Topic 3.1 - Examine information for validity (15 marks, 70 minutes)
Evidence
It is up to the jury or magistrates to decide how valid the physical and testimonial evidence presented to them is. However, as the prosecution's evidence
in court needs to start by convincing the Crown Prosecution Service means the evidence must be valid (is it measuring what it's supposed to
measure/correct) but it's not certain. Defence may be able to show inconsistencies in a witness's testimony during cross-examination. Evidence needs to
be admissible, reliable and credible.
Case Example - Sion Jenkins - On February 15th 1997 at 3:30, 13 year old Billie Jo Jenkins was battered to death with an 18 inch metal tent peg,
which was found lying by her head. No evidence to suggest a sexual assault or robbery. Sion was charged with the murder but after the second retrial
the jury couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict so he was acquitted. He was first charged due to blood that was found on his fleece, which he claims
happened when he found Billie-Jo on the floor. This was the only piece of evidence that they had to convict him, but regardless he was convicted of
murder and sentenced to life in prison. A forensic specialist found 72 microplastic blood spots on his fleece jacket, 76 spots on his trousers and 10 on his
shoe which was invisible to the naked eye, this shows the evidence collected is accurate.. The forensic specialists' opinion was the attacker would have to
stand very close to the victim when the blows were inflicted on the victim's head causing what he described as a ‘mist’. He emphasised that there was no
other explanation for the invisible blood splatter. There are no sure circumstances of how this blood got onto Sion Jenkins and his defence argued that
the forensic evidence was misinterpreted and there were several disputes on the circumstances of this physical evidence. Even though there was no
forensic evidence that definitively linked him to the weapon, there were suggestions that Jenkins handled it during the attack. However, the prosecution
argued that the absence of evidence pointing to an intruder and the presence of Jenkins’ blood were enough to link him to the crime. There are doubts
about his credibility due to the inaccuracies of his statements and the testimonial evidence. At first he claimed he had been at the hardware store
buying spirits when the attack happened, but this was questioned when investigators found a half-bottle of spirits in the house which was more than
enough to clean imperfections on the door which shows accuracy. It also lacks currency as his version of events changed over time, with inconsistent
statements about his location and actions. His choice to go to the crime scene and wait for police instead of getting help for Billie-Jo is very suspicious.
These inconsistencies about him changing alibi and how long he spent at the hardware store were used by the defence to argue that the case against
Jenkins was based on circumstantial evidence and unreliable testimonies from his neighbours and family. There's also high bias as the police focused on
Jeremy very early in the investigation which could lead to confirmation bias. And the intense media coverage contributed to the public bias against
Jenkins which portrayed him negatively and would have influenced the jury’s perception and impacted the case's fairness and accuracy. After spending six
years in prison, he was later released when the case was reviewed by a two-year investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and it was found
there was a lack of compelling evidence, such as the blood spatter analysis and inconsistencies in witness testimony, to be able to convict him. And as
the case was in 1997 it lacks currency. His ex-wife made claims that he was violent towards her and their children, though Jenkins denies these
accusations. Due to all of these reasons I conclude that this case was not valid, as there was no truth in what Sion Jenkins said and the forensic
evidence was inconclusive.
Case example - Jeremy Bamber - On August 7th 1985 in a farmhouse in Essex at 3am, Jeremy made a call to the police to report the murder of his
family of six, when the police arrived they saw that the entire family, except Jeremy, had been shot. Jeremy was a suspect and was convicted and found
guilty in October 1986 of committing the murders and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years. The then home secretary,
, Douglas Hurd, increased this to a whole-life tariff in 1988. Jeremy has maintained his innocence throughout. The circumstances of the case include the
police initially believing that Sheila, Bambers sister, had killed her family then killed herself as she had a history of mental health issues. However,
inconsistencies were later found that shifted suspicion towards Jeremy. This view of mental health may lack currency as society's views have changed and
there could be bias in influencing new thoughts on the case. This could affect the perception of evidence’s accuracy and the balance between
circumstantial and direct evidence in high profile trials. The circumstances around Bambers possible motive, including alleged conflicts with his family
and the inheritance, became very important to the investigation which means there could be bias. The forensic evidence of the case includes a silencer
found on the rifle used in the murders, which when attached, made it impossible for Sheila to commit suicide due to the guns length, showing that she
couldn’t be the shooter. However, there are issues with the accuracy of this as there were discrepancies in storage and handling, which could lead to
contamination. There is a lack of currency as the forensic methods used in the 1980s were less advanced than today, so there was a much higher risk
that some conclusions may have been influenced by subjective interpretation, which increases the risk of bias, rather than objective conclusive science.
The accuracy can also be questioned as the silencer was reportedly compromised so any conclusions made coil;d be from possible tainted evidence. And
statements from his family, especially his cousin, could be very biassed and based on their own opinion as shown when his cousin said Bamber had
mentioned planning to kill his family. There was also high bias as the courts depended on witness testimony written late in september 1985 and the
CCRC has said that these accounts are more reliable than all contemporaneous logs and photographs, and if witness statements conflicted with these
logs or photographs the CCRC automatically sides with the prosecution instead of investigating the discrepancies. There was intense coverage of the case
which could have influenced the public and juries opinion, making Bamber look worse. Sensationalist reporting may have created a bias which could have
impacted the case’s accuracy by shaping an assumption of guilt based on the way he was portrayed. And there may have been political bias as it was
such a high profile case the police may have been under pressure to secure a conviction, which could have led to confirmation bias. Bambers lawyer
believed that the jury was prejudiced as they weren’t told about two gunshot wounds that Sheila sustained. The crime scene was contaminated when
officers were unable to get access to the house for 45 minutes after they attempted to reconstruct what happened. In conclusion this case was not valid
due to the issues with bias, questionable forensic evidence and outdated investigative techniques, the accuracy of his conviction is questionable as it is not
valid by current standards.
Eyewitness testimony
Juries tend to take eye witness accounts seriously, though it may not always be valid. Many convictions based on eyewitness accounts are overturned
when more reliable evidence, such as DNA, is found. Psychologists, Loftus et al, found that witness memory can be affected by factors such as: the time
the event took place, whether they discussed what they saw with anyone, how long they saw it, and the way questions are asked to them in court. These
factors suggest that eyewitness testimony’s lack validity. ‘Weapon focus’ - witnesses focus on the weapon rather than factors such as what the witness
looks like.
Evidence from experts
The evidence from expert witnesses is different from ordinary witnesses. As they are experts on the subject they are talking about, they are allowed to
give their opinions. Jurors give great weight to experts, and this can dramatically change the verdict that they come to.
Case Example - Barry George - Jill Dando (a famous new presenter) was shot dead outside her home in 1999. Barry George was arrested and charged
for the murder. There was a lot of public pressure for the murder to be solved which could lead to confirmation bias but there was no forensic evidence
Evidence
It is up to the jury or magistrates to decide how valid the physical and testimonial evidence presented to them is. However, as the prosecution's evidence
in court needs to start by convincing the Crown Prosecution Service means the evidence must be valid (is it measuring what it's supposed to
measure/correct) but it's not certain. Defence may be able to show inconsistencies in a witness's testimony during cross-examination. Evidence needs to
be admissible, reliable and credible.
Case Example - Sion Jenkins - On February 15th 1997 at 3:30, 13 year old Billie Jo Jenkins was battered to death with an 18 inch metal tent peg,
which was found lying by her head. No evidence to suggest a sexual assault or robbery. Sion was charged with the murder but after the second retrial
the jury couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict so he was acquitted. He was first charged due to blood that was found on his fleece, which he claims
happened when he found Billie-Jo on the floor. This was the only piece of evidence that they had to convict him, but regardless he was convicted of
murder and sentenced to life in prison. A forensic specialist found 72 microplastic blood spots on his fleece jacket, 76 spots on his trousers and 10 on his
shoe which was invisible to the naked eye, this shows the evidence collected is accurate.. The forensic specialists' opinion was the attacker would have to
stand very close to the victim when the blows were inflicted on the victim's head causing what he described as a ‘mist’. He emphasised that there was no
other explanation for the invisible blood splatter. There are no sure circumstances of how this blood got onto Sion Jenkins and his defence argued that
the forensic evidence was misinterpreted and there were several disputes on the circumstances of this physical evidence. Even though there was no
forensic evidence that definitively linked him to the weapon, there were suggestions that Jenkins handled it during the attack. However, the prosecution
argued that the absence of evidence pointing to an intruder and the presence of Jenkins’ blood were enough to link him to the crime. There are doubts
about his credibility due to the inaccuracies of his statements and the testimonial evidence. At first he claimed he had been at the hardware store
buying spirits when the attack happened, but this was questioned when investigators found a half-bottle of spirits in the house which was more than
enough to clean imperfections on the door which shows accuracy. It also lacks currency as his version of events changed over time, with inconsistent
statements about his location and actions. His choice to go to the crime scene and wait for police instead of getting help for Billie-Jo is very suspicious.
These inconsistencies about him changing alibi and how long he spent at the hardware store were used by the defence to argue that the case against
Jenkins was based on circumstantial evidence and unreliable testimonies from his neighbours and family. There's also high bias as the police focused on
Jeremy very early in the investigation which could lead to confirmation bias. And the intense media coverage contributed to the public bias against
Jenkins which portrayed him negatively and would have influenced the jury’s perception and impacted the case's fairness and accuracy. After spending six
years in prison, he was later released when the case was reviewed by a two-year investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and it was found
there was a lack of compelling evidence, such as the blood spatter analysis and inconsistencies in witness testimony, to be able to convict him. And as
the case was in 1997 it lacks currency. His ex-wife made claims that he was violent towards her and their children, though Jenkins denies these
accusations. Due to all of these reasons I conclude that this case was not valid, as there was no truth in what Sion Jenkins said and the forensic
evidence was inconclusive.
Case example - Jeremy Bamber - On August 7th 1985 in a farmhouse in Essex at 3am, Jeremy made a call to the police to report the murder of his
family of six, when the police arrived they saw that the entire family, except Jeremy, had been shot. Jeremy was a suspect and was convicted and found
guilty in October 1986 of committing the murders and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years. The then home secretary,
, Douglas Hurd, increased this to a whole-life tariff in 1988. Jeremy has maintained his innocence throughout. The circumstances of the case include the
police initially believing that Sheila, Bambers sister, had killed her family then killed herself as she had a history of mental health issues. However,
inconsistencies were later found that shifted suspicion towards Jeremy. This view of mental health may lack currency as society's views have changed and
there could be bias in influencing new thoughts on the case. This could affect the perception of evidence’s accuracy and the balance between
circumstantial and direct evidence in high profile trials. The circumstances around Bambers possible motive, including alleged conflicts with his family
and the inheritance, became very important to the investigation which means there could be bias. The forensic evidence of the case includes a silencer
found on the rifle used in the murders, which when attached, made it impossible for Sheila to commit suicide due to the guns length, showing that she
couldn’t be the shooter. However, there are issues with the accuracy of this as there were discrepancies in storage and handling, which could lead to
contamination. There is a lack of currency as the forensic methods used in the 1980s were less advanced than today, so there was a much higher risk
that some conclusions may have been influenced by subjective interpretation, which increases the risk of bias, rather than objective conclusive science.
The accuracy can also be questioned as the silencer was reportedly compromised so any conclusions made coil;d be from possible tainted evidence. And
statements from his family, especially his cousin, could be very biassed and based on their own opinion as shown when his cousin said Bamber had
mentioned planning to kill his family. There was also high bias as the courts depended on witness testimony written late in september 1985 and the
CCRC has said that these accounts are more reliable than all contemporaneous logs and photographs, and if witness statements conflicted with these
logs or photographs the CCRC automatically sides with the prosecution instead of investigating the discrepancies. There was intense coverage of the case
which could have influenced the public and juries opinion, making Bamber look worse. Sensationalist reporting may have created a bias which could have
impacted the case’s accuracy by shaping an assumption of guilt based on the way he was portrayed. And there may have been political bias as it was
such a high profile case the police may have been under pressure to secure a conviction, which could have led to confirmation bias. Bambers lawyer
believed that the jury was prejudiced as they weren’t told about two gunshot wounds that Sheila sustained. The crime scene was contaminated when
officers were unable to get access to the house for 45 minutes after they attempted to reconstruct what happened. In conclusion this case was not valid
due to the issues with bias, questionable forensic evidence and outdated investigative techniques, the accuracy of his conviction is questionable as it is not
valid by current standards.
Eyewitness testimony
Juries tend to take eye witness accounts seriously, though it may not always be valid. Many convictions based on eyewitness accounts are overturned
when more reliable evidence, such as DNA, is found. Psychologists, Loftus et al, found that witness memory can be affected by factors such as: the time
the event took place, whether they discussed what they saw with anyone, how long they saw it, and the way questions are asked to them in court. These
factors suggest that eyewitness testimony’s lack validity. ‘Weapon focus’ - witnesses focus on the weapon rather than factors such as what the witness
looks like.
Evidence from experts
The evidence from expert witnesses is different from ordinary witnesses. As they are experts on the subject they are talking about, they are allowed to
give their opinions. Jurors give great weight to experts, and this can dramatically change the verdict that they come to.
Case Example - Barry George - Jill Dando (a famous new presenter) was shot dead outside her home in 1999. Barry George was arrested and charged
for the murder. There was a lot of public pressure for the murder to be solved which could lead to confirmation bias but there was no forensic evidence
