The final significant piece of evidence is the empty pill bottle. This bottle is also inconclusive because both men had a particular condition for which they were prescribed medicine. In conclusion, the evidence, apart from the skeletal remains, was inconclusive. Each piece could be twisted and shaped to support the body belonging to either man. The most important conclusion drawn from the crime scene was that neither of the bullets found had been shot. Therefore, no evidence at the "crime scene" can be connected to foul play.
As shown above, it was impossible to look solely at the objects of the crime scene to find the answer. Looking closer at the skeletal remains is the only way to make the answer clear for a solid judgment as a juror. From the skeleton of the deer, a skull, one antler, and both femurs were recovered. Examiners got even luckier with the human body. They were able to find the skull, both upper arm bones, both thigh bones, the left lower leg, an assortment of cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, a forearm with gnaw marks, various ribs, a pelvis, some wrist bones, several toe bones, and both shoulder blades.
Examiners were able to reconstruct the body to form the basic outline of its original form. To justifiably account for the gnaw marks present on the forearm, I will argue those to be the result of an animal in search for food after the body had already begun to decayed. Also, to account for the irregular break in one of the ribs found, it is probable that this was the result of the injury that led to the death of the victim. The latter statement will be further analyzed later. Judging from the skeletal remains, I have been able to identify who the body belongs to.
Looking further into possible sex, age, race, and stature, I have found the body to be that of Mr. Robert Rutherford. Several factual elements have led to this conclusion. As both possible victims are male, the sex of the skeleton was assumed to be in concordance, but nothing should ever be merely assumed. To confirm this assumption, I compared the Nuchal Crest of the skull found at the scene of the crime to a portrayal of one of both a female and male. Because both featured a clear outward ridge, the picture of the male was an obvious match for the skull found at the crime scene.
Also, the shape of the pelvis found at the crime scene was an absolute perfect match for that of a male. There is no doubt in my mind that the victim was indeed male. Discovering the age of the body was more of a challenge. However, pure common knowledge helped me to determine that. I, along with several other jurors, learned back in elementary school that a suture exists along the top of our skulls, and as one ages, the suture closes up more and more, creating a measureable factor to determine relative age. The suture on the skull found at the crime scene was nearly unnoticeable.
Because Mr. Morton was a young adult of thirty-four years when he went missing, his suture would not have been as completely closed as that of a, say, fifty-six year-old man like Mr. Rutherford. Therefore, the age determination of the body also points to Mr. Rutherford. Discovering the race of the male was one of my easiest tasks throughout my investigation for the truth. African and Caucasian peoples have distinctly different facial bone structure. Because the skull was recovered from the crime scene, this conclusion was easy to make.
The skull was a perfect match to that of a person of African origin. The eyes and nose are more wide set than that of a white person, according to current data. Also, judging from the serious protrusion of the jaw, the unidentified man must have been black. Biology does not lie. Discovering the stature was easier in some ways than the others, but more difficult while at first glance. I am not a mathematically or scientifically inclined person, so I was completely baffled at the fact that a forensic scientist could look at bones and come up with the height of the victim's body.
However, after paying close attention to the key witness forensic scientists that testified during the trial, it has been made clearer to me. Using the femur bone found at the crime scene, scientists were able to find the height of the man by simply measuring the femur and plugging it into a mathematical formula, which answer the question of height. After listening to their solution and trying it on my own, I have discovered that the body belonged to a man that was approximately five feet and five inches tall. Mr. Rutherford stood five feet and six inches tall, while Mr.
Morton stood five feet and seven inches tall. The body obviously had to belong to the shorter man of the two, Mr. Robert Rutherford. Using the skeletal remains to discover the age, race, sex, and stature of the body was key to determining who the body belonged to and forming my decision while serving on this jury. The physical evidence found at the crime scene supports my conclusion as well. Due to biological facts, the body of the victim belongs to an African American male measuring approximately five feet and five inches tall.
This description fits our first possible victim, Mr. Rutherford, perfectly. However, determining which man the body belonged to was only half of my job. Once I determined that fact, I also had to determine whether or not Mr. O'Hara was guilty of putting Mr. Rutherford in his current condition. My overall outlook is to expect the best out if people, so the common phrase "innocent until proven guilty" sticks out at me in this situation. This viewpoint has helped me to be open-minded.
Although the two men did have conflict over hunting grounds, we cannot just assume that Mr. O'Hara would kill Mr. Rutherford over these conflicts. Looking solely at the remnants of the crime scene, there is absolutely no evidence proving that Mr. O'Hara, or anyone for that matter, murdered Mr. Rutherford. I have come to the conclusion that, because he was an older man with several health issues, Mr. Rutherford was in poor health and had been carrying alcohol with him while hunting.
As apparent by pictures of the crime scene, the land was not cleared, leaving room to argue that an older man may find the terrain difficult or tiring to navigate. He could have simply tripped and was injured by something lying in his path, but this is just one possibility out of many. Either way, I would rule his death as accidental and uncaused by the defendant. Because no solid proof of murder exists, "beyond a reasonable doubt," I will be casting the vote of not guilty in the case of Supreme Court of the United States v. O'Hara, Forensic Case #356228.
No comments:
Post a Comment