Introduction
It is the opinion of this paper that Clark is indeed guilty of the crime of robbing the Big City Bank. The basis behind this statement can be seen in the DNA evidence which goes beyond mere circumstance and indicates that Clark was not only driving the get-away vehicle for the robbery but was also the one who robbed the bank.
Examining the Plastic Bags Left Behind at the Crime Scene
First and foremost, it was indicated in the case data that the suspect left behind two plastic bags that he was using as a means to avoid leaving fingerprints behind. While it is true that he was successful in such an attempt, the fact remains that some skin fragments were left behind in the bags that were utilized. These fragments, when subjected to a DNA test, were a definitive match to Clark’s own DNA profile to such an extent that there is only 1 chance out of 50 billion that a possible similarity could arise. Not only that, eyewitness testimony at the bank clearly indicated that the suspect was using the plastic bags that were found at the scene on his hands. It is based on this that when combining eye witness testimony with the DNA evidence found, it can clearly be assumed that Clark had, at some point, come into contact with the bags and it is likely he had conducted the robbery. However, the DNA evidence on the banks is not enough for a conviction, it is necessary to prove beyond doubt that Clark was at the scene and had actually planned to rob it.
Eyewitness Testimony and Video Evidence
Eyewitness testimony indicated that a man of the same height, build, and ethnicity as Clark was the man who had robbed the bank. While this can merely be stated as circumstantial evidence since there are probably thousands of other people with the same description within the U.S. alone, the fact remains that video evidence shows a connection between the description of the suspect and Clark. It must be noted that a man with the same height, build, and physical characteristics as Clark was caught on video at the bank several days before the incident. Upon investigation by the detectives and when Clark was also questioned, it was revealed that Clark had indeed visited the bank several days prior and was “supposedly” interested in opening a bank account. This behavior is in line with a common pattern in a criminal activity wherein a bank robber would “scope a location out” to determine the best way to rob it. While it is true that Clark’s presence could also be stated as purely circumstantial, the fact remains that he was also spotted at a nearby credit union wearing the same black and gray baseball cap that the suspect at the robbery was also wearing at the time. Since Clark not only matched the physical description of the suspect, was shown to be wearing the same item that the suspect wore to the robbery and there was also DNA evidence showing Clark’s DNA on the same plastic bags that the suspect used. This is further evidence showing that there is a strong correlation between Clark and the suspect.
DNA Evidence from the Getaway Vehicle
Aside from the DNA evidence from the bags, the supposed getaway vehicle, a blue pickup truck with a busted rear window, also had DNA which was connected once again to Clark. The vehicle was spotted by the waitress and video surveillance near the bank immediately before the robbery and is assumed to be the getaway vehicle. Further analysis of the vehicle showed that it was used by Clark and was actually stolen from its previous owner. While it is true that it was abandoned ½ miles away from the scene of the crime, this merely indicates that Clark most likely had an accomplice to help him with the robber.
If Evidence from Credit Union was not available
On the off chance that the evidence from the Big City Credit Union was not available, there is still a considerable level of evidence that can be brought against Clark. First and foremost, his overall physical appearance matches that of the suspect; his DNA was found in the plastic bags and in the car that was used as a getaway vehicle. When combined with his previous criminal history, it all fits together and clearly shows that Clark was the bank robber beyond any doubt.
Conclusion
Overall, this paper was able to successfully show that Clark was indeed guilty of the crime of robbing the Big City Bank. The basis behind this statement can be seen in the DNA evidence which goes beyond mere circumstance and indicates that Clark was not only driving the getaway vehicle for the robbery but was also the one who robbed the bank. Combined with eyewitness testimony and video evidence, it can be stated beyond all doubt that Clark was guilty of the crime.