Arizona •

Oldest Human Fossil Found in Ethiopia

A team of scientists from Arizona State University has found the earliest evidence of our human genus during a field research in Ethiopia, back in 2013.

The fossil is nothing more than the left side of a jaw with five teeth. It is 2.8 million years old and predates the similar fossils from the human genus – Homo – with more than 400 thousand years.

The discovery has been made public today, March 4, in the journal Science. Even though in the past scientists have discovered even older fossils, the most famous being that of skeleton Lucy, which is at least 3 million years old, this is the oldest Homo evidence that has ever come to light.

Scientists from Arizona State University say that the fossils they have discovered in Ethiopia belong to our ancestors, being closer to modern day humans than the oldest, more apelike members of the human family tree.

The importance of the discovery, says William Kimbel, the director of ASU’s Institute of Human Origins, is that it adds a reference point in the timeline of human ancestry from a period that is very mysterious.

Human history is a puzzle for many scientists. It starts more than 3 million years ago, in the regions of Eastern Africa, where different ape-like creatures, the Australopithecus, lived. Lucy was one of them. In the next 500.000 years, these creatures went extinct and then our genus, Homo, appears in the same place.

From the evidence they have discovered in Ethiopia, the scientists were able to draw some conclusions over the general behavior and appearance of this human ancestor who walked the Earth 2.8 million years ago.

It walked on two feet and preferred a more dry climate. Researchers are trying to figure out what did it diet consisted of and whether he used stone tools or not.

The jaw has symmetrical premolars, slim molars and it is evenly proportioned, which is a feature of the Homo branch.

The find took more than a decade of research and searching.

“It took us almost 13 years to find this human ancestor. It doesn’t mean that the work that we did was wasted up until that time. But when we did find this jaw, we were pretty excited,” said Professor Kaye Reed, co-leader of the team who made the discovery.

Image source: NPR

Jodi Arias Sentencing Trial Opens with Gruesome Photo

By Leave a Comment

The sentencing trial for Jodi Arias opened yesterday in a dramatic way. Prosecutor Juan Martinez showed jurors a gruesome photo of Travis Alexander’s slit throat while sarcastically stating it shows just how much Arias loved him.

Jodi Arias was found guilty of first-degree murder in May 2013 in connection with the 2008 brutal killing of her then-boyfriend, Travis Alexander. Although Arias still claims she acted in self-defense, the jury in her first trial did not agree. After looking at photos and hearing evidence of Travis being stabbed 29 times, shot, and his throat slit almost to the point of decapitation, Jodi was found guilty.

While the jurors agreed that Jodi was guilty of the horrific crime against Travis, they could not agree on her sentencing. Since last year, Travis’ family members and friends have been waiting for an ending to this very, publicized trial. Unlike the first trial, the judge would not allow cameras in the courtroom but the drama still plays out through social media from courtroom observers.

The state of Arizona is seeking the death penalty while the defense team is trying to spare Jodi’s life. In last year’s jury vote, eight members voted in favor of the death penalty while four were against it. With this new trial, the only thing jurors will have to decide is whether Jodi lives or dies, having already been convicted.

According to Martinez, the only just punishment for Jodi is death while her lead defense lawyer, Kirk Nurmi, argues that his 34-year-old client is mentally ill and as such, should not be put to death. In a statement from Nurmi, Jodi has a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as Bipolar and Border Personality Disorder.

The majority of the state-appointed defense lawyer’s opening statement focused on warning the jury panel of 12 women and six men that they would see explicit photos throughout the sentencing phase but to remember that Jodi was emotionally abused by Travis, making her the victim, not him. In his closing statement, Nurmi told the jurors they would be responsiblefor writing the final chapter of this story.

On the other side of the table, Martinez plans to unravel all of Jodi’s lies, showing that rather than being mentally ill, she is controlling and manipulative, something witnessed by millions of people with her pre and post television interviews, as well as her eight days on the stand during the first trial. Experts believe it could take until sometime late December before a decision comes down.

Arizona’s Ban on Gay Marriage Struck Down

By Leave a Comment

The path for legally recognized gay marriages in the state of Arizona has been cleared by a Federal judge who ruled the state’s ban on same-sex unions was unconstitutional.

The ruling by US District Judge John Sedwick came today, barring state officials from enforcing a 1996 state law but also a 2008 voter-approved constitutional amendment in which gay marriage was outlawed. Judge Sedwick was nominated in 1992 to the Federal bench by then President George H.W. Bush.

In his ruling, Judge Sedwick stated that since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had already ruled on October 7 against bans on gay marriage in the states of Idaho and Nevada, there was no reason to provide drawn-out details regarding his decision. He added that he was legally bound by the decision that came down from the appellant court.

Judge Sedwick pointed out that a stay on the decision to allow defendants to appeal was not warranted. Also, an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court would be unsuccessful and that the High Court would not listen to any request for relief specific to the decision of the 9th Circuit Court. In today’s ruling, the judge ordered Arizona to permanently cease the ban on gay marriage, followed by declining to stay the order.

An attorney for one plaintiff, Jennifer Pizer with the Lambda Legal law firm, said she was thrilled with the judge’s ruling. She added that some couples in Arizona have been waiting for more than 20 years for this day and finally, it has arrived. She hopes that the people of Arizona will embrace Judge Sedwick’s decision, allowing same-sex couples to enjoy their constitutional rights.

In a midmorning news conference called for by Attorney General Tom Horne, his office must now decide if the ruling will be appealed or if the state’s clerk needs to be advised to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

Until advice from the state Attorney General’s office comes down, the county clerk’s office in metro Phoenix will not issue any same-sex marriage licenses, this according to spokesperson Aaron Nash.

Just this past week, the US Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from a number of states trying to retain the ban on same-sex marriage. Currently, about 30 states allow gay marriage, which has created an array of rulings, as well as confusion in lower courts throughout the country.

Judge Sedwick’s ruling was in response to one of two lawsuits filed whereby the ban on gay marriage in Arizona was challenged. In his case, seven Arizona couples challenged current law, which included some who were legally married in other states but unable to have their marriage recognized in Arizona.

In both lawsuits, attorneys argued equal protection and due process rights were being violated and that clients were being denied the benefits that come with marriage to include spousal survivorship rights, pension benefits, and the right to make medical decisions for one another.

On the side of attorneys for the state of Arizona, Judge Sedwick was encouraged to retain the state’s definition of marriage as being a union between a man and women. Attorney’s further argued the ban supported interest in having a child connect with the biological mother and father and that it was enacted by voters and lawmakers as a way to protect the right to define marriage for their community.

Arizona Illegal Immigrants Right to Post Bail

By Leave a Comment

According to a Federal court, illegal immigrants in the state of Arizona must be given the right to post bail after being arrested, striking down a previous voter-approved Arizona law whereby immigrants in the country illegally and those charged with a range of felonies to include aggravated identity theft, shoplifting, sexual assault, and murder could be denied bail.

The 11-member panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals made its ruling today that this voter-approved law violates due process rights by imposing “punishment” before the offender had even gone to trial.

The court also stated that the law as it was is a poor attempt at confronting people who feel law enforcement and that no evidence existed to show the law dealt with a specific criminal offense.

Supporters of the 2006 statue believe it prevents people not authorized to be in the United States and who skip out on bail from committing additional crimes while critics believe the real intent of the law is to punish immigrants prior to being convicted.

This was just one of four immigration proposals approved by Arizona voters in 2006. The three others include making English the official state language, preventing immigrants not authorized to be in the country from receiving punitive damages stemmed from lawsuits, and prohibiting immigrants from receiving certain government benefits and services.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Maricopa County has been shrouded by controversy. As part of the challenge to this law, one of Arpaio’s own aides was actually sued. The aide stated that the sheriff’s office will request the 9th Circuit Court to reconsider its new opinion and if that fails, a petition with the Supreme Court will be filed.

Cecillia Wang, Attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case before the appeals court, stated that the ruling offers protection and ensures that everyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

The no-bail law was proposed by former state Republican Russell Pearce, who won approval for the state’s landmark 2010 immigration enforcement law. Russell strongly believes that the appeals court overstepped its bounds of authority with this latest decision by overriding voters’ wishes.

Categories