Forensic Science: Fred Zain And David Kofoed

Forensic science is important to build up a case against criminals with evidence that proves that a suspect was at the scene and was involved. There are cases are easy and straightforward that have a good confession and supporting evidence. But there are some cases that a certain investigator will be certain that they believe that a suspect did the crime but there will be no supportive evidence. It becomes a ethics and illegal when a CSI plants/fakes evidence. People like Fred Zain and David Kofoed. When a person fakes/plants evidence that proves or disproves a suspect is illegal and unethical. Also by faking evidence the crime lab/tech involved would lose credibility on passed and soon to come cases.

Easter is a big religious holiday where

It was an unusual crime for the residents of the Nebraska town who in fact rarely locked their doors. When the David Kofoed Douglas County crime lab came to investigate the scene Kofoed said saw no signs of theft or burglary, so it was drawn to a personal attack angle. 28-year-old Matthew Livers was of interest of investigators. He was seen arguing with the couple about money. He was submitted to a polygraph test which he failed. Under further questioning, he cracked and admitted that he committed the crime and implicated Nick Sampson, Matt’s cousin. Livers admitted that he and Sampson drove a tan car which corroborated with witness testimony that saw a tan car speeding near the farmhouse. With the witness testimony and confession by Matthew Livers, it wasn't enough to link the two to the crime. David Kofoed was brought in to find evidence because he was known to find evidence where others cannot. He eventually found a blood droplet in the tan car even though the first sweep of the car found nothing. This blood sample links the 2 alleged suspects to the crime with the confession it was enough to put Livers and Sampson away. Douglas Crime Tech Christine Gabig Found a Gold ring at the scene with the

This led to questioning the validity of the evidence of Sampson and Livers conviction. Prosecutor Clarence Mock believed without reasonable doubt that Kofoed planted the blood evidence. Kofoed claimed that “If he were to plant evidence he would have locked those guys tight” and that he would have planted more evidence. Mock disagrees and makes a point that “It was a much more believable scenario that a small amount of blood might have been overlooked at a location where some other technician had failed to swab than something very obvious." Also, Kofoed’s lawyer claimed that Kofoed authorized the research of the ring that led to the innocence of the two men. So why would he risk to convict other than the two already convicted by him? He also claims it could have been contaminated with the blood swab kit to test if there was blood in the Stock crime scene. Mock also disagreed that because the crime scene was so bloody that there was no question there was blood. So why would the CSI’s need a blood test kit? David Kofoed’s defense is not with hard evidence just different views of logic.With it also being a double murder and the innocent men were incarcerated for an extended time which would most likely lead to mental problems later in time makes this fabrication of evidence much worse