“On July 30, 1992, an innocent person was convicted of a heinous crime”. Guy Paul Morin, an ordinary man, was arrested, imprisoned and convicted of first degree murder. The victim was Christine Jessop, a nine-year-old girl from Ontario, Canada. She was found murdered in a field about fifty kilometres from where she lived. Due to the investigation team’s carelessness and tunnel vision, the systematic failure of the justice system, and the poor handling of evidence by the crown there was not only one, but two victims in this case.
Guy Paul Morin, the neighbour of Christine, was a victim of being unjustifiably focused on by the investigating team. In this case police were desperate to solve this horrible, high-profile crime in order to keep the
…show more content…
Justice Fred Kaufman found in his 1997 report on the commission of inquiry into that wrongful conviction. In the Jessop’s original statement they had arrived home at 4:10 p.m. on October. 3, 1984, and Christine was not home. The focus of the police shifted to Morin, who was the Jessop’s neighbour and lived with his parents. The police discovered that Morin left work at 3:32 p.m. that day and could not have made it home before 4:14 p.m. In addition, Morin and his parents stated that he had stopped to pick up groceries on the way home from work, making his arrival time even later. In short, the Jessops were home before he …show more content…
According to Kaufman, "the whole interview process was inappropriately calculated to persuade Ken and Janet Jessop that their earlier times were wrong and to modify those times”. The interview was 150 minutes long and no formal statement was received from them, nor did the officers have any detailed notes to provide. “(One of the investigating officers) admitted that they told the Jessops that their times were wrong," the judge said. The end result was the changing of times by the Jessops. The officers recorded their new arrival time as 4:35 p.m. That opened a window of opportunity for Morin to abduct Christine and commit the crimes. In 1997, the Jessops told Kaufman that they still strongly believe their original time of 4:10 for the inquiry.
The inquiry, written by Fred Kaufman, outlines many unreasonable measures taken by the police and the crown throughout Morin’s trial. A major issue in the case evolved from using jailhouse informants in an attempt to retrieve an in-custody statement from Morin. On April 22, 1985, Morin was taken to Whitby Jail. There he encountered two inmates, Mr. X and Robert May. Both inmates claimed to have overheard a confession made by Morin during their time in jail. They testified for the crown at both trials with this
Background to the Report Mr Samuel Alva Humphrey, dated of birth 29 August 1988, was referred by Ms Amanda McLean, senior principal lawyer, Crown Solicitor's Office, on behalf of the Sex Offenders and Dangerous Offenders Assessment Committee of Queensland Corrective Services. Mr Humphrey was referred for the purpose of a psychiatric risk assessment report to be prepared for that committee's consideration. To this end, Mr Humphrey was interviewed at the Wolston Correctional Centre on 18 June 2015 for an X hour period.
Commonwealth v. Berkowitz (1992) Facts: At East Stroudsburg State University, Robert Berkowitz, age 20, and the victim, age 19, were both college sophomores in the Spring of 1988. Respectively, they had mutual friends and acquaintances. Nevertheless, April 19th of that year, the victim went to Berkowitz dormitory room. What transpired between the two, is the subject of the instant appeal.
Dudley’s statements contained inconsistencies. Further, it led to the belief that Dudley was simply trying to exonerate himself as a witness when giving his statement against Moir. In addition to Dudley, another key witness Mr. Gordon’s statements also had inconsistencies. Gordon claimed that he had given a shovel to Moir prior to Acorn’s death. This may lead the jury to believe that Moir’s involvement in Acorn’s murder was planned and deliberate (para. 27).
During the trial, Sir. John A. MacDonald got up out of his seat and sat next to the judge. Only 1 witness testified to Whelan being upset about McGee’s politics, on the other hand 7 others said that Whelan had no interest in politics. Whelan was extremely calm and standoffish in the trial, he had his feet up on the desk, chomping away at an apple and he laughed hysterically when a police fell onto the floor and at the fact that because the trial was rushed, they brought in the wrong witness. A witness had stated that Whelan had tried to sell his pistol 6 weeks prior to the shooting.
Charged with the rape and murder of Gail Miller, a nursing assistant, David Milgaard was sentenced to life imprisonment on May 30, 1969 – he was only sixteen. Milgaard with his friends Ron Wilson and Nichol John were driving to Vancouver to Albert Cadrain’s house – another one of Milgaard’s friends. Police built a strong case against Milgaard for the murder of Gail’s murder based on several witnesses. Milgaard was convicted for murder due to the evidence and given statements by his friends. Milgaard’s friends first gave their statements and became Milgaard’s alibis but after multiple interrogations changed their statements and one of his friends went as far as saying they even saw Milgaard stab a woman.
Imagine being interrogated about a mundane and orthodox day, one month ago, that you have little recollection of; this was the case with Adnan. Unable to provide sufficient evidence, and with the aid of Jay’s claim to being a witness of the murder, Adnan was arrested shortly
One of the most famous trial in Canadian history is the Paul Bernanrdo and Karla Hamolka case, also both known as “The Ken and Barbie Killers”. Paul Bernardo was born in Canada and he comes from a family where the father beaten the mother constantly. Paul’s father was recognized of child molestation on a young girl and his own daughter. This situation
Knox and Sollecito were quickly called to attend the police station. Interviews became a long, aggressive interrogation consisting of several hours each day being yelled at, physically abused, refused water and threatened with jail time (Injustice, 2016). The result of this was Amanda Knox committing a false confession in which she stated her boss (Diya Lumumba) killed Meredith
One of the main pieces of evidence that prosecutors used against the West Memphis Three relied on the confession given by Jessie Misskelley. This so-called “confession” consisted of a story that placed both Echols and Baldwin at the scene of the crime, included information directly fed to Misskelley, and above all, contained major discrepancies within the story Misskelley provided versus the events that actually took place. During the first recorded confession, Misskelley incorrectly identified the time of the murder more than once, claiming that the “events took place about 9:00 a.m. on May 5” and later “chang[ing] that time to 12:00 noon,” which was still incorrect(). He also mentioned that “[the three boys] had skipped school that day,” when, in fact, they had attended class and were accounted for, along with misidentifying the item used to tie up the boys, claiming the item was rope when it was actually shoelaces that were used(). Misskelley also implied that the victims were raped, though no evidence supported his indication.
As with any criminal case, there are always a number of issues pertaining the stages of the crime and also the media and the general public’s opinion of the case. Many of the issues and explicit actions of certain individuals that had happened during the Corryn Rayney case had affected the interpretation of the case in someway for both government workers and the general public. By analysing the issues of the case, it allows a much more detailed view on the case and how most of the issues are linked in one way or another. One of the issues regarding this case was where a police officer had been found attempting to pressure forensic pathologists to alter their case reports to align with their best interests.
The Case of Michigan Vs Jackson states that Robert Bernard Jackson was convicted of second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder. The people involved with this case are obviously Mr. Jackson, The Chief Justice Mr. Warren E. Burger, Associate Justices were, William J. Brennan, Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John P Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor. Mr Jackson was one of four people in on a spouse’s plan to have her husband murdered on July 12, 1979. Jackson was later arrested on a different charge on July 30, 1979. Jackson made six statements in response to police questioning him prior to his arraignment on August 1.
The eyewitness was Kenny an inmate in prison with Ronald, who unfortunately choked on the stand when questioned about what he knew. So unfortunately for Ronald, Kenny wasn’t his key to being released from prison for the crime he hadn’t committed. Ronald got new lawyers in 1992 A man by the name or Mr. Rich, a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, who was interested in looking into Ronald’s case, Ronald weighed the pros and cons and in the end agreed to let someone else taking a chance at handling his case. It wasn’t until 1994 that the most significant piece of evidence came into play. It was in 1994 that the OJ Simpson case started it was also one of the first instances of DNA being used as evidence in a case.
The 4th Juror presents the “testimony of the policeman who interrogated” the accused and how it in it mentioned that the accused “couldn’t remember a thing about the movies” for his alibi. The 4th Juror explains his views that the accused’ alibi lacked credibility, since in his opinion it would have been effortless to recall the movies that he had watched, whether he had been under emotion strain or not. This piece of information and the 4th Juror’s preconception view prompts the 8th Juror to initiate an interrogation at the 4th Juror to test his judgment. The interrogation was in relation to the 4th Juror’s whereabouts “last night” and the previous nights. This test fulfilled the 4th Juror with realisation that even though he had no emotional strain he was not able to commit to memory the film he saw the other night, known as “The Amazing Mrs Bainbridge”.
Ladies and Gentleman, I stand here today to plead for the attention of all. Today is another day in which justice fails to convict the right person. It pains me to observe, case after case in which no success is made. The justice nowadays is unfair, incorrect and uncertain. Seeing law infringement all around, aches me.
In Trinidad and Tobago the Domestic violence Act chap 45:56 of 1999 defines domestic violence as ‘ physical, sexual, emotional or physiological or financial abuse committed by a person against a spouse, child, any other person who is a member of the household or a dependant.’ This paper will be a review on domestic violence but specifically focusing on domestic violence against women in Trinidad and Tobago, the effects that it has on the victim and family members, the laws pertaining to domestic violence against women and what are some of the avenues and resources that are available to victims. The United Nations defines violence against women as “any act of gender based violence that results in, or is likely to result in physical, sexual or mental harm, or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life.” According to the Head of the Victim and Witness Support Unit of the Police Service Mrs. Margaret Sampson-Browne stated that between the periods