Wayne williams case evidence

Document Type:Essay

Subject Area:Criminology

Document 1

The District Attorney treated Wayne Williams’s case as a forensic one since it involved the assessment of DNA. The first and main evidence was dog fur (McDonald, 2007). The fur was used to link Wayne Williams with the murder of twelve children. Tests to prove Wayne Williams guilt were conducted at the Veterinary Genetics Laboratory at the University of California Davis, which is one of the most prominent and efficient Genetics Laboratory Globally. The examinations were requested by Wayne Williams’s defense. Paul Howard, the District attorney explained that the results would conclude the state of Wayne William’s case. Dog hairs from the two men William was accused of killing were collected after Williams arrest examined and proved his guilt since they matched. The report explained that the dog could not be excluded as part of supportive evidence since the hairs matched completely. Results from DNA examination were elaborated using the evidence of mitochondrial DNA over nuclear DNA (McDonald, 2007). During the first trial of Wayne Williams in 1982, the evidence collected could not prove his relation with the crimes since the technology was not advanced enough to offer DNA assessments. The second DNA assessment was conducted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation crime laboratory, whereby scalp hairs and pubic hair found on Patrick Baltazer, one of the victims were examined. The results acquired also did not have nuclear DNA, which would be the main evidence (McDonald, 2007). Howard explained that Williams’s car seat did not have evidence of bloodstains. The stains would link Williams directly to the murders since blood tests provide better results.

Sign up to view the full document!

Jack E Mallard, a veteran prosecutor explained that the disappearance of bloodstain samples collected after Wayne Williams arrest did not affect the judgment (McDonald, 2007). Dog hairs were used as strong evidence since they were recovered from twelve victims who were young African American boys. Lynn H Whatley was Williams’s defense attorney since his arrest and prosecution. He challenged the use of DNA evidence stating that the results were inconclusive. He explained that Sheba’s hairs could be from a different source since dogs from different places cold have similar mitochondria DNA sequence (McDonald, 2007). Compare how major pieces of evidence were handled at the time of discovery and contrast that to how it would be handled today. This means that most cases were judged according to the verbal evidence from eyewitnesses or confession.

Sign up to view the full document!

Evidence collected immediately after commencing investigations is valuable. Bloodstains and hairs or furs are the most common form of evidence found in crime scenes. This evidence proves that the convicted person was at the crime scene. Hairs or bloodstains collected from a crime scene are used to determine the cause of crime and people involved. Advanced technology has helped judges and juries handle criminal cases through forensic evidence. The department of justice has helped judges implement forensic evidence without discrimination or violation of human rights (65 U S Attorneys’ Bulletin, 2017). Research shows that the first crime laboratory in the United States was established in 1923 at Berkeley, California. However, most forensic laboratories were established on the second half of the twentieth century. The Department of Justice collaborated with National Commission on Forensic Science to help acquire forensic evidence through fair procedures (65 U S Attorneys’ Bulletin, 2017).

Sign up to view the full document!

Families to the other victims feel that justice has not been served since Williams as not been proven guilty for other murders. Reports state that the case could be revisited in 2019, whereby Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Atlanta Police and the District Attorney’s office will reexamine all the boxes with evidence (Fedschun, 2019) Explain the differences in handling or processing procedures and the evolution in forensics that have occurred that would influence this case. One of the recommendations made on the NAS report was to withdraw forensic services from the management of prosecution offices and law enforcement agencies. The main reason behind the delayed judgment of Wane Williams case is mishandling forensic evidence. As mentioned earlier, Lynn H Whatley, Williams’s defense attorney challenged the district attorneys DNA characterization stating that the DNA match from the seven dog hairs was not reliable.

Sign up to view the full document!

Dog fur on the other bodies was used as the main evidence. Forensic science was and still is the only effective evidence that could provide fair judgment to the offender and victims. References 65 U S Attorneys’ Bulletin. “Forensic Science and Forensic Evidence I” United States Attorneys’ Bulletin, National Advocacy Center, Office of Legal Education, 1620 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 2920 retrieved from: https://www. justice. php.

Sign up to view the full document!

From $10 to earn access

Only on Studyloop

Original template