The death was a freak accident that resulted in murder. At trial, in an unsworn statement, Furman said that while trying to escape, he tripped and the gun he was carrying fired accidentally, killing the victim. This contradicted his prior statement to police that he had turned and blindly fired a shot while fleeing. Either way, because the shooting occurred during the commission of a felony, Furman was still guilty of murder and eligible for the death penalty under the law at the time. He was tried and found guilty based largely on his own statement.
Using my detective reasoning and the evidence found at the scene of the crime, I have deducted that the suspects Louise Hume and Gary Adams are indeed the culprits of this murder. My educated guess is that Louise Hume is the murderer and that Gary Adams served as an accomplice. The couple claim that Gary and Clark were hanging out at 10pm drinking and that Louise Hume arrived at 12.30am to find Gary and Clark arguing, Clark then supposedly pulls a knife on Louise but Gary tries to stop him and in the scuffle stabs Clark in self-defense, Gary then tried to drag Clark towards the road to help flag down a motorist to help. Many elements of their story don’t add up, they said that Clark and Gary were drinking at 10pm and that when Louise arrived they were already arguing, even though there was 3 chairs found at the scene, a discarded lipstick container and an empty tequila bottle with lipstick and DNA belonging to Louise Hume on it, the guys would have already finished drinking the bottle before 12.30am and they also said that Gary and Clark were already arguing by the time that Louise arrived and that was when he drew a
INTRODUCTION The following report is a description and analysis of case Fallas v Mourlas [2006] at Supreme Court of New South Wales- Court of Appeal Decisions. The incident occurred during a spotlighting Shooting recreational activity where Mr. Fallas accidently shot his friend Mr. Mourlas in the leg while trying to unjam a loaded gun. Just like any case in court, the plaintiff and the defendant’s lawyers presented arguments in order to defend their clients. The reason for the arguments was based upon government laws regarding danger in recreational activity, shadowing cases involving similar accidents in the past, facts leading up to the incident and contextual evidence. FACTS * Fallas (the defendant) and Mourlas (the plaintiff) were with two other friends on a nocturnal spotlighting recreational activity.
Each victim was strangled and then mutilated, usually dismembered sometimes missing organs when the police arrived. It was a string of crimes that was known to be London's first serial killings. Many experts credit the investigation of Jack the Ripper with the starting of criminal profiling and, provided police not only with physical details of the crime but also with psychological characteristics believed to be associated with the manner of the killings. The surgeon, Dr. Thomas Bond, believed the killer would be unassuming in appearance and manner, and daring and calm in the face of unimaginable violence; he thought he would be middle-aged, leading a solitary life and wearing a long coat to cover up any blood from his crimes, since he killed in public spaces. Jack the Ripper was never caught, and many have assumed this is because no one ever saw him except for his victims.
One of the men was stabbed and badly injured. Later that day the police questioned Jenny, using a cognitive interview. They asked her to report everything she could remember about the incident even if it seemed unimportant. Apart from ‘report everything’, explain how the police could use a cognitive interview to investigate what Jenny could remember. • Describe and evaluate the multi-store model of memory • Outline the working memory model.
On December 1, 2008, an innocent woman, Trudi Doyle, was shot twice in the chest, causing her death. It has been determined that the rounds were fired from the gun of John Diamond, her alleged lover. Skepticism comes into play when concluding whether or not this shooting was malicious or involuntary. Based on the testimonies of multiple witnesses from both the commonwealth and the defense, I have declared the defendant, John Diamond, guilty of murder in the first degree. The commonwealth started off the trial with their first witness, Dr. Jane Pierce, the coroner who inspected Trudi Doyle’s corpse.
Journal:Hi I'm Greg, I will be asking you questions today to know more about the crime you did. Karl:Okay. Journal:So, what pushed into killing that man? Karl:The old man's eye. Journal :What was wrong with his eye?
These instances usually involve immediate members, but there are instances of the perpetrator targeting other relatives. There are multiple reasons why family annihilation occur. Reasons such as spite or revenge, perhaps where a spouse kills their ex-partner due to divorce or custody issues. Other reasons could include mental illness, severe depression and instability within the household. This type of murder or murder-suicide differs from other forms of mass murder in that the murderer kills family members or loved ones rather than anonymous people.
Such questions gained traction when a man with a history of mental impairment died after being stunned multiple times with a taser by police (The Post and Courier, 2009). Their have been reported deaths related to the use of stun guns like the taser (The Post and Courier, 2009). While low in rate, a few deaths were associated with excessive rounds of stun gun shocks (The Post and Courier, 2009). Whether stun guns led to or played a role in the majority of deaths in question remains unclear (The Post and Courier,
So while we defined the term crime how do we identify if an event or action is a Crime. In order for a event to be considered a crime we must first consider a concept called corpus delicti which means “Literally the body of the crime:” the fact that a crime has been committed” The concept as two part first “one a result or harm” second “the harm or result must result from someone’s criminal act”. The follow is case of Rachel Kozlusky is an example of this concept. Rachel Kozlusky who was dressed in underwear and sweater was found dead by investigators on the floor of a building. Her injuries indicated that she had fallen from the building at a great height.