Eyewitness testimonials may be powerful tools in criminal investigations, but they are not the most reliable. Take 9\/11 for example, although everyone says that they know where they were when the planes crashed, 40% are wrong. This is thanks to the ‘illusion of truth’ phenomenon, which essentially means our memories tend to believe false truths after repeated exposure. The ‘illusion of truth’ phenomenon is just one way in which our memory can be faulty. When looking at crime cases, there is a high likelihood that the eyewitness makes a false testimony due to aspects that contribute to a warped perception. For example, bias, emotional state, memory decay, suggestibility, and misattribution. This now brings us to the Avery case, a great example of the effects of erroneous eyewitness testimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 1985 Steven Avery was wrongfully convicted of the rape and attempted murder of Penny Beerntsen. He had spent 18 years incarcerated before his conviction was overturned because of DNA evidence. A key component that led to his conviction was Penny Beerntsen’s faulty testimony. She had recognized Avery as her attacker from a photo lineup and a composite sketch. Her identification, however, happened in a pressure-filled situation after repeatedly having been exposed to Avery’s picture. These all had a great impact on her memory and influenced her false identification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Overall, the eyewitness should not have been exposed to Avery’s photo, this greatly tainted her testimony. Furthermore, if the police had followed the correct eyewitness identification procedures, a mistake in identification would have been prevented. For example, the police suggest setting up a lineup with multiple suspects rather than just one suspect. It’s also best to avoid repeating a lineup with the same suspect and the same eyewitness. Additionally, this procedure should have been recorded and documented on camera. All these methods would have helped to lessen the possibility of a false identification.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Eyewitness testimonials may be powerful tools in criminal investigations, but they are not the most reliable. Take 9\/11 for example, although everyone says that they know where they were when the planes crashed, 40% are wrong. This is thanks … Continue reading