles receive life sentences?” or “Should young inmates be housed with adults?” or “Was the Supreme Court right to make it illegal to sentence a minor to death?”. There are multiple answers to these questions, and it’s necessary to either take a moral or logical approach to the problem.
...o prove his innocence. The jury followed their emotions and the lead of the counselor to do their patriotic duty. During the early 1940’s, over 110,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans experienced the same feeling as Kabou when they were treated as criminals and endured imprisonment, not for any crime they committed, but solely as a result of their heritage.
After looking at all the evidence and how the mystery really unfolded, Joseph Mumfre is the first and only realistic suspect we will look at. The evidence thus far all points to him, and it is not a coincidence that the murders stopped after Mumfre was shot dead. Mumfre was in and out of jail, all during the course of the killings, and all the evidence, including the police, frame Mumfre for being the axeman. Now we will look into more of what the evidence shows and look at more of an
In “The Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Cask of the Amontillado’ Montresor and the unknown narrator are both murders through their confessions they reveal both their similarities and differences. The unknown narrator is trying to convince the auditor of his sanity while Montresor is attempting to convince the auditor of justifiable revenge. It is through these confessions they are trying to convince the auditor of their humanity and of their innocence through the justification of these horrible acts (Dern 53).
The woodsman immediately traverses to Tintagel to notify the king that he sighted the lovers in a hut in Morois. King Mark reminds the woodsman that he will earn gold and silver. Afterwards, King Mark saddles his horse, leaves the city, and reminisces the moment he peered Tristan under the pine-tree. The woodsman leads the way to the couple as King Mark follows. King Mark distinguishes the sword positioned between Tristan and Iseult, comprehending the sword as peace. Instead of murdering Tristan and Iseult, the king places his gloves inside a resplendent crack, exchanges Tristan's sword with his own sword, and swaps Iseult's ring with his own, displaying that he arrivedin peace. Tristan and Iseult wake up in trepidation, thinking erroneously that the king would soon return and burn them. Together, Tristan and Iseult flee to
Upon his return home, Macbeth and his Lady decided upon a course of action that was dastardly and by no means legitimate. The terrible twosome prepared to assassinate their good King Duncan, in order to clear the way for Macbeth to take the throne. On his way to Duncan’s chambers, Macbeth is visited by a hallucination of a bloody dagger, floating in the air before his eyes. This leaves him shaken, questioni...
According to the Oxford Dictionary; a serial killer is a person who commits a series of murders, often with no apparent motive and typically following a characteristic, predictable behavior pattern. They usually go through a cooling down period where there are no murders. Then start the killing spree back up again after the cooling down period. The killing spree usually doesn’t last more than a couple of years without the murderer being caught. And there is usually a victim type and killing style which leads to the killer being identified. This is the definition of a serial killer so why is it so commonly believed that this is a male dominated area. “However, if, as seems to be the case in many countries, the only
Murder is considered a serious crime in our country. The loosely defined term of murder implies that a person who kills another human being with intent is known as being the worst kind of violent crime we see in our society. Any unlawful killing requires that a living person be killed and it does not mean that the guilty person feels any hatred or spite in order to plan and execute the act of murder. Moreover, the destructive acts that end peoples lives are classified as homicides which include manslaughter and first and second degree murder. More important, the justice system has put different labels on such crimes, but it also allows room for criminals to get away with murder.
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.