Explain Why Did Lieutenant Jimmy Cross Accept The Blame For Ted Lavender's Death

George Hodel and was believed to be The Black Dahlia killer. In the coming years a retired LAPD detective named Steve Hodel became curious after finding a picture of a girl he’d believed was Elizabeth Short among the keepings of his father Dr. George Hodel (Pruitt). In fact, Steve came to believe that his father used his medical expertise to kill and disfigure Short and other victims before fleeing to Asia in the 1950s (Pruitt). Finally, While searching for evidence on Dr. George Hill Hodel’s house where they used they used a police dog named Buster with a great sense of smell and Buster detected the scent of human decomposition in many areas of his father 's basement (Black Dahlia). The most convincing evidence is an old recording of a conversation between Hodel and an unknown person which Hodel states “ Supposin I did kill the Black Dahlia.

“The nature of what he did, and how he left my brother’s body in a cane field for rodents to eat at him,” said Cynthia Barabin, sister of victim Chris Deville. “When we found him he was nothing. Nothing … We had to bury bones.” Dominique 's lawyer Richard Goorley said it was whether his client would ever stand trial in any of those cases. “Hopefully, they will realise that when someone gets sentenced to eight consecutive life sentences, there 's no chance of them ever getting out and any further pursuit of any other charges will be a complete waste of taxpayers ' money,” Mr Goorley said.

In the story “Killings” written by Andre Dubus Matt Fowlers son is killed by Richard Strout. Matt Fowler feels that his actions are justified for killing Richard. Matt Fowlers actions do not make him a bad person. In the story “Killings” when Matt kills Richard for killing his son he feels no remorse. Matt does not feel guilty for killing Richard and he shouldn’t him and his wife need peace of mind and they could not have it with the man that killed their son just walking around town.

So, the message Kurt Vonnegut is showing the reader, is that a society should not glorify war. Thus saying that the killing of innocent civilians is more important than, going to war and not gaining anything. To conclude, Kurt vonnegut uses the theme of war in Slaughterhouse five to show how war has been glorified by the society in which Billy lived in. The glorification of war then led into the bloodshed of many innocent live.

He found the men who killed them, but to make sure it was them he asked where the girls were. One of them replied with, “The girls? We sacrificed them to the Water spirit, sir… They cried and carried on like crazy” (36). In this scene those men did not seem to think it was a big deal to sacrifice three innocent girls.

So, the use of the bombs was unjust because innocent people, who had no part in the war,

This account almost certainly came from Butler himself as there were no reported witnesses. Both men killed in the “sad affair” were commended by the newspaper which did not speculate as to cause of the conflict: Twiggs was “a gentleman and a soldier of the highest and most irreproachable character” and Robert Jr. “gave promise of a most useful and honorable manhood.” An obituary for Robert Butler Jr. would provide no detail describing the “unhappy combat” which cost him his life. Twiggs’s obituary would allude to him dying in defense of his

In addition, the fact Guiteau was said to have bought a .44 British Bulldog specifically for the crime he was planning on committing. He know what he was doing was wrong, especially when he borrowed money to buy the gun. Last, Guiteau was found with two letters that he had on him, explaining his plan on the attack. In Guiteau’s letter it said, “I presume the President was a Christian, and that he will be happier in Paradise than here. It will be no worse for Mrs. Garfield, dear soul, to part with her husband this way than by natural death.

Tom never caused

We know that this is not true. We know that Abel was actually assassinated by the government after a botched mission that involved getting tree cuttings from a museum. The government

Jackson kicked the Indians off their land even though the Supreme Court didn’t allow him to. The land that the Indians were on belonged to them and Jackson without acknowledging the court’s ruling to not to take it took it anyways. Jackson kicked the Indians off their land even though the Supreme Court didn’t allow him to. The land that the Indians were on belonged to them and Jackson without acknowledging the court’s ruling to not to take it took it anyways. In the final paragraph it states why he shouldn’t be should be on the $20 bill because he killed innocent Indians.

After the attack, Boo gently carried Jem to Atticus so that Dr. Reynolds could take a look at him. At first, Atticus thought that Jem had killed Mr. Ewell, but Mr. Tate insisted that he fell on his knife. As they were arguing, Atticus realised that Boo had killed Mr. Ewell. Atticus and Mr. Tate knew that Boo would be killed if the town found out that he had killed Bob Ewell, and so they agreed that Mr. Ewell fell on his knife. When Atticus asked Scout if she understood the situation, she said “...

Even though jack never directly kills anyone by himself, he has been in a group that beat someone to death, he had one of his hunters kill piggy, and he tried to stab ralph. Did Osama bin Laden do 9/11? Most people would say yes because he sent the martyrs to fly the planes in to the buildings, the pentagon, and the white house. This is the same reason jack is considered a killer. He turned Roger to his side and planted the idea into his head that piggy and ralph needed to die.

Even if those claims made by Calley about the massacre were incorrect, since international law and the military code of conduct expressly forbade the killing of civilians, it was still the responsibility of the chain of command to ensure that Calley knew those policies. (Bodenner) It said that by covering up the deaths of all but 20 civilians, but the officers hid a much greater war crime. The commissioner did not learn what Seymour Hersh discovered later; U.S. officers in South Vietnam destroyed papers describing the massacre.

In Campbell Robertson’s New York Times article, “Charges Filed in Katrina Inquiry”, he talks about the killing of six innocent civilians. According to documents the civilians were walking, unarmed, over a bridge to get food and visit family members, when they were shot at by officers. When Lieutenant Lohman arrived at the scene he concluded that “the shooting was ‘legally unjustified’” and they started the cover up (Robertson). In this situation the police uses their powers to cover-up their wrongdoings so they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. Robertson’s article also claims that there are other similar situations, for example a man found burned by police to hide evidence.