3.1
EVIDENCE:
- Evidence can be physical material or testimonial that is used to in a case to prove
innocence or guilt.
- Evidence can range from, a witness, blood, victim statement…
- However, for evidence to be considered admissible, it must be relevant and if
physical evidence is wanting to be used in court, it must not be contaminated.
- In more serious and complex cases, such as Sally Clarkes case,
- an expert of a specific field is often brought in to give factual evidence, either in
favour of trying to prove guilt or innocence.
- Due to this expertise title, regardless of the accuracy, jurors will tend to believe what
they have been told.
- This just happened to be the case while Sally Clarke was on trial.
- The circumstances in this case were that Sally was accused of murdering her two
infants.
- Roy Meadow, a professor, was brought in to prove her guilty.
- Despite Roy’s inaccurate statistics she still faced some time in prison.
- This was considered bias as he was acting for the prosecution.
- Regardless of his mistake, his expert title convinced the jury of her guilt.
- His statistics read that there was a 1 in 73 million chance that both children could
have died from SIDS.
- Meanwhile it was later found that his statistics lacked accuracy in which it was much
higher chance that they could have both passed from SIDS, 21/1000.
- Those who come forward as a witness often receive a lot of weight from the juries,
even though it may not always be valid.
- It is evident and factually proven that eyewitnesses shouldn’t be used as heavy
evidence as their recollection can be altered by many factors such as trauma and
how long ago the event took place.
- A case when an eyewitness’s statement was later proved to be invalid was the case
of Damilola Taylor,
- where a 14-year-old girl had blatantly lied, telling the court he fell when in fact he
was stabbed multiple times.
- Her blatant lying caused heavy discussion in the court and the damage to their
reputation for not being able to notice her lies.
- It is evident through the brief that eyewitnesses or people who claim to be aren’t
always valid and reliable.
- A witness who had come forward did not see anything, they just found a red scarf in
the park which clearly could be anyone’s. This evidence is not valid to the case.
- The police had no physical concrete evidence that Gareth committed the murder, yet
due to the high publicity, they made it their job to make him look guilty
- by setting up an undercover operation.
- Subsequently trying to incriminate this man.
- This clarifies that regardless of if someone is classed as an expert it could very well
be bias and subjective.
- If the prosecution wants to find him guilty, they will find someone to try back up
their case, and likewise with defence.
LINK TO BREIF
EVIDENCE:
- Evidence can be physical material or testimonial that is used to in a case to prove
innocence or guilt.
- Evidence can range from, a witness, blood, victim statement…
- However, for evidence to be considered admissible, it must be relevant and if
physical evidence is wanting to be used in court, it must not be contaminated.
- In more serious and complex cases, such as Sally Clarkes case,
- an expert of a specific field is often brought in to give factual evidence, either in
favour of trying to prove guilt or innocence.
- Due to this expertise title, regardless of the accuracy, jurors will tend to believe what
they have been told.
- This just happened to be the case while Sally Clarke was on trial.
- The circumstances in this case were that Sally was accused of murdering her two
infants.
- Roy Meadow, a professor, was brought in to prove her guilty.
- Despite Roy’s inaccurate statistics she still faced some time in prison.
- This was considered bias as he was acting for the prosecution.
- Regardless of his mistake, his expert title convinced the jury of her guilt.
- His statistics read that there was a 1 in 73 million chance that both children could
have died from SIDS.
- Meanwhile it was later found that his statistics lacked accuracy in which it was much
higher chance that they could have both passed from SIDS, 21/1000.
- Those who come forward as a witness often receive a lot of weight from the juries,
even though it may not always be valid.
- It is evident and factually proven that eyewitnesses shouldn’t be used as heavy
evidence as their recollection can be altered by many factors such as trauma and
how long ago the event took place.
- A case when an eyewitness’s statement was later proved to be invalid was the case
of Damilola Taylor,
- where a 14-year-old girl had blatantly lied, telling the court he fell when in fact he
was stabbed multiple times.
- Her blatant lying caused heavy discussion in the court and the damage to their
reputation for not being able to notice her lies.
- It is evident through the brief that eyewitnesses or people who claim to be aren’t
always valid and reliable.
- A witness who had come forward did not see anything, they just found a red scarf in
the park which clearly could be anyone’s. This evidence is not valid to the case.
- The police had no physical concrete evidence that Gareth committed the murder, yet
due to the high publicity, they made it their job to make him look guilty
- by setting up an undercover operation.
- Subsequently trying to incriminate this man.
- This clarifies that regardless of if someone is classed as an expert it could very well
be bias and subjective.
- If the prosecution wants to find him guilty, they will find someone to try back up
their case, and likewise with defence.
LINK TO BREIF
