The case against Phillips gained momentum as Kimberly Everett, another of Phillip’s mistresses at the time of the dispute, stepped forward with incriminating testimony regarding the murder weapon. Everett reported that Phillips was in possession of a “small caliber” gun matching the .22 caliber gun used in the murder. Phillip’s defense responded to these charges arguing that the evidence was too circumstantial for a conviction and that his client “didn’t do this thing”. Regardless, Phillips was charged with the murder of both his mistress and daughter, and faces life in prison without the possibility of parole plus twenty years.

Over the last year and a half, this case has attracted substantial media attention and has been met with a heated public response. Though it is not uncommon for such cases to attract public attention, Phillip’s respected position as a law enforcement officer clearly played a role in the case’s popularity. As community leaders and role models, police officers are held to a higher ethical standard than the ordinary citizen. As they swear in the police Oath of Honor, a public statement of commitment to ethical behavior, officers are expected to uphold both the constitution and public trust in the people they serve. Leaders in the force are charged with ensuring that such ethical standards are adhered to within the organization. Therefore the case raises important questions regarding police oversight and their duty to uphold these ethical standards in the private, as well as public, sphere.

The post Police Officer Guilty of Murder appeared first on Crime Museum.

While the capture of the Night Stalker was a credit to law enforcement’s use of the media, his identification as Ramirez was the result of another modern technique. The Night Stalker case was among the first major cases to use automated fingerprinting technology.

Today, television detectives run fingerprints from a crime scene through an automated database and get results in seconds—somewhat inaccurately. In reality, the database kicks back “likely” matches and a trained fingerprint examiner must compare them to find an actual match. Still, the technology we use today allows quick searches of a vast number of fingerprints, and if a criminal leaves a fingerprint behind we can see if he’s ever been booked and fingerprinted, or if we have the same print on file from another scene.

In 1985, this use of computers was brand new. Before automated systems, examiners would have to look through fingerprints on file by hand, using ten-print cards (on which a booked criminal has rolled all ten fingerprints in ink). It meant a great deal of time and effort, and was rarely useful without a suspect in mind. Some even admitted that the collection of fingerprints at the scene was frequently done for public relations purposes only—to appear to be doing something to solve the crime.

When computers were first applied to the task, the systems were extremely expensive, making it difficult to sell to agencies with low budgets. That’s why when the California Department of Justice used their brand new automated fingerprint indexing system to immediately identify Richard Ramirez as the Night Stalker, it put these systems on the map—it proved they worked, and that the cost was justified.

For a contemporary article on the use of automated fingerprint technology, go here. For more on the Night Stalker’s crimes, go here.

The post Fingerprint Technology Captured Stalker appeared first on Crime Museum.

Despite the fact that the operation went seamlessly, the Bin Laden raid was not an easy one.  His compound was surrounded by 8 feet of barbed wire.  There were also additional 7 foot security walls within the compound. So what factors contributed to Bin Laden’s defeat you may ask? US officials say that inside information was an integral part of the operation’s success. The Bin Laden family was also the only family that burned trash, and the only million dollar home that was without phone or internet connections; a giveaway that the compound was ideal to hide someone of great significance.  Administration said that the raid was kept so secretive that no foreign officials were told in advance, and very few within the US government were privy to prior knowledge of the history that was about to unfold a world away.

On September 11, 2001, over 3,000 lives were lost in the worst attacks of terrorism on American soil. On May 1, 2011, the man responsible for this horrific amount of innocent bloodshed was finally brought to justice. Bin Laden’s capture sent throngs of cheering Americans in to the streets in both Times Square, and in front of the White House. Gordon Felt, president of the Families of Flight 93, issued a heartfelt statement saying, “This is important news for us, and for the world. It cannot ease our pain, or bring back our loved ones. It does bring a measure of comfort that the mastermind of the September 11th tragedy and the face of global terror can no longer spread his evil”.

Please check back soon for updates on the forensic discoveries relating to Bin Laden’s capture and killing. For more information, please click here or here.

The post Bin Laden’s Death Is Justice for All appeared first on Crime Museum.

Rep. Giffords was shot in the head during Loughner’s rampage, but luckily was attended to by intern Daniel Hernandez (who had prior nursing training) until emergency workers were able to arrive on the scene. Giffords and two others who were wounded in the shooting are in good condition at the University Medical Center in Tucson, while the nine others suffering injuries have been released. The health of the congresswoman appears to be continually improving as she has opened her eyes, is breathing on her own through assistance from a tracheotomy tube in her windpipe, and can respond to basic commands like squeezing a hand, which indicates to neurosurgeons that she is capable of brain function.

While people across the nation have been shaken by the shooting on January 7^th, members of Congress have been especially hard hit by events. This marks the most recent attempt on the life of a sitting member of Congress since 1978 when Rep. Leo Ryan of California was killed while in Jonestown, Guyana. Tentative legislative business, including a reexamination of the current health-care law, has been postponed. Instead, talk has turned to issues of safety, such as a possible bill to enclose the House of Representatives’ public galleries in a material similar to Plexiglas and the installation of “panic buttons” within offices. While many citizens are calling for stricter gun control, legislators will not go as far, but instead talk of a bill banning high-capacity gun magazines.

The state of Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer has passed their own legislation in the meantime, banning protests within 300 feet of a funeral site. This law comes as a response to the Westboro Baptist Church announcing plans to picket the funeral of U.S. District Judge John Roll. While funerals and vigils are being held for those he killed and injured, Jared Loughner was taken into custody after being tackled by onlookers while reloading at the “Congress on Your Corner” event. He is currently being held in Phoenix without bail, facing federal charges for two counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder.

San Diego based lawyer Judy Clarke has been appointed to defend Loughner and has gained recognition in her career by previously defending Theodore Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber, and Susan Smith. Because of John Roll’s position as federal judge in Tucson, the remaining federal judges in his district have decided to not preside over the case in order to avoid a conflict of interest; a federal judge from outside the state may have to be brought in. More likely, Clarke will seek a change of venue in hopes of ensuring Loughner a fair trial. Though changes in venue are not typically granted, pretrial publicity can necessitate the move due to an impartial jury being unlikely within the community where the crime took place, as was the situation during the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing case.

The post Representative and Country Recovering appeared first on Crime Museum.

For those of you scratching your heads wondering who Billy the Kid is; he is the western outlaw also known as William Bonney.  He died by the gun of Sheriff Pat Garrett at age 21. Despite his young age, Kid was said to have killed anywhere between 9 and 21 men. Richardson’s deputy chief of staff Eric Witt wants to clarify that they are not offering a general pardon for all of Kid’s crimes, but rather a pardon for the individual case of killing a sheriff.

Richardson is a known Billy the Kid aficionado, and is considering the pardon because of an alleged promise by Governor Lew Wallace.  He states, “Just think of all the good publicity New Mexico is receiving around the world on this…It’s fun”.  The defining issue revolves around the belief that Wallace promised this pardon in exchange for Kid’s knowledge in a murder case involving three men.  Those who oppose the pardon argue that there is no proof that Governor Wallace ever offered one; he may have simply tricked Kid in to offering up information.  Ancestor William Wallace argues that pardoning Billy the Kid would, “declare Lew Wallace to have been a dishonorable liar”.

Some of those in favor of Kid’s pardon have filed a petition, including defense attorney Randi McGinn who has offered to handle the case for free.  She writes, “A promise is a promise and should be enforced”.  McGinn also says that Wallace assured Kid that he had the authority to exempt him from prosecution should he cooperate and share his knowledge, but that Wallace never held up his end of the deal.

Sheriff Pat Garrett’s grandson, J.P. Garrett, argues that Richardson should have assigned an impartial historian to aid in the case, and believes that McGinn’s involvement may be a conflict of interest.  Richardson appointed Charles Daniels to the state Supreme Court, whom McGinn is married to. William Wallace agrees, also citing that McGinn has, “meager qualifications”.  Despite these accusations, McGinn claims that her only link to the administration is that she offered to handle the case for free because of Richardson’s lifelong interest in Billy the Kid.

Richardson told the Associated Press on Wednesday, “I don’t know where I’ll end up. I might not pardon him. But then I might”.  I guess we’ll just all have to anxiously await the outcome of this deceased outlaw’s judicial fate.

The post Billy the Kid’s Pardon appeared first on Crime Museum.

Prior to this tragedy, Dexter already faced heat from the Parents Television Council for being too violent. Sadly this is not the first murder that is linked to the television show. In 2008, Canadian filmmaker Mark Twitchell faced charges for committing a murder based on the show’s storyline. This has some wondering what kind of influence violent television has over today’s teens. According to the Parents Television Council, 54% of kids have a TV in their room and 44% say that they watch different programs while alone than they do with their parents. They also state that the average kid watches 4 hours of television each day, making it an integral part of their daily routine.

Conley confessed that on the morning of his brother’s murder, he fantasized about what it might be like to kill his sleeping father, and that he had been having such fantasies since the 8^th grade.  Clearly, his disturbances significantly pre-dated Dexter. MIT professor and American media scholar Henry Jenkins, addresses the preconception that violent media leads to violent youth in saying that, “It has led adult authorities to be more suspicious and hostile to many kids who already feel cut off from the system. It also misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester”.

Could this gruesome crime have been avoided if additional restrictions were put on violence in the media, or was such a tragedy inevitable given Conley’s appetite for violent crime?

To find out more about the Conley case, click here.

For more information about the Parents Television Council, click here.

To read more about Professor Jenkins’ ideas regarding the link between violence in the media and youth, click here.

The post Showtime’s Dexter Purely Entertainment? appeared first on Crime Museum.

News reports indicate that police were led to Abuelazam by an anonymous phone tip to the Michigan police hotline.  Apparently the tipster was calling based on information that had been released about the suspect’s vehicle.   The Slasher’s vehicle had been described as an older model (1995-2005) Chevy Blazer or GMC Jimmy with a two-toned or dark green top over a light tan, beige, or gold bottom.  The tip led authorities to someone associated with Abuelazam, which in turn led to the liquor store in Michigan where he worked.  Upon further investigation, it was discovered that Abuelazam had hidden his dark green chevy S-10 Blazer at a Michigan home behind a shed.  His movements were traced from Michigan to Kentucky, and then from there to Atlanta where he was arrested at the airport before boarding a flight for Tel Aviv.  Abuelazam is currently being held on one count of assault with intent to commit murder in Michigan.  He is to be extradited back to Michigan to face charges.

The string of attacks by the Slasher started lasted from May 24, 2010 to August 7, 2010.  Based on those attacks, a trend began to appear.  The victims were primarily African American males with small stature or of older age—people perceived by the Slasher as being easier to physically control.   Only two victims did not fit this profile—one was white and the other Latino.  Some authorities therefore believe that these attacks were racially motivated, as none of the victims were been robbed.  Information gleaned from victims indicated that the Slasher approached unsuspecting victims who were on their own in the early morning hours.  He asked for directions or for assistance as a means to lure them closer to his vehicle.  The Slasher then attacked and stabs his victims, a very personal method for killing.

If you have any additional information that may be of value in this case, please contact Michigan police at 866-246-9500 or 810-732-1111 or 810-237-6800.  You can also call Crime Stoppers at 800-422-JAIL.  For more information regarding the case, please see any of the following news articles: CNN-1, CNN-2, CNN-3, NBC25-1, or NBC25-2.

The post The Serial Slasher Apprehended? appeared first on Crime Museum.

Just days after Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, two men were found dead on the Danziger Bridge in New Orleans, and another four were found wounded.  According to recent statements from responding officers at the scene, the civilians were found wounded and bloody.  There were no weapons present.  However, at the time of the shootings, it is said that the involved officers fabricated witness statements, falsified reports, and event planted a gun at the scene.

In December 2006, seven NOPD officers were charged with either murder or attempted murder for the Danziger Bridge crimes.  However, these charges were thrown out in August 2008 by a state judge.  A month later, a new mayor stepped in and invited the Justice Department to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the police department.  When asked about the investigation, Attorney General Eric Holder stated, “Put simply, we will not tolerate wrongdoing by those who are sworn to protect the public.”

Since the onset of the Justice Department investigation, five former NOPD officers have pled guilty to helping cover up the shootings on the bridge.  They are currently awaiting sentencing.  However, their statements have the potential to lay grounds for more serious charges against those actually accused of the shootings and engineering the cover-up.  If those charged for the shootings are convicted, they could face the death penalty.

The post Law Enforcement is Not Above the Law appeared first on Crime Museum.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.”  Regardless of whether you’ve heard them on TV or have been read them directly, most everyone knows what the Miranda warnings are.  These warnings are designed to protect a person’s right against self-incrimination and their right to have a lawyer. You must speak up in order to stay silent.

On June 1, 2010, in a 5-4 decision during the Berghuis v. Thompkins case, the Supreme Court ruled that in order to invoke one’s right to silence, one must first explicitly say that they want to invoke that right.  For instance, Thompkins, the accused in this case, decided to remain silent during his interrogation.  At some point, one of the investigators asked a question to which Thompkins simply responded “yes,” thereby implicating himself in the crime.  Because Thompkins did not tell the investigators that he was invoking his right to stay silent, his affirmative response to the questions could legally be used against him in court.  The statement was used, and a jury came back with a guilty verdict for Thompkins.  So, the lesson to be learned here is that if or when you are ever interrogated by the police, it is now legally assumed that you have waived your Miranda rights unless you speak up and say otherwise.

To read more about the Berghuis v. Thompkins case, click here or here.

The post Speak Up in Order to Stay Silent appeared first on Crime Museum.

The driving force of art forgery is the fact that art work created by certain artists is worth more than art work created by others.  If a work of art can be replicated perfectly by an art forger it is only worth less monetarily than the original because of who painted it not because the painting looks any differently than the original.  The same theory applies to forgers who create new art pieces in the style of a master, if the forgery is believed to be genuine it will be deemed priceless but if it is found to be a fake it is deemed worthless, regardless of what the piece of art looks like.

Forensic investigators, along with art historians and appraisers, are often responsible for determining if a piece of art is a forgery or not. Historians often use stylistic analysis to determine if a work of art is genuine or not, possessing large amount of knowledge about the styles, tool, brushstrokes,  techniques used by certain artists. There are a variety of methods used for forensic authentication of art work.   Some of the technical methods for revealing fakes include X-rays, UV lights, and IR light, which can be used to see under layers of paint to see covered up works, determine time period or the actual artist of the painting if an original signature has been covered up.  Chemical analysis and spectral comparisons can detect the components of paint to ensure that modern pigments were not used in supposedly old paintings.  Examination of the craquelure, the network of cracks that appear on old paintings, can be analyzed to ensure that the cracks were not artificially made and that they follow the grain of the wood onto which they were painted.

Art forgery sounds like a thing of the past, but art dealers claim that about 15% of art sold at auctions are fake, which means hundreds of people getting conned out of thousands of dollars.

For more information on art crimes  save the date, the Museum’s new art crimes temporary exhibit is coming on February 15th, 2010!

The post Art Forgery appeared first on Crime Museum.