3.1 - Examine information for validity
Amanda Knox:
In the case of Amanda Knox, forensic evidence was used against her which led to
both her conviction and to be later acquitted for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The
police used DNA on the suspected murder weapon, a knife, to convict Knox.Evidence,
such as eyewitness testimonies, evidence from experts and forensic evidence are
presented by both the defense and prosecution to aid their argument. The CPS requires
evidence to be admissible, reliable and credible to be considered valid. The validity of
evidence as a source of information in the Amanda Knox case can be questioned due to
circumstance, as Knox lived with the victim, so her DNA would be found at the crime
scene, and should not have been used as evidence for guilt. Therefore, it can be
suggested the evidence is circumstantial, as DNA in her own apartment is guaranteed to
be found. Furthermore, other forensic DNA was found on the victim’s bra clasp six weeks
after the murder. The defence argued it was too long after the crime for that to be used
as a reliable piece of evidence, and this means the currency of evidence can deem it to be
invalid. If the evidence is not collected within the golden hour, there is always a risk of
contamination, making the forensic evidence to lack currency. Lastly, a false eyewitness
testimony was presented by Knox, to say she had returned to her apartment the night of
the murder to find Lumumba stabbing Kercher. This form of evidence can be considered
to be invalid in this case due to bias, as Knox had lied to the court to try and frame
Lumumba to make her seem innocent. Furthermore, Knox’s reputation to lie to try and
get out of trouble reinforces the bias in any future testimonies she made. In contrast,
forensic evidence was used in the case of Ted Bundy, and it can be considered valid. A
forensic odontologist analysed the teeth marks on the sorority victim and compared it to
a mould of Bundy’s teeth. This form of evidence has currency, as it was up to date and the
mould was taken at the time of the trial. Similarly, the evidence can be argued to be
accurate as it was collected by a specialist in the field of forensic odontology. Therefore,
although forensic evidence, expert witness and eyewitness testimonies are viewed as
accurate forms of evidence, they may be invalid due to circumstance, currency and bias.
Christopher Jefferies:
In december 2010, Joanna Yeates disappeared and was found on Christmas day.
Christopher Jefferies (her landlord) was suspected, and there were multiple media
headlines about him, regarding him as the ‘the strange Mr Jefferies’. Despite later being
proved innocent, Jefferies was insulted and scapegoated by the media. Jefferies was
stereotyped due to his “creepy” appearance, and the media wrongly called him a
“peeping Tom”. The media report on criminal cases, and can have an influence on a
variety of things, such as the jurors involved in the case, or even lead to a moral panic
and a change in legislation. The media is known to stereotype and have a political bias.
Despite later being proved innocent, Jefferies was insulted and scapegoated by the
media. Jefferies was stereotyped due to his “creepy” appearance, and the media wrongly
called him a “peeping Tom”. Mr Jefferies told the Leveson Inquiry there had been a
Amanda Knox:
In the case of Amanda Knox, forensic evidence was used against her which led to
both her conviction and to be later acquitted for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The
police used DNA on the suspected murder weapon, a knife, to convict Knox.Evidence,
such as eyewitness testimonies, evidence from experts and forensic evidence are
presented by both the defense and prosecution to aid their argument. The CPS requires
evidence to be admissible, reliable and credible to be considered valid. The validity of
evidence as a source of information in the Amanda Knox case can be questioned due to
circumstance, as Knox lived with the victim, so her DNA would be found at the crime
scene, and should not have been used as evidence for guilt. Therefore, it can be
suggested the evidence is circumstantial, as DNA in her own apartment is guaranteed to
be found. Furthermore, other forensic DNA was found on the victim’s bra clasp six weeks
after the murder. The defence argued it was too long after the crime for that to be used
as a reliable piece of evidence, and this means the currency of evidence can deem it to be
invalid. If the evidence is not collected within the golden hour, there is always a risk of
contamination, making the forensic evidence to lack currency. Lastly, a false eyewitness
testimony was presented by Knox, to say she had returned to her apartment the night of
the murder to find Lumumba stabbing Kercher. This form of evidence can be considered
to be invalid in this case due to bias, as Knox had lied to the court to try and frame
Lumumba to make her seem innocent. Furthermore, Knox’s reputation to lie to try and
get out of trouble reinforces the bias in any future testimonies she made. In contrast,
forensic evidence was used in the case of Ted Bundy, and it can be considered valid. A
forensic odontologist analysed the teeth marks on the sorority victim and compared it to
a mould of Bundy’s teeth. This form of evidence has currency, as it was up to date and the
mould was taken at the time of the trial. Similarly, the evidence can be argued to be
accurate as it was collected by a specialist in the field of forensic odontology. Therefore,
although forensic evidence, expert witness and eyewitness testimonies are viewed as
accurate forms of evidence, they may be invalid due to circumstance, currency and bias.
Christopher Jefferies:
In december 2010, Joanna Yeates disappeared and was found on Christmas day.
Christopher Jefferies (her landlord) was suspected, and there were multiple media
headlines about him, regarding him as the ‘the strange Mr Jefferies’. Despite later being
proved innocent, Jefferies was insulted and scapegoated by the media. Jefferies was
stereotyped due to his “creepy” appearance, and the media wrongly called him a
“peeping Tom”. The media report on criminal cases, and can have an influence on a
variety of things, such as the jurors involved in the case, or even lead to a moral panic
and a change in legislation. The media is known to stereotype and have a political bias.
Despite later being proved innocent, Jefferies was insulted and scapegoated by the
media. Jefferies was stereotyped due to his “creepy” appearance, and the media wrongly
called him a “peeping Tom”. Mr Jefferies told the Leveson Inquiry there had been a
