Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation.
[1] One prominent pioneer was Hugo Münsterberg, whose controversial book On the Witness Stand (1908) demonstrated the fallibility of eyewitness accounts, but met with fierce criticism, particularly in legal circles.
[4] In the 1970s and '80s, Bob Buckhout showed, inter alia, that eyewitness conditions can, within ethical and other constraints, be simulated on university campuses,[2] and that large numbers of people can be mistaken.
In his study, "Nearly 2,000 witnesses can be wrong",[5] Buckhout performed an experiment with 2,145 at-home viewers of a popular news broadcast.
The clip was followed by the announcer asking participants at home for cooperation in identifying the man who stole the purse.
[5] The surprise or shock over the fact that a crime is happening puts the visceral experience of the event large, front and center of attention for a witness or a victim.
After a crime occurs, and an eyewitness comes forward, law enforcement tries to gather as much information as they can, in order to avoid any influence that may come from the environment, such as the media.
Individuals who identify a suspect with blonde hair will most likely change their answers upon learning two other people reported the suspect had brown hair; “People may agree with another person because of normative pressures to conform even when they believe the response is in error.” (Gabbert, Wright, Memon, & Skagerberg, 2012).
This means that if someone is not repeating everything they just witnessed over and over again to convert it over into their working or long-term memory, there is a good chance they can only remember the basic facts of the situation.
Children's developmental level (generally correlated with age) causes them to be more easily influenced by leading questions, misinformation, and other post-event details.
Every time a witness reflects on an event, it is only natural that the memory can begin to fade or be changed due to reconsolidation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory In a 1932 study, Frederic Bartlett demonstrated how serial reproduction of a story distorted accuracy in recalling information.
People attempt to place past events into existing representations of the world, making the memory more coherent.
Bartlett summarized this issue, explaining [M]emory is personal, not because of some intangible and hypothetical persisting ‘self ’, which receives and maintains innumerable traces, restimulating them whenever it needs; but because the mechanism of adult human memory demands an organisation of ‘schemata’ depending upon an interplay of appetites, instincts, interests and ideas peculiar to any given subject.
Thus if, as in some pathological cases, these active sources of the ‘schemata’ get cut off from one another, the peculiar personal attributes of what is remembered fail to appear.
[17]: 213 In a study by Talarico and Rubin, it was found that although many had high confidence in their accuracy in recalling 9/11, these memories were not fully accurate.
Overall, the vividness of emotionally charged memories causes witness’ to have greater faith in their recollection despite being susceptible to forgetting over time.
She provided extensive research on this topic, revolutionizing the field with her bold stance that challenges the credibility of eyewitness testimony in court.
[24] The presence of a weapon impacts some details of the crime committed, such as what the assailant is wearing or other surrounding visual markers.
[27][28][29] As early as 1900, psychologists like Alfred Binet recorded how the phrasing of questioning during an investigation could alter witness response.
If police suggest their own opinions, whether verbal or non-verbal, it can encourage a witness to change their mind or lead to guessing.
Studies conducted by Crombag (1996) discovered that in an incident involving a crew attempting to return to the airport but were unable to maintain flight and crashed into an 11-story apartment building.
One researcher remarked, "[V]ery critical sense would have made our subjects realize that the implanted information could not possibly be true.
A survey of research on the matter confirm eyewitness testimony consistently changes over time and based on the type of questioning.
[33] Law enforcement, legal professions, and psychologists have worked together in attempts to make eyewitness testimony more reliable and accurate.
The approach focuses on making witness aware of all events surrounding a crime without generating false memories or inventing details.
[35] Currently, this is the U.S. Department of Justice's suggested method for law enforcement officials to use in obtaining information from witnesses.
https://en.wikipedia/org/wiki/Affect_thoery Over the last decade, the Innocence Project has been gaining notoriety for its work within the judicial system providing help in exonerating those who have been wrongfully accused of various crimes.
Experts debate what changes need to occur in the legal process in response to research on inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony.
The rules are part of nationwide court reform that attempts to improve the validity of eyewitness testimony and lower the rate of false conviction.