I am doing the case of Kirk Bloodsworth I am not sure if you guys have heard it. I am doing a paragraph that explains how the courtroom did not have...

I am doing the case of Kirk Bloodsworth I am not sure if you guys have heard it... I am doing a paragraph that explains how the courtroom did not have evidence to prove his guilty. I need help on developing my ideas that sounds good.

There was no physical evidence presented in the court against Kirk Bloodworth yet he was convicted of rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl. The detectives only found a rock at the crime scene as they proceeded with interrogation. The rock was covered with the blood and the detectives pegged their interrogation so much in it. Bloodworth got confused during interrogation process and never understood the detectives when they rough in the issue of her wife in regard to challenge for him not buying her food. Bloodworth admits the rock evidence without knowing more about it neither understanding the detectives. The rock was important evidence since it was used to kill the nine-year-old girl. In the article, "Personal and Material Evidences in Criminal Procedure, with Particular Attention to Road Traffic" by Árpád Budhazi (2017), It explains that, the material evidences such as, physical evidence and documents is necessary in any criminal and civil cases. However, in criminal offenses the implication of the substantial evidence is much crucial (Budhazi, 2017). In criminal law physical evidence is known as, "the king" because is the main important factor in a courtroom since physical evidence do not contain bias and the juror and judge can view the evidence presented (Budhazi, 2017). In Bloodsworth's case the detectives and district attorney did not provide sufficient evidences to prove Bloodsworth was guilty of the charges.