Summary Of A Case Study: Homicide

Simon Gittany was a male perpetrator. In almost 4 out of 5 intimate partner homicides the perpetrator was a male (Australian Institute of Criminology 1998).

People go missing all the time and are found in just a short amount of time. But what about the people who go missing and are never found again? Murders in Illinois are more common than not. In these four cases, the individual goes missing mysteriously and are recovered in pieces or not at all. How does this happen? People may never know but the families will keep fighting until someone gives them an answer.

Recently in Alabama a man by the name of Anthony Ray Hinton was exonerated from death row after already spending thirty years in prison. Hinton was convicted of two separate fatal shootings of fast food restaurant managers in Birmingham, AL. One on February 25, 1985 shooting a John Davidson, and the second occurrence was on July 2, 1985 making Thomas Vason the second deceased. The evidence brought against him was a revolver that somewhat matched the one Hinton had in his home. There was no physical evidence, no fingerprints and no eyewitnesses linking him to the crime. Also, the revolver was questionable at best due to the fact the gun belonged to his mother who he lived with. Ballistics could not accurately tell if the gun Hinton had was even the weapon used in the shootings because they could not tell if his gun had been fired out of recently. They also could not conclusively say that all the bullets used in the two shootings were fired from the same gun. All in all, Hinton was convicted by a possible bullet match to his gun; and an eyewitness’s testimony from a person who was present at a similar, but different crime that Hinton was never accused of. Hinton coming from an underprivileged area only had a $1,000 to hire a ballistics expert to disprove the allegations. Thus leading to a person whose proposed allegations were questionable. Hinton was found guilty and put on Death Row. After sitting in a jail cell for thirty years he was released after firearms experts

In the scenario, three individuals, Joe, Larry, and Bob, were convicted criminals and who were speeding in a stolen vehicle, when they saw a group of rivals. Joe was in the passenger seat warning the others that he was going to shoot at the rival members with a weapon he concealed it in his waistband; Larry the driver, drove the vehicle closer to the opponents. At the stop sign, Bob, who was in the back seat, left the car because he was on parole and didn’t want to go back to imprisonment. Afterwards, Larry drove past the adversaries as Joe discharged a few shots; one individual was murder and the other was shot in the leg.

He stated the police “rolled up” and there were “about 20, 30, maybe 40 people out there. There was a lot going on and people were running and trying to get out of there. It all happened so fast. Someone passed me the gun and I just took it. I don’t know why. I didn’t want to get shot so I threw it in the dumpster. The police chased me and caught me. I guess they saw me throw it in the dumpster.” Remonds stated he did not know why he took the firearm and he does not know who it was that passed it to him. Remonds stated no one was hurt by his behavior, but he said his mother was crying when he called her to tell her he was in trouble and he felt he let her

The pickup truck’s owner arrived, the defendant got his keys, told him to sit in the truck, and gave him beer. He then got back under the truck to wait some more. Passerby’s alerted the police who arrested the defendant. He also testified that while waiting for his friend, he started sobering up and thinking things over. He removed the bullets from the gun and put them in his pocket, and made plans to have a party at his house with the people in the pickup. They were drinking and conversing when the police arrived.

The judge instructed the jurors on every possible verdict available on the evidence, which included murder in the first degree on the ground of

was charged with was Count 4: Burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon. I as a prosecutor in the State of Texas would not have charged him with that. Simpson was not in charge of the firearm. Charge 2 and 3 are Assault with a deadly weapon against Bruce and Alfred. I would not have charged him with those two charges either. One charge would have been Burglary of a Habitation. (Assault with a deadly weapon, Sec. 30.05 Criminal Trespass, Texas Penal Code). One charge is a Coercion, which is a threat, however communicated to commit an offense. Conspiracy to commit robbery in Texas. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_

Vanzetti was being tried under Massachusetts' felony-murder rule, but no direct evidence had been tied Vanzetti's .38 nickel-plated Harrington & Richardson five-shot revolver to the crime scene. The only question that arouse with it was that the slain guard apparently had one identical in type and appearance, but was missing from the crime scene. No witness testified to seeing anyone take the gun. Additionally, witnesses to the payroll shooting had described Berardelli as reaching for his gun on his hip when he was cut down by pistol fire from the robbers, but his holster was empty when the body was found. There were other attempts made at proving he had stolen the gun, but not proper evidence or complete advance was able to be shown.

When you see the shows such as Homicide Hunter or Killer Instincts many times my mom and I try to figure out who is the murder. Most of the time my prediction is right because of the details my mom misses, and putting together all the clues. From then on I realised I had a gift, even if it was I was just watching television show. That is what sparked my interest the criminal justice area. I have contemplated the career choices that would best fit my interest leaving me with Homicide Detective and Criminologist. While both careers deal with criminal justice they differ greatly in the type of work environment, pay, skills/education.

The appellant, Gary Cassidy, was living with his mother, Alice Bieber, in Windsor Ontario. The appellant’s mother went to bed while the appellant went out. The morning after Mrs. Bieber noticed her car was missing from the driveway. She assumed that her son had taken it out the night before. Alice, asked her son if he knew anything about her car being missing, the appellant denied knowing about the car and mentioned that Mrs. Bieber should report it to the police, which she did. Shortly after two police officers arrived at the appellant’s residence informing Mrs. Bieber that her car had been recovered in damaged condition the night before. She stated that her son may know something about her car. The officers started questioning the appellant. During questioning the appellant became upset and aggressive towards the two officers. The appellant started verbally abusing the officers, accusing them of trespassing and told them to get off of the property or he would make them. Mrs. Bieber tried to intervene but the appellant ignored her. Shortly after the appellant threatened the officers, he ran into the living room and grabbed one 12-guage shotgun off

After all, they 're about to send an eighteen year-old kid to the electric chair, and Juror #8 doesn 't want to do that without having a conversation first. He brings up certain details of the case that have been bothering him, but the other jurors want him to stop stalling so they can get on with the Guilty verdict. Among the main sources of evidence that the jurors have found compelling include the testimony of two key witnesses. The first was the testimony of the tenant living below the apartment where the defendant’s father had been killed, during which he stated that he heard the defendant say that he would kill the father and that he saw him soon afterwards fleeing the scene of the crime. A juror counters the evidence by stating that the boy claimed he had been at the movies while his father was murdered, but couldn’t remember the name of the movies or who was in them. The second key witness was a woman, who was living across the street, testified that she saw the boy kill his father through the windows of a passing elevated train. Aside from the considerations mentioned, the jurors also took it to be significant that the defendant had, that night, had an argument with his father, which resulted in the boy’s father hitting him twice, and that the boy has an extensive list of prior offenses, including trying to slash another teenager with a knife. Finally, the murder weapon recovered from the scene of

The first news event that was chosen for this assignment is the Flint “Serial Stabbings”, a string of 18 stabbing attacks in the spring and summer of 2010, which resulted in five deaths.

On September 22, 2014 at 1:30 our group found and documented a murder. A male victim was found dead on the ground with a piece of string around his neck, drops of blood around the chest, a bloody hand print on lower chest, and a bendable metal wire on the left hand of the victim. The body was 10.5 inches from the wall. Next to the body not to far from the laptop cart in the back of the classroom was pieces of paper scattered around in one area. Also two used cups were found on the laptop cart, and one cup had lipstick on it. We’ve also discovered shattered glass with blood 13 inches from the back door and 6 inches from the wall. Another piece of evidence is a telephone

Throughout time there has been a very high number of crimes committed in the world. Crime is an action that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. One of the most common and well known crimes is homicide. Homicide is the act of a human being causing the death of another human being. There are both unintentional and intentional homicides, and many different types of homicides are generally treated very differently in human societies; such classes of homicide can include murder, abortion, manslaughter, euthanasia, and execution.