100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Criminology Unit 3 3.1 Model Answer £2.99
Add to cart

Exam (elaborations)

Criminology Unit 3 3.1 Model Answer

8 reviews
 3852 views  47 purchases

This is a document is a full mark model answer for Criminology Unit 3 (Crime scene to courtroom) 3.1. This can be used as inspiration for your brief for the controlled assessment, or taken into the controlled assessment for guidance. WARNING: you may be disqualified from the exam for plagiarism if ...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 3  pages

  • February 2, 2022
  • 3
  • 2021/2022
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers
All documents for this subject (372)

8  reviews

review-writer-avatar

By: 17yjanes • 1 year ago

review-writer-avatar

By: scarbuck4 • 1 year ago

review-writer-avatar

By: raihanaltib3388 • 1 year ago

review-writer-avatar

By: henokefre • 1 year ago

review-writer-avatar

By: saniaiscool • 1 year ago

review-writer-avatar

By: jakey16 • 2 year ago

review-writer-avatar

By: elliefhutchinson • 2 year ago

Show more reviews  
avatar-seller
ThatCriminologyShop
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

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

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

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

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 ThatCriminologyShop. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £2.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

49497 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

Start selling
£2.99  47x  sold
  • (8)
Add to cart
Added