Bloodstain Evidence in the Mya Lyons Case - Research Paper Example

 Bloodstain Evidence in the Mya Lyons Case In the Mya Lyon’s case, her father was convicted of murder in less than two hours, six years after the girl was confirmed dead. The case against Lyons was based on information that suggested he was guilty without necessarily proving his guilty. As such, the case was hardly airtight and was largely dependent on crucial forensic evidence. Initially, the deceased’s father had not been considered as a suspect and this explains why important evidence such as his bloodied shoes had not been collected at the onset. In fact, it was not until three years after Mya’s death that Lyons was arrested (Schmadeke, 2014). At first the police had arrested a drug addict who was thought to have perpetrated the crime. However, he was vindicated after forensic tests showed that the blood on his shoes was his own. The police and prosecutors, relying on the inconsistencies in Lyons’ testimonies, then identified Lyon as a key suspect. Although not an initial suspect, Lyons story began to unravel day by day and his actions seemed inconsistent with a grieving father. The jury relied on blood spatter evidence to sentence Richard Lyons to 60 years in prison for the murder of his daughter, Mya Lyons. In the hearing, prosecutors pointed to holes in Lyons’ story that he had made up to conceal his hand in the murder. He had testified that he had found her daughter to be missing and went in search of her. His defense testified that he had found Mya in a lonely alley and put her in his van to take her to hospital together with other neighbors. It is at the hospital that Mya Lyon was pronounced dead. Richard Lyon’s framed story pointed to the killing of his daughter as having been committed by some crazed killer, a notion that was largely disputed by the prosecutors. Schmadeke (2014) reports that Lyon was ultimately convicted after his attorney rested the case without presenting a single witness. The role of bloodstain evidence was pertinent in the case as it was the main source of evidence for the prosecution. The suspect had framed the murder in such a way that it was particularly hard to doubt his account and consider him a suspect. However, analysis of splattered blood was enough to convince the Cook County jury that Richard Lyons was guilty. The prosecution relied on their key witness, Rod Englert, a forensic expert, to advance their case. Various analysis of the case have pointed out that the bloodstain was the single evidence that made the murder be unraveled. Scholars have argued that the case would have been thrown out for lack of evidence had the prosecutors not provided this evidence (Bevel & Gardner, 2002). In particular, the case would have been weak because it relied on circumstantial evidence. Prosecutors in the case, including Anita Alvarez who was the State’s attorney, have confessed that the breakthrough in their case was the work of blood-spatter experts. In fact, prosecutors were clueless as to why Lyons killed his daughter because he had managed to stage a fake crime scene in a bid to throw off investigators. Englert testified that he believed the spot where Lyons found his daughter was not a crime scene because there were no signs of a struggle, no blood-spatter, and no bloody footprints there. This evidence was used to prove that Lyon had taken her daughter to the scene while she was already dead. Englert’s opinion was that the alley was a staged scene and that the stabbing on Mya’s body had occurred in the van. The expert’s analysis was based on photographs of blood splattered inside Lyons van and on his own bloodied shoes. Moreover, evidence of a photograph of Lyons taken at the hospital showed a pattern of splattered blood. The latter showed that the blood on Lyons’ body could only have come from him being nearby when his daughter was stabbed. Michael Mathews, a forensic expert, testified that blood found on the front passengers seat belt frame and on a window screen came from Mya thus proving that she was stabbed inside the van. Moreover, blood was also found inside the air-conditioning vent but there was insufficient material to test it for DNA evidence. Earlier on, the prosecution had associated an imprint of a lockbox on Mya’s hand to the slamming of Mya against a metal post underneath the back stairs by her father. Evidence form the blood splatter experts revealed that Lyons had stabbed Mya 13 times in the stomach, chest and neck inside his conversion van. Investigations by forensic experts found Mya’s blood in areas that prosecutors argued that it ought to have been – on a passenger seat belt frame and on a screen covering the back windows. An analysis of the blood splattered on Lyons’ white tennis shoes and on the seats inside the van could only have come from when Mya was stabbed. This evidence discarded attempts by the suspect to argue that the blood stains had been splattered while he was taking his daughter to the hospital. Overall, the bloodstain evidence revealed much more than it was meant to reveal. In addition to helping in convict Richard Lyons, the evidence further provided a clear narration of the events that led to the killing of Mya and how it was done. It is only through the bloodstain evidence that court was able to connect events from the strangling and beating of Mya in his father’s house to the transportation of a dead or dying Mya in the van. Moreover, revelations of the continuous stabbing of Mya and the dumping of the girl in the alley were made possible through the bloodstain evidence. The prosecution advanced a case that was defined by the extensive use of the scientific method in analyzing the bloodstains. Devel & Gardner (2002) assert that the importance of using this method is in the fact that it generates factual evidence that is hard to dispute. The bloodstains found on the vans seat and the windows were scientifically analyzed to make inferences on the manner in which the girl was killed. The shape and pattern of the spattered stains revealed the distance of the victim from the position of the stains and the impact with which the stabs were made on her body. Using these facts, the prosecution was able to prove that the splatters of blood on the van were as a result of the stabbing impact and not blood flowing from a dead person. Further, a DNA analysis of the blood stains revealed that the blood belonged to Mya therefore laying a better claim that Mya was killed while in the van and not in the open alley as the defense had testified. Bloodstain evidence is a widely accepted form of evidence especially in criminal cases that involve murder (James & Kish, 2005). Scientific methods are used in analyzing these blood stains and draw inferences that are important in revealing facts in criminal cases. Bloodstains range in both the amount of blood and the type of pattern they form. Particularly, the pattern of the blood spatters is important in showing correlation between the impact causing the splattering and the point where the stains are splattered. Forensic experts and blood-splatter experts are tasked with employing scientific method to suggest, and lay claim, to various facts (Noon, 2009). For example, splatter from an impact will form larger drops that are more pronounced in the areas directly adjacent to the action. According to Noon, (2009) the shape of blood stains can show the source of the impact because blood demonstrates surface tension. For instance, a drop of blood dropped at a 90 degree angle forms a near-perfect spherical shape. Moreover, the number and location of stains coupled with volume of the blood influence how much useful information can be gathered. The prosecution, in advancing their case must remain objective if they harbor any chances of winning a case. Particularly, objectivity ensures that the case is not clogged with sideshows that may taint the integrity of the case in question. In addition, objectivity ensures that only relevant evidence is presented in the case and spares the prosecution the burden of getting large volumes of unnecessary evidence. In the Mya Lyons case for instance, the prosecution had only one lead that it relied on to prove that Richard Lyons was guilty as charged. The prosecution focused on bloodstain evidence to prove that Mya was stabbed while in the van and to discount the assertion that she was killed in the alley that she had been found. References Schmadeke, S. (2014, January 17). Richard Lyons guilty in killing of daughter Mya, 9. Retrieved June 6, 2015. Bevel, T., & Gardner, R. (2002). Bloodstain pattern analysis: With an introduction to crime scene reconstruction (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press. James, S., & Kish, P. (2005). Principles of bloodstain pattern analysis: Theory and practice. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC. Noon, R. (2009). Scientific method: Applications in failure investigation and forensic science. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Read More