WJEC Criminology Unit 3 Crime scene to court room- AC 3.1 Controlled assessment notes
675 views 2 purchases
Course
Unit 3- Crime scene to Court Room
Institution
WJEC
Unit 3 Controlled Assessment Notes- from crime scene to courtroom. Has all assessment criteria with cases and evaluation (very detailed and predicted an A, over 60+ hours of work). Created using textbooks, class notes and the 2021 specification.
AC 3.1 (1.20)
Evidence and validity
● E in criminal cases- usually reliable
● Occasions where E hasnt been valid- lead to miscarriages of justice
● Direct E can be W testifying direct recollection of events
● Circumstantial E- when W cannot tell you directly about the fact that is intended to be
proved (allows someone to draw reasonable inference)
Case study 1
Jeremy Bamber:
○ No forensic E- All circumstantial E
○ Convicted killing 5 members of family- remote essex farm house (1985)
○ Pleaded innocence 25 yrs
○ P case- in the middle of night JB used silencer to murder family
○ His defence- sister (Sheila) history of suffered severe mental illness+hospitalised
with schizophrenia used fathers guns
○ Police initially- case of murder suicide (Sheilla, killed family+herself)
○ Silencer changed police opinion- couldn't kill herself+put away silencer (blame put on
JB)
○ E originally secured guilty verdict- scratch marks allegedly created weapon from
argument between JB+father Nevill
○ New E (from Britians leading forensic experts) suggested marks made after murders
took place
○ No marks in photo from crime scene
○ GF (Julie Mugford) Unhappy in relationship, wanted JB to commit (planned to start
new relationship)
○ JM W statements- claimed he’d told her he’d hired hitman (Mathew Mcdonald
○ Contradicted previous statement- Mathew found innocent)
○ Statement in court- claimed mathew said he’d shot Neill 7 times (what media said,
actually 8)- Jury unable to reach verdict from statement
● Biases- GF may have held grudge (rejected marriage+other woman)
● Judge MR Justice Drake ‘wrapped+evil beyond belief’
● Accuracy-News of world offered 25K before trial for JM story if guilty verdict
● Checkbook Journalism- paying for fake story
● Opinions (unreliable/valid?)- JM claimed he’d hired hitman for £2,000 (found
innocent)
● Circumstances- High profile case (police under pressure to convict/solve)
● No Forensic E- police relied on circumstantial E
● Currency-Silencer found 3 day later by cousin
● Argued JB framed family- inherited familys money
Judgment:
● Little E that points to verdict being valid
● Lack of validity for E- all circumstantial E
● E that lead to conviction (scratch marks) proven incorrect
● Accuracy for E questionable (change in statements-silencer potentially planted?)
Case study 2
, Expert evidence:
● Reliable- experts in field/highly tained/trusted by juries
● Good validity- they should be objective/daw on E of experience
● Isnt guaranteed- can make mistakes (miscarriages of justice/damage reputation)
Sally Clark+Roy Meadows:
○ Convicted murder killing her 2 babies
○ Sir Roy Meadows (pediatrician) gave expert opinion
○ Gave wrong statistic- lead to conviction
○ 1 in 73 million chance- 2 children dying of sudden infant death syndrome
○ Given incorrect statistics in similar cases
○ Jury accepted E as he was medical expert
○ Overwhelming E- child died lung infection
○ SC released after 3 yrs in prison- following appeal hearing (deemed conviction
unsafe)
● Accuracy- RM used wrong calculations for statistic
● Acquittal/other cases shows Statistical E- unreliable/lacked validity
● Circumstances-No EWT/forensic E (lack of valid E)
● Wasn’t mathematician
● Bias+opinion- Jury opinions swayed by expert witness (lay people/lack legal
knowledge)
● Technical/hard to understand (statistics)- Jury more likely to trust EW ‘blinded by
science’
● Lots of EW are correct- highly trained/experts in field (opinion should be
valid/reliable)
● ‘One sudden death is tradgedy, two is suspicious, 3 is murder until proved
otherwise’- biased
● Currency- used same statistic as previous similar cases (similar- not the same/not
current)
Judgment:
● Lack of E- should’ve been convicted (appeal)
● EW usually valid- human error
● Statistic shouldve been checked- caused multiple miscarriages justice (Staticical E
invalid)
Eyewitness testimony as evidence
W/Testimonal- validity affected:
● Mistaken identity (findings of Innocence Project)
● Memory erosion
● Leading Q’s
● Discussion of events with others-Loftus+Palmer
● Weapon focus
● Interpretation of events
Ronald Cotton:
○ July 1984- assailant broke into Jennifer Thompso-Cannino apartment
○ 10 yrs prison- rape+burglary didnt commit
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller TeeBott04. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.24. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
