Amanda Knox : The Film Analysis Of Amanda Knox

Alves, S. (2011, September 27). Lessons from the Amanda Knox Arrest. Retrieved April 13, 2012, from Indelibleinternational: http://indelibleinternational.com/index.php?pc=justArticle&ora=E0_70130&so=safety

This paper examines Carrell et al’s research along with three other scholarly research articles to better understand the effects that the DNA recovered from a crime scene has on a particular case and the forensic science community.

The criminal justice system is meant to protect the innocent, and punish those who are guilty of a crime. However, no system is perfect, and as a result, sometimes the innocent become victims of the system that was meant to protect them. How exactly do these innocent people become victims of the system? Sometimes the person gets framed, and the crime scene is staged to point a finger at them. Sometimes, there is no strong physical evidence against them, yet circumstantial evidence is used by the crown to put them away. This happened to a 17 year old boy named Adnan Syed in Baltimore, Maryland, who was imprisoned for life, for the alleged murder of his ex-girlfriend Hae Lee. Throughout the Serial podcast, Sarah Koenig is able to critically analyze information which proves Adnan’s innocence. Firstly, Asia’s letters gave Adnan an alibi for the time of the murder. Secondly, Adnan’s innocence can be demonstrated through the lack of any strong evidence and the prosecution’s use of circumstantial evidence which can be disproved. Thirdly, Jay’s constantly changing testimony is not credible evidence of Adnan’s guilt, making him innocent.

In some cases, such as murder there are some people that have been wrongfully accused. Due to wrongful practices, people have been convicted of circumstantial evidence. ``DNA is a very powerful tool . . . but it is circumstantial evidence like other pieces of circumstantial evidence and a proper investigation still has to take place,'' she said. (Matthew, n.d.).

With many cases of this magnitude come speculations. No one wanted to believe that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder of Kercher. Even after the police apprehended Rudy Guede for the murder, they had never really counted out Knox and Sollecito as suspects. “… police and the public prosecutor’s office had convinced themselves that the

Confessions have become one of the most valued pieces of evidence in the criminal justice system. What many people, including jurors, may not know is that the process to obtain a confession can vary greatly. Many confessions can be coerced by very abnormal and dangerous situations. A prime example of a suggestive interrogation with a false confession comes from the documentary titled Murder on a Sunday Morning. Alongside, the analysis of the confession given in this documentary will be the critical analysis of three separate academic articles with findings that could have better served the defendant of this case.

``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the

Police questioned Amanda and Rafaela several times over the next several days and on November 6, authorities arrested Amanda and Rafaela taking them to are the police station where police held Knox for five days. During the time at the station, police observed Knox doing some very bizarre activities. For example, at one point, authorities allowed Knox to sit on Sollecito’s lap and authorities observe him kissing and hugging on her. In her memoir, Knox claims this behavior was not odd, but just Soilecito’s way of trying to calm her down. At another point, seated across the table from each other Rafaela and Amanda are making faces at each other. Amanda insists that these behaviors were not odd, because she had

Every time an innocent person is exonerated based on DNA testing, law enforcement agencies look at what caused the wrongful convictions. There are many issues that contribute to putting guiltless lives behind bars including: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, imperfect forensic science, and more (Gould and Leo 18). When a witness is taken into a police station to identify a suspect, it is easy for their memories to be blurred and their judgment influenced. This can lead the witness to identify a suspect who is actually innocent. Flawed forensic science practice also contributes to wrongful imprisonments. In the past, analysts have been inaccurate due to carelessness, testified in court presenting evidence that was not based

Because there are many different types of crimes, it is often difficult to find enough physical evidence to convict a person. For example, in rape cases there is usually only a small amount of physical evidence, so cases are based on word alone. Because of DNA testing we can now take samples from the victim and attempt to match the results with those of the suspect. Therefore, DNA is sometimes the only real way of determining the guilt or innocence of a suspect without having any witnesses. Since many rape cases are left unsolved, DNA testing is believed to be the most accurate way of keeping sex offenders off the street. Because of the growing trend of using DNA in rape cases especially, a company in Brooklyn now advertises a small flashlight-like device intended to be used to jab at attackers in order to collect a sample of his skin for later use (Adler). According to a study by Joseph Peterson, with the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois, DNA evidence does not have a major impact on the decision to either convict or acquit

I am doing my paper on the movie Conviction. The movie was from 2010 and portrays a working mother going to the extent to represent her brother for a crime he didn’t commit. Her hard working efforts broke her marriage apart and made her life quite difficult but despite all the speed bumps, she stayed true to her promise. Also, her brother Kennedy Waters inspired her to go to Law school to be his lawyer. This essay will foreshadow the process through law, process of getting arrested, and show how manipulation can make you second guess yourself or others. Also, this movie proves mistakes can be made in a case and Bethany proved the mistake being made. There were times Kennedy hated his life so bad, he did try to commit suicide. Through all the hard times, when he didn’t believe in himself, Bethany was there through thick and thin.

The way Edward said all this made him look innocent. The look on his face was distressed and he was uncomfortable. There were other interviews with Edwards fellow inmates. These interviews made them look gentle, thoughtful, intelligent people who believed in Edward’s innocence. Not one interview was with a person that claimed Edward was guilty except the superintendent. This interview was quite short. It took place in a car, so it was noisy which prevented it from having the atmosphere Edward’s interview had. Pictures of Edward made him out to be a kind, loving person who certainly did not deserve to die. The camera showed him playing chess, which indicated he was intelligent. They showed him playing basketball, which indicated he was fit and sporty. And they showed Edward with his family, which indicated he was a loving man who was devoted to his family.

Steven Avery, a family man, a victim of injustice and an accused murderer. One may have reasoned that his murder conviction was a crime of passion, due to the injustice Steven suffered from his 1985 false conviction of rape and assault, but that may have been before his story caught national attention. A documentary, “Making a Murderer”, directed by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, arose from his story’s infamy. With this documentary came numerous questions as to Avery’s possible innocence, but above all else answers that shed light on a possibly corrupt justice system that appears intent on framing Steven Avery for Teresa Halbach’s murder. “Making a Murderer” effectively portrays a message of the injustice of Steven Avery’s murder conviction and possible corruption within the Manitowoc’s justice system through the use of footage and accounts from people who were involved with his conviction.

No suspect was ever positively identified, although police investigated over 200 leads and 40 potential suspects. ‘In August [of the year] 2000, evidence from the case was analyzed using current DNA technology’ (Using DNA to Solve Crimes). ‘Then, in February 2001, the DNA sample was matched to an individual who was already serving a five-year sentence for an unrelated 1997 sexual assault of a child. The man has since been convicted of capital murder and aggravated sexual assault.’ In this criminal case, DNA evidence played an important role. A lady was raped, and just because of a DNA sample the criminalist picked up and carefully studied, the suspect was finally caught. This entire investigation took four years, but that was 15 years ago. Meanwhile, technology has advanced immensely and some cases may not have to take as long as that one did. Although the criminal was caught because of another crime, he was still on the loose after the first. This case is an example of how important DNA evidence can be. Specifically on a rape case, semen residue may play a big role in DNA testing, but if semen residue is not present on the scene, blood DNA evidence is definitely

Sayahg (2010) states there were fourteen sets of prints not identified to anyone believed involved in the case and only one set of prints on a glass found in the kitchen belonged to Knox. Extensive DNA analysis was conducted by forensic expert Patrizia Stefanoni, Burleigh (2011) explains. Nike shoeprints were found to belong to Guede. DNA belonging to Guede was also found on Kercher's handbag, sweatshirt, and Touch DNA was found inside Kercher's vagina (Burleigh, 2011). A bloody handprint on Kercher's pillow also belonged to Guede (Sayahg, 2010). Knox's DNA appeared in the sink of the shared bathroom and Stefanoni also identified traces of Knox's DNA and minute traces of Solleccito's DNA on the broken clasp of Kercher's bra that Waterbury (2011)