The Sheppard case is important regarding evidence because it shows that information given from

possible suspects could often be wrong. When viewing the case itself, it sort of made sense that

Sheppard was attacked and then his wife was murdered. On paper, this idea is reasonable and

could mean that Sheppard was also a victim in this case. However, when viewing the evidence, it

is clear that there are other things that were wrong. First, there was the fact that the physical

evidence showed no clear outside attacker. The home did not seem to be broken into, there was

no evidence of forced entry. Along with that, there was no evidence of someone being in the

place that Sheppard says the case happened. According to Sheppard, his attacker ran onto the

beach after they struggled. The initial police report done by Drenkhan shows that there were no

footprints or struggle evidence in the premises. According to the police report the officer “went in

the upper yard and down approximately fifty steps to a porch surrounding a beach house from

here I could observe the beach in both directions and there was no evidence to indicate that there

might have been a struggle or foot prints on the beach.” However, there were blotches of water

on the stairs and lawn. While there was some evidence of water, there was no evidence of where

the attacker could have gone. Next, Sheppard did seem to have been attacked slightly when first

observed, and Mrs.Sheppard seemed to have various bodily intrusions on her body. Dr. Sheppard

had also no recollection of how the attacker looked, which was suspicious. Sheppard had stated

that his injuries occurred from his attacker hitting him and running, which would not make much

sense given how he left Mary Sheppard’s body. He mentioned that there was a struggle when he

awoke, however, there is no clear evidence of it. He was vague on all his other answers.

However, there is also a lot of information that would be in Shepherds favor. For example, there

are injuries that Sheppard could not have sustained without someone else hurting him. Some of

the evidence on the blood shows that the blood was diluted with water, which would make sense
with Sheppards lake story. The blow on the back of Sheppards case could only be made with

someone else or someone who would know exactly how to injure themself. The blows to the face

were also very hard to replicate. Knowing all of this, it is clear that all this evidence is important

because there are multiple factors that go into making a choice in court. The lives of suspects are

in the hands of the jury and without this information, it is hard to discern whether someone is

guilty or not. Without this information, someone can be sent to prison for a long time for a crime

they did not commit.