Page 69 - Forensic News Journal Jan Feb 2018

The Validity of Eyewitness Accounts - What You See is What You Think!

means that perception that the man was nowhere ence and mis-associations.

must be considered before in the vicinity of the Two additional factors are
discussing the factor of shooting at that time. imagination and sugges-
memory. tion.

Experimental studies have
It is very disconcerting to also demonstrated the Retention and recall de-

trial lawyers that memo- fallibility of the eyewit- creases in direct propor-
ries will change over time. ness. A simulated purse- tion to time interval. The
The statement made to snatching was staged greater the time interval,

investigators (to include before sixty-four wit- the greater the possibility
a forensic hypnosis in- nesses. Forty-eight of the there is of influence from

terview) near the time of witnesses attempted to the imagination. Also, a
an incident, normally has identify the suspect from person may be influenced
substantial changes by the two videotaped lineups, by what they thought they

time that a deposition or one with and one without saw. Then, explicit or im-
trial occurs. This is espe- the suspect. Only 13.5 plicit suggestion may lead

cially true when the wit- percent made a positive the witness to think they
ness is confronted with identification while the witnessed something that
their original signed state- remainder either chose the was not seen. And, there is

ment. wrong man, made no iden- a distinct possibility that
tification, or impeached a person can have a false

That there are sometimes themselves by picking two memory of an event. This
drastic changes in wit- men. hallucinated memory is
ness statements cannot be called a confabulation.

denied. For instance, in It is obvious that some-
1974, a man in California thing drastic happens Until several years ago

was erroneously convicted to memories after the courts struggled with
on the basis of a testimony original event, unless of the concept of suggest-
of seven eye witnesses course, it was originally ibility as a key factor in

who identified him as a misperceived. It can be questioning the validity
bank robber. In another inferred that memory of hypnotically refreshed

case in 1973, seventeen may change because of memories. Many psy-
witnesses identified a psychodynamic defense chologists (such as Drs.
man who has erroneously mechanisms within one’s Diamond and Ohrne) have

charged with shooting a own personality, faulty testified as expert witness-
police officer. It turned out reconstruction, or interfer- es disputing the validity

69