I will briefly outline the circumstances of the case and how the perpetrator – Coulston, was eventually captured and the evidence that flowed to convict him for the triple murders in Summit Road, Burwood.…
Corryn rayney was charged with wilful murder of his wife. He has know got a retrial.it was a three month trial. It was a judge only decision. During his retrial they will be expecting an argument on the evidence they used on his last court case . relating to a dinner place. Probably this time he would get a fairer trial. But I reckon if the evidence lead to him then I think he would just go back to jail for murder.…
Mrs. Susan Hutchings permitted her 17-year old daughter to provide a keg of beer at a party the daughter was having at their home for some high school classmates. Mrs. Hutchings, as hostess, observed a 17-year old guest, Carlton Turner, engaged in a drinking game called “quarters.” When Turner left at 11:30 PM, the keg was empty and he was noticeably intoxicated, having consumed the equivalent of 7 bottles of beer. Mrs. Hutchings expressed concern over his driving ability, but watched him get into his car. Less than 4 miles away, he sped through a red light and killed David Sutter. Sutter’s widow is suing Mrs. Hutchings and her daughter.…
Judge and jury, I beg thee to charge Ms. Maloney with the murder of Patrick Maloney. Why would the perfectly stable Mary Maloney randomly decide to kill her husband? What would cause a perfectly sane woman to do such a heinous crime? As you are aware, Patrick Maloney was a well-respected member of the police force. To all who knew him he was a good man. He never had any enemies, and was very committed to his job. So how did this good man end up dead? Supposedly, Mr. Maloney was alleged of having an affair. However, Mr. Maloney is no longer around to testify to that fact. If Ms. Maloney had heard of this alleged affair, maybe that drove her to murder him. There is sufficient evidence showing that Ms. Maloney was the murderess. Number one, there…
This aboriginal man claimed to have been there the night of the murder and testifies that Tshuanahusset was the one that murdered William Robinson. Yet, he did not firsthand see Tshuanahusset kill William Robinson, nor did he immediately report him for the murder either. It was fifteen months before Sue Tas went to the authorities with information on the murder, and this rose no suspicion for neither the authorities nor the judicial system. The fact that Sue Tas waited this long to inform the authorities rises suspicion that perhaps he was lying because there was belief that Sue Tas was Tshuanahusset killed. Although this suspicion was out in the open, the authorities and judicial system still solely relied on Sue Tas as the only witness and did not look further into these circumstances. This could have simply been that Sue Tas saw the opportunity to pin an open case murder on Tshuanahusset which would explain why he reported him much later from when the murder actually occurred. Also, Sue Tas was threatened by his own tribe and chief after he went to the authorities and reported Tshuanahusset. This information was set aside by all authorities because they simply did not want to complicate the investigation and close it as soon as possible. This information could have meant that Sue Tas did something that was unforgivable by his tribe and this would not be revealing information, but perhaps this could be that he lied about the information to falsely convict Tshuanahusset. Furthermore, the complication of Sue Tas as the only witness should have encouraged authorities and the judicial system to look further into the murder case of William Robinson and not solely rely on one witness, yet through they perfunctory behaviour they closed the case quickly and…
This only leaves John Bittrolff, a 48-year-old from Long Island who, just a year ago, was charged with the murder of two prostitutes nearly 20 years ago. Authorities also suspect him to be involved in a third murder, but not in the Gilgo Beach case. However, they have not released any of the evidence that has proven him to be innocent. Several factors lead the idea that, even though police have dismissed him, Bittrolff is a prime suspect. this is due to the fact that he is the only individual, out of the suspects released, that either did not have an alibi or ended up having no relation to the case. Also, while authorities have claimed that he is not related in any way to the Gilgo case, they have released absolutely no evidence to prove that…
There was evidence that wasn’t collected such as blood that Mrs Chamberlain offered to give to the police. Evidence such as their tents and belongings were moved to a motel on the first night, which could’ve caused contamination allowing the evidence to have alterations. Their tents and belongings were also not searched. In addition, the family was then allowed to leave in their car the following morning without it being explored allowing contamination with another piece of evidence. Furthermore, evidence that was discovered later on in the case such as Azaria’s jumpsuit was moved then picked up and was not placed as it was found which tampered with the evidence. Although the collection of evidence throughout this case demonstrated faults, the Jury still concluded to Mrs Chamberlain as a guilty woman, which led to her…
-He was accused of poisoning and dismembering his wife. He was accused of this crime because he was her husband.…
The first witness for the case was a woman named Caroline Haspers who lived in the same apartment building as Mary. She recalled on January 30th that Mary looked distraught and that her daughter was not with her. She also provided information that was not relevant to the charges saying that, “I always thought Ms. Barnett was a disgrace—I mean, she didn’t have a husband.” Given that she did not…
4)The old man and the lady say that they heard the boy screaming at his father saying "I'll kill you" but that doesn't really mean he actually killed him since people say that phrase all the time but don't really mean it and that was proved when juror number three has and outburst and say's "I'll kill you" to juror number eight.…
Jeff is the culprit. Since only one person is telling the truth, Bradley is the one that is not lying. Sarah is lying about Bradley being guilty, and Jeff is lying about being innocent. This is the only situation where one person is telling the truth. For instance, if Bradley was the culprit, then both Sarah and Jeff would be telling the truth. If Sarah was the culprit, both Jeff and Bradley would be telling the truth. The situation where Jeff is the culprit is the only one that matches the criteria of one true statement. Therefore, Jeff is the culprit, and Bradley and Sarah are innocent of this…
The murder charge would take all of Huddleston freedom and he would be locked up in prison for the remainder of his life. The interviewer had first locked Huddleston’s story and double checked it. Huddleston statements remained unchanged and the exact story was told, from the hospital and at the police station. A period of time had passed and the story was still consistent, which meant he had retold the story to himself. Frankly, a…
I can't tell if Montressor is confessing his sins or bragging about his horrible crimes? I say it is a bit of both. He does make it clear at how content he felt about his crimes. He committed the perfect crime by doing it and not getting caught. "I must not only punish, but punish with impunity" Montressor must punish without getting caught and that is exactly what he did!…
In mystery stories, typically the reader has an idea of who the suspect is. In The Murder of Roger Ackroyd Christie uses an unreliable narrator. Christie points this idea in the readers mine that many of the characters wanted to murder Roger Ackroyd. But the murderer is the narrator and that is the whole mystery and unreliability in the novel. “The story is told totally in his words, and Christie contrived his narration so that nothing he says is untrue. (H.R.F. Keating n..p)” The narrator, Dr. Sheppard, says this “it is odd how, when you have a secret belief of your own which you do not wish to acknowledge, the voicing of it by someone else will rouse you to a fury of denial. (Christie 2)” But Christie does not let the reader in on the secret until the very end. “Only occasionally does she arrange his prose in such a way as to conceal from the reader the passage of a period of time. (H.R.F. Keating n..p)” Christie is clever by working around details about Sheppard. The reader would never suspect the murderer is the narrator, someone the reader trust in the story. “Everyone concerned in them has something to…
The main action of The Lawsuit centered on two characters who come from the same family and on opposite sides with each other, and a lawyer who plays a significant role in the plot. There is an interesting relationship between those three characters. First of all, the narrator and the woman are both the victims of the whole incident. The money was missing; the little son did not get any property from his father, and the woman, regardless the fact that she took away the wealthy old man’s money, is living a miserable life right now. And now, one victim is asking another victim for compensation. The situation is supposed to be crystal clear that the narrator is not responsible for the young widow’s loss, but the lawyer’s appearance and the inner change of the narrator subtly alters the narrator’s standpoint, which influences the whole situation. The narrator’s thought changes from “this woman robbed us and deprived us of our legal rights” (Mahfouz 76) to “even a farce must continue right to the final act” (Mahfouz 80)…