It's a warm summer night in Aruba. 18 year old Natalee Holloway was out with friends, celebrating their recent high school graduation. At about 1 am Holloway's friends see her leave in a grey Honda, with 17 year old Joran Van Der Sloot, and his friends. No one thought this would be the last time they saw Natalee Holloway. It's clear that Joran Van Der Sloot is to blame for the murder of the blonde haired, blue eyed Natalee Holloway. There are two pieces of evidence that supports the accusation made against Van Der Sloot. The first piece of evidence is the witnesses testimony. The second piece of evidence is Van Der Sloot's different "confessions" and the changes in them.
The first piece of evidence that supports the accusation made against
Van Der Sloot is the witnesses testimony. This first piece of evidence was provided by Juries De Jong, who claims to be an eye witness. Jurrien De Jong told Inside Edition that he saw "Joran Van Der Sloot, the primary suspect in Holloway's disappearance, chased her into a small building under construction."(Carol Robinson). The piece of evidence stated above shows Van Der Sloot acted aggressively towards Holloway, giving clear reason to believe he could be responsible for Holloway's murder. The next piece of evidence, also provided by Juries De Jong stated that he saw Van Der Sloot reemerge from the building with Holloway in his arms, slammed her body on the floor then made an opening in a crawl space, "I knew she was dead." (Carol Robinson). The piece of evidence stated above gives proof that a claimed to be eye witness, did witness Van Der Sloot murder Natalee Holloway. These two pieces of evidence provided by Jurrien De Jong, show proof that Van Der Sloot in responsible for Natalee Holloway's murder. The second piece of evidence that supports the accusation made against Van Der Sloot is Van Der Sloot's different "confessions" and the changes in them. His first confession was the Van Der that he dropped Holloway off alone at her hotel. Then he later changed his story, and said he was dropped off with Holloway at the beach, and left her alone (at her request) which he regretted. This piece of evidence proves that Van Der Sloot lied about dropping Holloway off at her hotel, because after examining video from the hotel that night Holloway never showed up. Van Der Sloot's second confession (which was taken in a video with out his knowledge) stated that while him and Holloway were intimate on the beach she had some type of a seizure, he didn't call paramedics. He called his friend Duary, who and offered to load her on a boat and dump her body in the sea. The prosecutor declared the video admissible. This piece of evidence shows that Van Der Sloot changed his story, and that he had an accomplice. These two pieces of evidence, provided by Van Der Sloot show proof that Van Der Sloot is responsible for Natalee Holloway's murder. In conclusion, after analyzing these two pieces of evidence It's clear that Joran Van Der Sloot is to blame for the murder of the blonde haired, blue eyed Natalee Holloway. There are two pieces of evidence that supports the accusation made against Van Der Sloot. The first piece of evidence is the witnesses testimony. The second piece of evidence is Van Der Sloot's different "confessions" and the changes in them.
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.
Not only is Jay’s story inconsistent, therefore, but it also does not fully support the prosecution’s narrative, timeline, or physical evidence.
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.
No one ever knows who is telling the truth. It is difficult because of the evidence needed to convict someone along with taking long periods of time to properly, or not so much, evaluate the case. [5] Allison wanted to pursue a case, as a result of her wanting to go through with the case her lawyer told her to "prepare for the hardest, nasties fight of your life." (34) This is not a comforting thing to hear when every time Allison returns to her home town she realizes "I 'm mad at myself for not reporting the situation." (35) The question then becomes to do nothing and try to forget what happened, or to seek justice? Either battle is difficult but it turns into what that person can stand. In this case for Allison she reported it to the police station and although unsure at first she later continued to make a case out of it. She decided to fight this battle not only for herself but for justice for others as well. Her rape kit was still available, she still had proof that Beau had admitted to raping her. That was evidence but even so the case was to be
A woman was raped at Central Park and was found unconscious. She recovered quickly after the incident but could not recall what happened on that day. On the same day that woman was raped all five teenagers were there but were at the opposite direction of where the rape incident happened. They were brought in by the police to be questioned and were asked about the incident. The police were interrogating the teenagers and yelled at their faces because they were getting frustrated that they were not getting the answers that they wanted to hear from them. The teenagers were getting tired from being questioned for about two days on something they knew nothing about and wanted to just get out of the place. The police told them to say certain things and told them things that they wanted to hear, which led to the teenagers believing that if they said what the police told them to say then they could leave. They ended up confessing to raping the woman on video and paper and that led to their arrest. Though there were no actual evidence proving they were there at the scene, it did not matter because the police just wanted the confessions, which was their goal from the
Throughout the trial, there were multiple points in which Bibbins had false accusations thrown against him from the victim and the law enforcement of Baton Rouge. The victim clearly misidentifies her rapist and clearly is distraught while identifying, "The victim's initial description of the attacker was a man with long and curly hair, wearing jeans. Bibbins was wearing grey shorts and had short, cropped hair at the time" (Innocent Project). As with false accusations there were multiple occasions in which evidence proving Bibbins innocence were not present during the trial. Baton Rouge police had discarded evidence from the crime, "The allegations of evidence tampering gained credibility in 2003 when DNA testing unavailable at the time of Bibbins' trial excluded him as the girl's rapist" (Sherrer). Eventually Bibbins is able to use this information of evidence tampering to help strengthen his case against the city of Baton
The Greenland Natives were killed around 1000 A.D and many assumed that Leif Erikson was the murder. However, the time that this occurred Erikson was around the age of 8. How could an 8 year old kill all those natives? The answer is that he didn’t kill them, his father did. Erik the red was Leif’s father and the culprit of the Greenland Native’s deaths. Some people may have associated Leif with his father or just thought Leif did it all. But according to Saga Of Erik The Red, c. 1000 Red did it all.
A class trip to Aruba should be an unforgettable experience, something that the students will never forget. However, for class of 2005 at Mountain Brook High School, it will be memorable for all the wrong reasons. Natalee Ann Holloway was both blonde and beautiful. She was also very friendly and well known in her hometown. The class trip was supposed to be the best time of their life for some students, but it was also the end for another. May 29, 2005, seemed like an ordinary day of fun in the sun. “Holloway and a large group of students went to Carlos 'N Charlie's Nightclub in Oranjestad, Aruba,” (Federal Bureau of Investigation). After Carlos 'N Charlie's closed around 1:00 A.M. some students headed back to the Holiday Inn where they were staying, and others gathered at various area bars (Federal Bureau of Investigation). While these bars seemed like a very ordinary and fun place to hangout, predators lurked there.
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?
Jay describes his active-involvement with Adnan in the crime. If Jay tells us the truth, he brings Adnan to school, holds onto Adnan’s cellphone and car so he could pick Adnan up when Adnan calls; picks Adnan up after he committed the murder, cruises around with Adnan, and brings Adnan to track practice. Additionally, Jay cruises around with Adnan in the afternoon, accompanies Adnan to LeakIn park and aids Adnan in digging the hole to bury Hae. Which criminal incriminates oneself? When Jay speaks about picking up Adnan he says: “I noticed that Hae wasn't with him. I parked next to him. He asked me to get out the car. I get out the car. He asks me, am I ready for this? And I say, ready for what? And he takes the keys. He opens the trunk. And all I can see is Hae's lips are all blue, and she's pretzeled up in the back of the trunk. And she's dead.” Jay goes to pick up Adnan from the actual murder and describes the episode in detail. Jay uses short sentences for dramatic effect, and speaks confidently, which is unusual when incriminating
The case of Joseph Vacher was as well-known, more deadly, and even compared to, the murders committed by “Jack the Ripper” so much so that Vacher even screamed that he was “Joseph the Ripper”. This murder, whose identity was unknown at the time, left a trail of terror where ever he went, his capture became a career making opportunity for the investigating magistrates. After Vacher was captured a new branch of criminal interrogation was used to try to incriminate him in the murders that it was believed he had done. The major breakthrough in criminology came in the form of the methods that lead to his capture and identification.
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
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.
For example, according to a CNN article entitled,” 'Blue-eyed butcher ' sentenced to 20 years,” “A medical examiner testified he was able to count 193 wounds on the body, with the actual number of stab wounds well in excess of that” (Jakobsson, 2010, para. 6). Pictures were also presented to the jury to show the disfigured body. Another piece of evidence leading to the conviction of Susan Wright was the autopsy done that showed drugs in Wright’s system. The author of CNN stated, “They also suggested she may have drugged him with gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, known as the "date-rape drug," low levels of which were found in Jeffrey Wright 's system” (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 10). One last conclusive piece of visual evidence was the presence of two of Jeffrey’s ex-girlfriends. “Misty McMichael testified Wright beat her repeatedly during their two-year relationship and tried to control her every move” (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 13). McMichael also claimed that Wright had pushed her down the stairs 104 times and at one point even locked her in a room (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 14). This evidence was in favor of Susan Wright. The impact of this visual evidence was significant in many ways. Evidence is proof and proof cannot be made up, only misinterpreted. Therefore, the excessive amount of stab wounds found on Wright’s body along with the drugs found in his system was
Forensic evidence can provide just outcomes in criminal matters. However, it is not yet an exact science as it can be flawed. It can be misrepresented through the reliability of the evidence, through nonstandard guidelines, and through public perception. Forensic science can be dangerously faulty without focus on the ‘science’ aspect. It can at times be just matching patterns based on an individual’s interpretations. This can lead to a miscarriage of justice and forever alter a person’s life due to a perceived “grey area” (Merritt C, 2010) resulting in a loss of confidence in the reliability of forensic evidence.