Forensic Science: The Chamberlain Case

On the 1st of October, 1980, Azaria Chamberlain disappeared from her campsite at Ayers Rock. Her parents, Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, claimed that a dingo had taken her. In the months and years that ensued, the Chamberlains faced innuendo fuelled by the media, undeserved public shame and an unfair verdict handed down by a jury who had been confused and persuaded by the police, forensic experts and media outlets. Reliance on circumstantial evidence, conflicting interpretations of forensic evidence, questionable evidence by so-called experts, finding an unbiased jury after a trial by media, over zealous policing, and not all available evidence presented at the trail resulted in the guilty judgment.

Some agree with the fact that it is wrong to murder an innocent child. The main suspect in this case is Ottis Toole, for killing the victim, Adam Walsh. He had confessed to committing the murder. Toole was and is the long prime suspect in this case.

jury ruled her not guilty, but I do not see how with all the evidence that they had. With the

There were many problems with the methods and findings of these witnesses, only some of which, however, could be effectively communicated to a jury in a criminal trial. The Crown invited the jury to infer that in a space of five to ten minutes, during which Lindy returned to the tent with the baby and six-year-old Aidan, she had cut Azaria’s throat and stuffed the body into Michael’s camera case while her son apparently stood by. She had then raced Aidan back to the barbecue area, where normal life was resumed, and displayed no signs of unease or distress until the opportunity presented itself of blaming a dingo for the baby’s disappearance. The Chamberlains were said to have later buried the body, then exhumed it so that the clothing could be placed in a strategic location to lend further credibility to the dingo tale.

While on scene I observed blood droplets in the kitchen, dining room, Living room, laundry room and a long hallway leading into the residence from the backyard. Once outside of the residence I observed further evidence of a physical confrontation, including additional blood spatter and droplets scattered throughout the yard near a burning fire where it appeared, due to multiple empty alcoholic beverage containers the subjects had been drinking.

Throughout the course of the investigation, the blood evidence found inside the van was not Hartlaub's. Enzymes from the blood spatter, which is only

Chris and Caren Campano had an argument one night over Chris's drug use. The neighbors all heard the argument. Both of them ended up leaving the house to cool off. The next day Chris called Caren's work to see if she showed then called the police. The police looked around the home and didnt notice any signs of violence. Chris said the house was robbed when he was out. The police noticed a brown stain on the ground and it turned out to be a large amount of blood. Turns out Chris never went to the bar the night of the fight and pawned off some of Caren's things the day he reported her missing. Without a body the police didnt have much to go on so they waited until night to use the luminol. The luminol showed blood that was on the ceiling, walls,

She also could’ve been trying to forget what had happened and then due to motivated forgetting her memories were affected by new information. She also could’ve chosen someone who looked similar. It would’ve been dark in the morning and she would’ve just woken up and her vision wouldn’t have been great or clear. Eyewitness testimony fits in with the case, because it happened by eyewitness and she chose her perpetrator by her own eyewitness memory. Eyewitness testimony is a person present at the scene of a crime and gives a description of what they saw. Eyewitness testimony fits in with the case, because the eyewitness testimony/memory of the event, and the blood was the only evidence the court and victim had against Allen Coco. Accounts of eyewitnesses during the trial of a suspect are heavily dependent on the accuracy of

Overall it was a socking video, since in the beginning everything was clear that caregivers were guilty based on the bruises that they were finding it on the child’s face or body, so they immediately made a decision on who is guilty because the caregivers were the last people who were with the baby. However, everything turned out the opposite of what the judges were judging the caregivers. Not every bruises appears on the baby’s body can be a sign of abuse. Based on the video the lawyer or the judge was mentioning that after the child’s dead if we cannot prove the cause of the child’s dead the caregiver is the one who’s guilty, which I think it’s not correct, instead of making wrong statement about the caregivers they should search more on

In this case Warna stated that it had to be the son-in-law because he had blood splatter on his clothing. So Samantha Warna’s testimony was very important because it lead to a conviction of a suspected killer. The blood spatter expert stated that with the evidence of the blood spatter pattern that was on David Hill was not consist with what he said happened according to the testimony of Samantha Warna. The suspect in question David Hill had to have committed the crime. So without the testimony of the Bloodstain Expert Samantha Warna there wouldn’t have been no conviction would have been made and David Hill wouldn’t have been arrested for the murder of his 73 year old

In To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, a 25 year old African American named Tom Robinson was wrongly accused of rape by a white 19 year old woman named Mayella Ewell. Mayella Ewell accused Tom Robinson of rape to cowardly cover her attempt of seducing Tom. What Mayella did, kissing a black man, was an act of breaking a taboo topic by a society of a small Alabaman town in the 1930s. The defendant, Tom Robinson, was sentenced according to the testimonies of the plaintiffs, Mayella Ewell and her father, Bob Ewell. There was no scientific evidence used in the portrayal of Tom Robinson’s trial and the juries convicted the innocent defendant on the biases base on his skin color and immense social pressure. Most of human race can agree, living in 2014, that many things have come a long way from where it started especially in the field of forensic science. Forensic science is the science of “associating people, places, and things involved in criminal activities” (Houck 4), using those for the purpose of the justice system and to provide unprejudiced evidence to be used in the courts of law. Forensic science began much farther than its early recordings in the 700s, and back up even to 44 BC around the time Julius Caesar was murdered. Forensic medical evidence used in the Federal Court System has advanced remarkably since its portrayal at Tom Robinson’s trial in To Kill a Mockingbird and that if Tom Robinson was trialed today, it would have much a

Introduction Blood Spatter Analysis (BPA) is a forensic technique to interpret bloodstain in order to understand and recreate a crime scene that involve blood-shedding event. BPA is regarded as a very crucial process in crime investigation as it provides evidence in easing a trial process in court. The BPA was considered as a significant area of science in crime investigation only after the year of 1955, even though, the first study was dated back in the late 1890. There are several questions arise in blood-shedding event, such as the origin of the blood, the cause of the wound, the direction of the spatter, the position of the victim during the event, the movement of victim after the event, and most importantly is that does the evidence interpreted by the Blood Spatter Analyst is valid to support the case.

Forensic science is a broad term that refers to the use of science or technology in a court room environment. Forensic science plays an important role in modern popular culture; the police procedural is highly dependent upon cutting-edge forensic science. Moreover, many people are aware of the impact of DNA testing on the modern criminal justice landscape. However, forensic science actually predates many modern scientific advances; almost as long as there have been controversies, there has been some type of forensic science.

Forensic science has been around since the 1700’s and has taken leaps in getting better and continues to improve. ATF (The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) was founded July 1, 1972 and manages NIBIN (National Integrated Ballistic Information Network), and the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) was founded July 26, 1908 and manages CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) and IAFIS (Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System). All three of these databases come together and make catching criminals an easier task.

The scientific examination of evidence in criminal cases found in a crime scene is called forensic science. Forensic scientists use the same technology, tools and methods used by other scientists doing other types of research, including microscopes, computers, and lasers. As forensic science has advanced over the years, so has the ability to gather evidence and solve crimes. At crime scenes, lasers provide lighting to track blood sample that not visible to the naked eye. Forensic imaging technology is technology that lets the first responding local police department or crime scene investigators immediately send a photo or fingerprint image to a central database for identification. Computers can enhance pictures taken by a camera and use features like the facial recognition software to clearly identify blurred images. Lasers can also vaporize small portions of paint specimens to determine the exact paint used on a car in a hit-and- run case. Although this science has been used for years, wrongful convictions have brought to the attention that forensic science has been faulty for decades. The chilling truth is that forensic science has contributed to convicting innocent people over the decades and will continue to do so if the normality continues.