Category : Articles

Sub Category : Miscellaneous

   Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America review the murder of Lisa Houk. An eleven year old boy was arrested without sufficient evidence, and charged at the age fourteen for two first degree murders. The murder of his fathers fiance and the murder of her newborn child. During this case, all that was used to put this boy away with circumstantial evidence. There was no DNA evidence, they could be used as proof linking him to the actual murder. The original claim was he had a shotgun, given to him by his father, was used to kill her. It was wrapped in the blanket to muffle the sound. Yet, they claimed they found residue from the fired shot on the boy's hands. If he had it wrapped it would have been on the blanket. The only witness, a seven year old was led into saying she "thought" heard a shotgun blast. This should be known, because "I thought" is the same as I don't know for sure where the sound came from. This is purely circumstantial, especially since there were tree trimmers around, who were alerted to the four year old.     This murder could have been caused by an unknown assailant. Think about this carefully as I explain this next piece of evidence to you. There was snow on the ground, and there were no tire tracks in the driveway. Who said someone had to pull in the driveway, did they bother checking around for footprints. No, they neglected to check for any possible intruders. There was another adult suspect, who was completely ignored by the police. Never questioned or approached at all. Now a mysterious witness comes forward saying "I know what happened." I'm not saying whether he is innocent or guilty, I am simply examining the factors which led to him being charged. This is why the Supreme Court made their decisions. To understand a crime, you have to be sure Beyond A Reasonable Doubt to charge someone. Unfortunately, a lot of people are blamed for crimes based off of circumstantial evidence.
   The young , who was branded as a "monster" has stated that he did not even know what he was being charged with. He didn't understand the seriousness of the charges, or that his future mother-in-law was murdered. Judging from his behavior, it seemed likely that he was telling the truth. He stared at the interviewer in the eyes, and said that he wasn't responsible for murdering her. It's important to realize, that a psychopath is capable of doing this. However, in this instance I saw a great deal of emotion whenever he made his statement to the woman who was interviewing him. The only way we can know the truth though, the person who murdered the woman came clean about how he or she committed the crime. Even if this person did commit the actual crime, he has not ever come forward stating he committed it.
   My reasons for writing this story, are as I stated before the fact that so many people are charged with the usage of circumstantial evidence. We should not ignore these factors in making everyday decisions about people, until we know that actual facts. This is especially important when dealing with political views, and making everyday judgments about other people. Have you ever been insulted by someone, and later on you find out that's actually a very nice person, who insulted you that day you first met? Remember, do not make judgments based on prejudice. You must make good judgments off of facts, and the sensible knowledge which most of us are blessed with. This is what bothers me about this particular case, the people investigating the matter left so much information unchecked. I can only see that the Supreme Court made a responsible decision, boy exonerating him from the charges.