“The oracles of law” as Holmes says it (Holmes, 2006), enables lawyers to predict the consequence, which is all that matters! But, what has to be taken into consideration is the fact that, judges do not decide a case in vacuum. They do not merely ‘apply’ the laws. They might take a technical or non- technical view of the case.
Officials brought in Dr. Charles Smith, a well-known expert in pediatric forensic pathology who had helped them convict many other cases concerning the deaths of young toddlers. The task of conducting the autopsy of the baby fell into Smith’s hands, who gladly accepted the responsibility. Smith was a known to do everything he could to make sure he could convict a person. It didn’t matter what the accusation was or who the defendant was, all he cared about was nailing a sentence onto the shoulders of the many defendants he has trialled against. His reputation of always winning cases intimidated all lawyers.
Synopsis The Glick’s case came to the attention of authority quickly. The state police and Children and Youth were almost immediately involved. The court and the corner were fastly involved as well. It came to their attention the day that the baby was rushed to the hospital.
At the trial, Steven pleaded not guilty for the entire thing, but there were three pieces of evidence securing the conviction. The first piece of evidence, was that Lynne died before 7:45 p.m. This was crucial because Truscott was back on the school grounds at 8pm, so if Harper had died past 8pm, Truscott would have had alibi. Although this evidence was backed up by Dr. Penistan, who had performed Harper's autopsy, and stated that based on the contents of Lynne's stomach, he believed that she died before 7:45 p.m. on the night she disappeared. Even though there were two prior possibilities as to when Harper had died, that would have proven Truscott innocent, the court still accepted this because there was more evidence to consider. The second
Those that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true. The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinions on the matters to which they refer.” On top of this any Forensic tests that Dr Wilson carried out must be documented in a form that is understandable. Another qualified expert must supervise these tests and their qualifications must be also listed. The report that is complied may need ot changed at a later date this might be because of new evidence coming to light or because of questioning that has taken place in the court
Jennifer Brady, an older woman, was under Thomas and Ethel Rogers´s care when she died. ¨...her death was due to the withholding of a restorative drug by a married couple who attended on her and who stood to benefit very substantially by her death.¨(Christie, 239). Mrs. Brady died from the withholding of a drug she needed which is proof that is the Rogers that killed her because they were the ones that were supposed to make sure those things happened. With that and the fact that they would get money if she were to die it is obvious that they are the ones guilty of her death, but the question is, is Ethel also guilty? ¨Mrs.
The suspect who I think left the fingerprint is suspect H. The fingerprint found at the crime scene can be classified as a loop with a delta on the right side. Suspect A, B, and D’s fingerprints are arches, in addition to that, Suspect E, has a whorl fingerprint, thus all are able to be eliminated from being the possible suspects. The suspects left are C, F, G, and H, all of which share the loop characteristics.
The use of the scientific method is something that has traveled the world giving new thoughts towards identifying and implementing the works of the scientific truth. However, its work does not support anything with dealings of the scientific method. In no way, shape form or fashion can any individual identify or discover any forensic information using the scientific method. The newly modified version named, the forensic science method, gathers information secured by investigators which varies from findings at the crime scene to observable proof. The information found provides verification of the witnesses’ story being either the truth or a lie.
INTRODUCTION IN these days when it is impossible to know everything, but becomes necessary for success in any avocation to know something of everything and everything of something, the expert is more and more called upon as a witness both in civil and criminal cases. In these times of specialists, their services are often needed to aid the jury in their investigations of questions of fact relating to subjects with which the ordinary man is not acquainted. Cross-examination is an art form only - occasionally practiced by prosecutors, who instead necessarily focus much of their efforts on direct examination. This is brought on by the prosecution bearing the burden of proof and the simple realities of many criminal trials where the defense may
Again take the case of Ronald Cotton, evidence against him in his case were stretches at best as the best the police could come up with was the fact that the same type of rubber found on Cotton’s was also found in the scenes or the rape. This evidence is flawed because many shoes use the same type of rubber which could lead to just about anybody being charged. Evidence can also be wrongly interpreted by experts as in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham in which courts failed to get a second opinion on the damaged caused by the fire and instead relied on an evaluation by two unreliable fire inspectors (one was a trainee and the other has a record of saying every fire was caused by arson). It is important in a case like this to have a second opinion as the first opinion may be misguided. Is the evidence Identified by a reliable source or by someone who has taken a 40 hour
He remarked that courts should not accept non-pathological criminal incapacity as a defence as there is no difference between non-pathological criminal incapacity resulting from stress or provocation and the defence of sane automatism. If one chose to accept the defence, one must approach with extreme caution. Expert evidence is vital to the defence and the court must take into account what happened before and after the incident. Policy considerations should be referred to rather than legal principles.
Foucault’s motive in Discipline and Punish is to look at the past in order to explain the present condition. Foucault is trying to write History of the present and how it is made possible through contingent and discontinuous historical changes, unlike Hegelian progress of history. The body of the condemned opens with an account of the public torture and execution of the regicide Damien who tried to kill Louis XV in France in 1757. Foucault contrasts with Leon Faucher’s (a liberal French politician for young prisoners of Paris 1838) timetable, the genealogy of punishment from public spectacle to the elimination of such torture in punishment.
Court, someone is going to be guilty or some one is going to be innocent. To prove that the person is guilty or free of charge you have to have evidence. But there are different types of evidence. Is forensic evidence the best type of evidence?