Crime Scene Investigation

The body of this paper will examine the case of Pamela Foddrill and compare what happened in that real criminal investigation to the theory of criminal investigation discussed in our course textbook, Criminal Investigation: The Art and the Science. I will first examine the forensics evidence and

The popular television show, CSI: Crime Scene Investigations has been on the air for 12 years, and it has brought forth the behind-the-scenes actions of criminal investigations, even if its portrayals are not always scientifically accurate. This has caused an interest in the forensic sciences that has led most people to a skewed view of how a criminal investigation actually works. The reality of a criminal investigation is that it is generally more tedious and difficult than the theory of criminal investigation would have you believe. By examining the forensic and investigative procedures of the case of Pamela Foddrill, it is apparent that the theory of criminal investigation was not representative of the procedures concerning examination

The Central Park Jogger case is one of false confessions to a crime, with a little help from police, which the defendants did not commit. Evidence taken at the crime scene did exclude the defendants, however, because of videotaped confessions they were sentenced to prison for a crime they admitted to committing even though they did not. It was not until many years later did the original perpetrator step forward from prison to admit he was the one who committed the crime with evidence (DNA) and firsthand knowledge of the scene. The five original defendants were released from prison but until serving a lengthy term. There are cues that can be noticed when investigators are conducting preliminary interviews that have a very high rate of

Due to the interview taking place after hours and the case not being assigned until the following day, I was unable to be present at the time of the interview. However, I have since observed a copy of that interview. The following is a summary of the forensic interview conducted that night by Megan Merrill with Deja Jones. This is a summary, not an exact transcript.

The evidence on Kimberly and Kristen was a hair was found under Kimberly’s fingernail. It didn’t match up with Dr. MacDonald and this piece of evidence was also unreported.

Where the prosecution sought to provide answers, the defense aimed to raise questions and according to experts they did just that by pointing out the flaws in the forensics that ultimately led to the acquittal of Casey

[I]n 2001, three young men robbed a McDonald’s restaurant in Milwaukee. 14-year-old Jerrell C.J. was arrested in connection with the offense, taken to the police station, booked, and placed in an interrogation room. In the room, Jerrell was handcuffed to a wall and left alone for approximately two hours. At 9 a.m., Police Detectives Ralph Spano and Kurt Sutter entered the interrogation room. The detectives introduced themselves, removed Jerrell’s handcuffs, and asked him some background questions. Jerrell stated that he was 14 years old and in the eighth grade. He also provided the names, addresses, and phone numbers of his parents and siblings. Jerrell was advised of his Miranda rights, and the detectives then began to question Jerrell about the armed robbery. Jerrell denied any involvement. The detectives challenged this denial and encouraged Jerrell to be "truthful and honest" and "start standing up for what he did." Jerrell again denied his involvement. The detectives again challenged his denial.

Complainant Dusenberry further stated that Investigator Higgins did not interview Witnesses Marisol Molina, Bernadette Talamantez, or Gibert Acquilar. Instead, Investigator Higgins interviewed “people in Respondent Evers’ inner circle.” Who are Diana Chavez and Denise Boles. Complainant Dusenberry stated that Investigator Higgins interviewed people who would not know how she feels and about her harassment.

After reading the case study summary it can be seen that there are many problems with the investigation of Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz. This section focuses on how jailhouse informants were used in unethical way to get a conviction. Jailhouse informants were one of the main reasons as to why Ron and Dennis were convicted. Giannelli (2007) states, in his article that jailhouse informants should be removed from the courtroom due to their unreliability. There are many causes as to why jailhouse informants should be removed from testifying. The first, is credibility of the informant, as seen during the testimony jailhouse informant’s testimonies were fabricated. The key witness Terri Holland was going to face her third felony when she supposedly heard Ron Williamson confess of the crime. However, this testimony should have been challenged by the defense because she did not

The authors underscore that it could not be said that the Hollywood department was incompetent. Rather that the case was too difficult, and Detective Hoffman turned out to be too snobbish not only to ask for help but also to accept help from Joe Matthews when he offered it not once. Hoffman was “too unstructured and ill-equipped” for such mind-bogging case (Standiford, 2001).Det. Serg. Matthews was a lie detector expert and an experiences homicide detective and, being hired by the Hollywood, Fl, Police Department, he was very interested by the case and was ready to use his knowledge to solve the case. Among other things, the difference in approaches of two detectives was that Hoffman was obsessed with finding physical evidences linking Toole to the Adam’s murder; while Matthews believed that circumstantial evidence could make do in some cases.

These claims raised the question that the DNA samples were contaiminated or not valid. It also raised the possibility that the blood from O.J Simpson could have been planted by the investigators. The defense argued that the cut found on Simpsons middle finger was not large enough to bleed the amount of blood found at the crime scene. Simpson claimed that he reinjured his finger in his hotel room the mornin after with a piece of glass. Possibly the biggest peice of evidence was that the bloodstains on the paper wrapping was supposed to be holding only dry blood samples not wet. When it comes to the shoes the defense argued that thousands of people have bought those shoes in size 12 and that it does not directly put Simpson at the crime scene.The hair found at the scene were black and coarse but all that means is that the attacker could have been black but the samples had no dandruf or skin cells on them to prove that they were Simpsons. The blue fibers could have been from a blanket used to cover Nicole Simpsons body at the crime scene.The glove behind guest house was thought to be planted by Detective Mark Fuhrman, a racist cop trying to frame Simpson for the murder and that the blood on glove may have also been planted by police. The defense also claimed that the bloody socks found at the crime scene were planted by police during the investigation. Simpson tried on the gloves from the crime scene which did not fit. The defense challenged the DNA results reverting back to the theory that the samples were handled poorly. The investigation team also found that there was genetic material of a third party on the steering

One of the major topics of concern during the preliminary hearings was admitting character evidence. It was publicly known that O.J. Simpson had a history of domestic assaults against his former wife Nicole, but the question became whether this information was to be allowed in trial. This information was imperative to the prosecution’s case because it helped support their claim that O.J. Simpson was jealous and wanted to have control of Nicole Simpson. (Park, 1996) They argued that this was the evidence they needed

All suspects are interrogated effectively. And within the laws so everything or at lease most will be able to use in court.

Upon D/CPL. Case’s arrival at the crime scene there is no documentation in the crime report that he had contact with the first responder, PFC Malcolm. The first responder should brief the primary investigator as it is the only opportunity for the next in command to obtain initial aspects of the crime scene prior to subsequent information (Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation, 2000). Conversing with first responders is vital to providing information to substantiate investigative considerations and is a priority in any properly sanctioned investigative plan (Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation, 2000). Prior to D/CPL. Case’s arrival, key pieces of evidence had already been collected despite the mild and clear weather conditions; the victim’s jacket and two neoprene skullcaps that had been tied together. D/CPL. Case was not able to conduct a walk-through of the crime scene with the individuals responsible for processing the scene because in the one hour and fifteen minutes it took D/CPL Case to

I have always loved suspenseful whodunit television shows, movies, and books that use forensic science to crack the cases. My favorite television show is The First 48, my favorite movie is The Silence of the Lambs, and my favorite book is The Body Farm. Therefore, I was excited to have the opportunity to take this course and learn even more about the subject of forensics. This essay gives a summary of N. E. Genge’s book, The Forensic Casebook: The Science of Crime Scene Investigation, and includes the things I disliked and liked about the book.