Evidence:
The first source of information is evidence. Evidence is material that can prove or disprove
something, and can come in many forms. Multiple examples include eyewitness testimony,
expert evidence and forensic evidence. Eyewitness testimony is seen as convincing
however research suggests that eyewitness testimonies are affected by discussion with
others, presence of weapons, anxiety and use of leading questions which can cause it to not
be seen as valid. Expert evidence can be used by sharing their expertise with juries. This is
viewed as valid, however juries often assume their answers to be correct which can lead to
miscarriages of justice. Forensic evidence is physiological evidence from the crime scene
itself, therefore is objective and valid. However, it can be easily contaminated and becomes
totally invalid once contaminated. We can determine validity in evidence by assessing
opinion, bias, circumstance, currency and accuracy. For instance, these factors can be seen
in the case of Sally clark. Bias is shown when the jury had accepted the (incorrect) evidence
from Sir Roy Meadows since he is a medical expert. Sir Roy Meadow also showed opinion
when he claimed that the chance of two children from an affluent family suffering cot death
was 1 in 73 million. The circumstance in this case was Sally Clark’s first child passing away
at three months old. Currency is proven with Sir Roy meadows since he was an expert in
SIDS and his scientific credentials could be regarded as highly accurate. But in terms of
accuracy, the key statistic in the Sally Clark case was inaccurate. So overall, it can be seen
that the evidence in this case is invalid and proves that evidence overall can easily be
invalid.
Media reports:
The fourth source of information is media reports. Media reports can be seen as invalid for
multiple reasons. The first reason is political bias. Some media outlets are influenced by their
political stance. For example, Daily Mirror is traditionally left wing leaning and The sun is
right wing leaning. The second reason is moral panics. This is because the media can
sensationalise crime stories to attract a larger audience and increase revenue, which
eventually leads to moral panics. The third reason is stereotyping. The Media portrays
stereotypical views and descriptions of suspects, and uses these to attract customers. This
can be seen in the form of unflattering images and stereotypical language. An example of
media reports lacking currency can be seen after the Hillsborough disaster. On the 15th
April, 1989 an incident had happened at the FA Cup Semi-final match between Liverpool and
Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough stadium. A large crush against the steel terraces led to
the death of 96 Liverpool fans and left hundreds more injured. It was suggested by the
media that drunken Liverpool fans were to blame. The police also blamed fans for being late
and drunk. Despite there being an interim report written by the Director of Public
Prosecutions, there was still insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the
police. A long campaign had occurred and a panel on an official inquiry uncovered that the
police had orchestrated a cover up, falsified documents and blamed innocent supporters and
it was uncovered that 41 supporters could have been saved and the report cleared the
supporters of any wrongdoing or blame for the disaster. After a new inquest and two years of
evidence it was found that all 96 fans had been unlawfully killed. A case example of the
media showing bias is in the case of Christopher Jeffreys. The tabloid press campaigned
against Jeffries. For example, the Sun claimed he had been branded a ‘creepy oddball’ by
ex-pupils and teaching colleagues. That he had invited pupils to his home, was domineering
and was believed to be ‘gay’. The Daily Mirror claimed Jefferies was a ‘peeping Tom’ and the
The first source of information is evidence. Evidence is material that can prove or disprove
something, and can come in many forms. Multiple examples include eyewitness testimony,
expert evidence and forensic evidence. Eyewitness testimony is seen as convincing
however research suggests that eyewitness testimonies are affected by discussion with
others, presence of weapons, anxiety and use of leading questions which can cause it to not
be seen as valid. Expert evidence can be used by sharing their expertise with juries. This is
viewed as valid, however juries often assume their answers to be correct which can lead to
miscarriages of justice. Forensic evidence is physiological evidence from the crime scene
itself, therefore is objective and valid. However, it can be easily contaminated and becomes
totally invalid once contaminated. We can determine validity in evidence by assessing
opinion, bias, circumstance, currency and accuracy. For instance, these factors can be seen
in the case of Sally clark. Bias is shown when the jury had accepted the (incorrect) evidence
from Sir Roy Meadows since he is a medical expert. Sir Roy Meadow also showed opinion
when he claimed that the chance of two children from an affluent family suffering cot death
was 1 in 73 million. The circumstance in this case was Sally Clark’s first child passing away
at three months old. Currency is proven with Sir Roy meadows since he was an expert in
SIDS and his scientific credentials could be regarded as highly accurate. But in terms of
accuracy, the key statistic in the Sally Clark case was inaccurate. So overall, it can be seen
that the evidence in this case is invalid and proves that evidence overall can easily be
invalid.
Media reports:
The fourth source of information is media reports. Media reports can be seen as invalid for
multiple reasons. The first reason is political bias. Some media outlets are influenced by their
political stance. For example, Daily Mirror is traditionally left wing leaning and The sun is
right wing leaning. The second reason is moral panics. This is because the media can
sensationalise crime stories to attract a larger audience and increase revenue, which
eventually leads to moral panics. The third reason is stereotyping. The Media portrays
stereotypical views and descriptions of suspects, and uses these to attract customers. This
can be seen in the form of unflattering images and stereotypical language. An example of
media reports lacking currency can be seen after the Hillsborough disaster. On the 15th
April, 1989 an incident had happened at the FA Cup Semi-final match between Liverpool and
Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough stadium. A large crush against the steel terraces led to
the death of 96 Liverpool fans and left hundreds more injured. It was suggested by the
media that drunken Liverpool fans were to blame. The police also blamed fans for being late
and drunk. Despite there being an interim report written by the Director of Public
Prosecutions, there was still insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the
police. A long campaign had occurred and a panel on an official inquiry uncovered that the
police had orchestrated a cover up, falsified documents and blamed innocent supporters and
it was uncovered that 41 supporters could have been saved and the report cleared the
supporters of any wrongdoing or blame for the disaster. After a new inquest and two years of
evidence it was found that all 96 fans had been unlawfully killed. A case example of the
media showing bias is in the case of Christopher Jeffreys. The tabloid press campaigned
against Jeffries. For example, the Sun claimed he had been branded a ‘creepy oddball’ by
ex-pupils and teaching colleagues. That he had invited pupils to his home, was domineering
and was believed to be ‘gay’. The Daily Mirror claimed Jefferies was a ‘peeping Tom’ and the
