James Hanratty Evidence

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.

In July 1984 Jennifer Thompson, a 22-year old white woman, was raped by a black man in her apartment. A man named Ronald Cotton was arrested and identified by Thompson in a line-up and a phot-spread. According to her interview with CBS’s 60 minutes in 1999, Thompson explained how she was confident in her identification. In 1985, Cotton’s conviction of raping Thompson was based largely on her identification. While in prison, two years later, a fellow inmate of Cotton confessed to the rape of Jennifer Thompson. However, it wasn’t until 1995 when DNA showed that Ronald Cotton was innocent. According to the Innocence Project, Ronald Cotton spent 10 years in prison before being exonerated.

The Christopher Vaughn case is a popular case in which ballistics and blood spatter aided in solving. Vaughn pleaded not guilty in court, and the defense stuck to the case that it was a murder-suicide case involving his wife. Paul Kish, a blood spatter expert assigned to the case, said that the evidence found at the crime scene did not correlate with Vaughn’s story. Vaughn’s blood was found in many different places; the center console, on his wife’s shorts, on the front and back of her seatbelt, and on the carpet between her shoes. Vaughn’s original statement did not mention the blood present on the seatbelt. When investigators at the crime scene unlatched and then re-latched her seatbelt, the wife’s chin was directly above the bloodstain. She was shot under the chin, therefore it was previously concluded that it must have been her blood present on the seatbelt. However, the Illinois State Police crime lab proved that it was in fact Christopher Vaughn’s blood on it. His wife’s blood was also found on the center console, but it was disturbed before it began to congeal. In addition, it appeared that some of her blood on the console was wiped towards the passenger seat from the driver’s seat. Kish concluded that someone had come into

Were each of the two men involved in the crime mentally unstable? Could this have been a factor as to why the crime was committed?

O.J. Simpson was a famous football player and that was accused of killing his ex-wife nicole brown , also her boyfriend Ron Goldman. They were brutally stabbed to death on June 12, 1994 at the resident of Nicole brown condo in Brentwood. Before the bodies were ever recovered Oj had packed his bags and caught a flight to Chicago, later he received a phone call saying that Nicole Brown was murder. The cops wanted to talk to him and later he had lead the cops on a hot pursuit chase and they apprehended him. OJ Simpson should be held accountable for murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

In 1984 Dr. Alex Jeffreys came up with deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fingerprinting, which is also known as DNA profiling or DNA typing. DNA fingerprinting is the analyzing

In November 2007, Meredith kercher was found dead in the apartment she shared with Amanda Knox. She had been stabbed. the knife wounds and a slashed neck leading to a lack of oxygen. But who could do this? Who would do this? For the past few years Amanda Knox, Kertcher’s roommate, had been accused of her murder. (Amanda Knox Murder a Conviction Overturned) In Rafael sollecitos' apartment, Amanda Knox’s ex boyfriend, there was a kitchen knife with both Knox’s and Kertcher’s DNA on it. With this being the only evidence investigators had, Amanda and Raffial were thrown in jail. (How much does Italy owe Amanda Knox? A lot.) There are many different sources of evidence leading towards different victims who could've committed the crime but in all there is only on killer. Amanda Knox is not guilty but, there is DNA proof that

Science has come a long way over the years. It has helped countless every day struggles and cure diseases most commonly found. What you don’t hear about however is the advancement of forensic science. Forensic science has helped solve countless cases of murder, rape, and sexual assault. In the case of John Joubert, it helped solve the murders of three young boys with one small piece of evidence that linked him directly to the crime.

In 1892, a young woman named Lizzie Borden was accused of murdering her father and stepmother (“Lizzie Borden on Trial” 2). This accusation was influenced by the lack of evidence at the scene of the crime. There appeared to be no murder weapon, very few witnesses, and the house did not show any signs of an intruder (“Lizzie Borden on Trial” 5). Once the scene was investigated, it was determined that the cause of death for both victims was multiple blows to the head by an axe. Two axes were found in the home, and neither had a speck of blood (“Lizzie Borden on Trial” 14). As it were, there was not enough evidence to convict a killer, nor was there enough evidence to convict Lizzie Borden. She was declared not guilty (“Lizzie Borden on Trial”

“My great-grandfather knew who Jack the Ripper was,” Nevill told the East London Advertiser. “He solved the case—but police couldn’t prosecute because the only witness who could identify the killer in a court of law wouldn’t testify...The suspect was Kosminsky,” Nevill then reported that Kosminsky was taken to an asylum, and after that, there were no more murders. Also, forensics found the DNA of Kosminsky on one of the victims, therefore increasing the likelihood of Jack the Ripper being him.1

Ronald Cotton was sentenced to jail in 1995, after serving ten years for a crime he didn’t even commit. Eye witnesses are considered to be the best form of evidence in an unsolved case. Mr. Cotton was convicted primarily by an eyewitness named Jennifer Thomson-Cannino, who was sure she identified the right male. Years go by and the case was re-ruled and the jury ruled Jennifer 's description as a misidentification. The way the human brain works is marvelous, but often people alter the reality of a situation making false accusations and statements.

There comes a time in the criminal justice system where a law that was written to protect us will be challenged through a court case. That case will eventually make history and will become a reference in future cases with similar dilemmas. In 1983, one particular case met the criteria (Arizona vs. Youngblood). In this case, Larry Youngblood was convicted by a jury in Arizona of child molestation, sexual assault, and kidnapping of a ten-year-old boy. Both a criminologist for the State and an expert witness for the defendant testified as to what they believed the results were from the tests that were performed on the samples shortly after they were collected, they also commented on later tests performed on the samples from the boy’s clothing

This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned.

To start off with is the DNA samples, on the nightshirt which was saliva. They couldn’t analyze the DNA at that time because the technology didn’t exist. To expand on it there was DNA on the nightshirt but they couldn’t analyze with the technology back then. Next piece of evidence are the bite marks. Furthermore the bite marks on Sabina were analyzed by two different analyst. First one said, that it matched Roy Browns bite marks. Second one said it couldn’t be him because he was missing two upper teeth and it had a full set of teeth on Sabina. This suggests that it could be him but also couldn’t be him with the bite marks. In conclusion the evidence that was provided were DNA samples and the bite

O.J Simpson, or also known as, “The Juice”, is beyond guilty for the crimes he was accused of, even though he was found not guilty. Many people think he is innocent then again many people think he is guilty. Whenever someone hears his name, the heinous crime he was accused for comes to mind. Yes O.J was a father and a beloved human before all the commotion went about, but does that mean people should automatically not suspect him due to his “wonderful appearance.”