Wayne Williams Evidence

As a postmortem autopsy revealed the body had been stored in lower temperatures prior to being placed in the woods. Examination showed the body had been stored in a place more dry and colder than the corresponding temperatures of the previous months; which was another indicator for investigators, along with the degree of decomposition not matching the site where the body was discovered. Hairs found on the body were sent to Texas after the hairs were proven to be canine (“John Taylor” 2006). A Texan University had created a system to create DNA profiles of pedigree animals (“John Taylor: Killer In” 2015). Investigators traced the collar to a supplier that had sold multiple collars to a man

This paper examines Carrell et al’s research along with three other scholarly research articles to better understand the effects that the DNA recovered from a crime scene has on a particular case and the forensic science community.

While investigations were going on to determine how victims died, there was a discovery of fibers on the victims’ bodies. The goal of the investigator was to determine if any fibers in Wayne Williams home or person matched those fibers found on the victims. Williams denied killing

The expert testimony in the Wayne Williams case was vital in explaining the evidence to the jury (Imwinkelried, 1983). It is reasonable to concede that jurors have no prior knowledge of forensic science. Additionally, jurors will most likely have no prior knowledge of the different variations, color spectrums, moreover the uniqueness of various items presented as evidence in this case. As a prosecutor, it would important to include the testimony of fiber experts with extensive knowledge of the article presented. This expert would be able to articulate to the jury the unique qualities as well as characteristics of the fibers.

Also, hair was found on several of the victims, which the two murders Williams was convicted for had his hair on the victims and some victims had hair of a German Shepard dog on them and Williams was the owner of that type of dog. Although law enforcement stated they linked Wayne Williams to 24 of the 29 cases and effectively closed the cases, Williams was convicted for being DNA linked to only two and never was tried in those additional cases (Deadman, 1984).

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

suspects in a case, an analyzed DNA sample from the crime scene does not significantly help

I. Before the 1980’s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics.

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the development of DNA analysis technology has revolutionised the field of forensic science within the criminal justice system. As the refinement of procedures and technology continues, even minute samples of biological material (including blood, saliva, semen and skin cells) are able to be analysed and used to link or acquit perpetrators of crimes. (Whitney, R n.d.)

During this trial there were three invalid forensic sciences used in the trial (National Registry).  The investigators of this event found soil, hair, and imprints from Barnes truck that were somehow related and similar to Simon (Drahl). Pagliaro, a lady conducting evidence from the scene, had told the jury that she found the fabric from Simon's jeans matched an imprint on Barnes' truck.  She also said that there were two hairs in Barnes's truck that were more microscopically similar to the victims than to Barnes (National Registry). This evidence could lead to bad things for Barnes because it looks like Barnes is now more closely related to the

In my opinion, I do not think Wayne Williams would have gotten caught without Fiber Evidence. However, Wayne father testified stating that carpet squares used to link Wayne to the slaying of a young black man were not purchased until after the victim's body was found. Also, a defense fiber expert testifying that the fibers used to link the defendant to the slayings of two young blacks matched fibers taken from a lawyer's office and a fabric store. Wayne’s farther stated, while Wayne was home there was very little privacy at home and could not have done anything wrong there without his knowing it.

We analyzed 3 pieces of evidence for hair. We collected hair from the Victim, the Victim’s Car, and the Cabin. The Victim

Well those are some basic facts everyone should know about hair for this case. Now that everyone has back round information about hair I can explain why I believe a particular suspect is a match to the hair found at the crime scene. I received four different pieces of hair from each of the suspects, which I labeled A-D. Then I analyzed them all under a microscope on wet, latex and water mounts. After that, I actually got the hair from the crime scene and labeled it “Evidence” and analyzed it under a microscope on wet, latex and water mounts just like I did to the suspects hair.

DNA was found on the majority of the evidence that was collected. Some of the main places where DNA was found were specifically at the Bundy Crime scene and in the Bronco (Kolata, 1995). When looking over the crime scene, there were about eight blood stains or drops found outside of the residence. Five of the blood drops were found on the Bundy walkway and three blood stains were found from the rear gate (Thompson, 1996). The blood that was found at the crime scene were matches with the victims, Nicole and Ronald Goldman. The blood drops and stains that were found outside of the residence were consistent with the DNA profiles of O.J. Simpson (Thompson, 1996).

Recent advancements in DNA technology have improved law enforcement’s ability to use DNA to solve old cases. Original forensic applications of DNA analysis were developed using a technology called restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). Although very old cases (more than 10 years) may not have had RFLP analysis done, this kind of DNA testing may have been attempted on more recent unsolved cases. However, because RFLP analysis required a relatively large quantity of DNA, testing may not have been successful. Similarly, biological evidence deemed insufficient in size for testing may not have been previously submitted for testing. Also, if a biological sample was degraded by environmental factors such as dirt or mold, RFLP analysis may have been unsuccessful at yielding a result (Turman).