Hello, I am looking for someone to write an article on Unit 4: Project. It needs to be at least 500 words.

Hello, I am looking for someone to write an article on Unit 4: Project. It needs to be at least 500 words. EVIDENCE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS (APRIL 6, 2009) This evidence shows that a witness d JP Dupuis saw a man with features that of the suspect, James Seizman, to have vandalized tomb #347 of St. Louis Cemetery with XXX. Soon after the sighting, police were called, and Officer Deazel did an ocular inspection 30 min. after the report. The officer collected photographs and spray can cap from the scene, and the witness with an NOPD sketch artist provided a better description of the suspect, which resembles James Seizman, a parolee from Michigan. Unfortunately, this evidence is inconclusive, and cannot stand alone in court. However, if another witness can corroborate Mr. Dupuis’ claims, then the account that someone vandalized tomb #347 shortly before the incident was reported gains strength.

EVIDENCE # 2: OCULAR INSPECTION BY RESPONDING OFFICER (APRIL 6, 2009)

Shortly after JP Dupuis reported the incident, a responding officer, named Officer Deazel, went to the crime scene and did ocular inspection. Contrary to what JP Dupuis claimed of seeing, Officer Deazel did not find XXX, but instead just two lines on the tomb. This thus makes the whole account, even the sketch of the suspect, unreliable. Instead of strengthening the claim of evidence # 1, this evidence weakened it, and even made it useless as evidence in court. However, what is certain as far as this evidence suggests is that someone vandalized tomb #347. Whether it happened at the time the incident was reported, it was Mr. Seizman who did it, or the spray can cap found at the scene was from the one used in the crime are still uncertain. Because of this, this evidence is still inconclusive. What can support Mr. Seizman’s involvement in the case as primary suspect is if his fingerprints can be found on the spray can cap collected from the scene. In addition, a probable reason behind Mr. Seizman’s suspected action can help make the evidence more conclusive.

EVIDENCE # 3: LABORATORY ANALYSIS (APRIL 11, 2009)

1 can of black aerosol paint, 2 1 mg Xanax tablets, Absinthe Liquor, and Florida water were analyzed for fingerprints. Where these items were obtained was not mentioned in the report. The results showed that the paint can bore the fingerprints of James Seizman. This supports the claim that he vandalized #347, but cannot back it up conclusively. There is no concrete evidence suggesting that the can was the one used to vandalize tomb #347. If possible, if the can cap found in the crime scene and the can bearing the prints of Mr. Seizman can be matched without reasonable doubt, then it supports the charge of vandalism against the suspect, because it undeniably points at him as the one who did the crime. However, what this evidence, together with the Offender Tracking System data, undeniably suggests is that Mr. Seizman is guilty of violating the rules of his parole because 1) he left Michigan and is at New Orleans, and possibly because 2) he uses alcohol.

EVIDENCE # 4: ARREST OF MR. SEIZMAN (APRIL 12, 2009)

The grounds of arrest were not revealed in the report. However, the arrest was made because of match of composite, possibly because of the incident in the cemetery. This only puts Mr. Seizman at New Orleans and not at Michigan, which makes it more probable for him to commit the crime than if it would be found that he was at Michigan. However, this alone cannot undoubtedly state that James Seizman is guilty of vandalizing tomb #347 of St. Louis Cemetery.