Examples Of Change Blindness

“In the law books, they call it “unconscious transference;” in layman’s terms, my memory had been contaminated.” (272) Torneo stating per Jennifer point of view by saying that eyewitness can be contaminated. Why? Well, sometime when a culprit is being present right in front, there’s a likely chance to think they’re the one that’s doing it, especially when it only one person. It’s likely to identifies only a suspect, and the suspect become the culprit because the police are likely to stop gathering information and they just want to focus on that person.

Eyewitness testimony has long been viewed as important evidence in court cases. The general population believes eyewitness identification more than any other evidence, even if the witness account is conflicting with the other evidence presented. Studies show that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and yet it is still considered the most important form of evidence. People think that if a person says they saw something then it must have happened. Currently there are no universal guidelines on how to obtain and present such evidence. The purpose of this paper is to explain why eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and discuss the proposed guidelines on how law enforcement agencies should gather identifications, as well how

The human mind is not like a tape recorder obviously, it does not record events exactly as seen in the moment of a crime, and neither can the events be recalled precisely like a tape that can rewind back in time. Therefore, making eyewitness identification inaccurate. For example, in the case of a

Due to the interview taking place after hours and the case not being assigned until the following day, I was unable to be present at the time of the interview. However, I have since observed a copy of that interview. The following is a summary of the forensic interview conducted that night by Megan Merrill with Deja Jones. This is a summary, not an exact transcript.

The reliability if an eyewitness testimony is questionable. The witness may be so certain that the person that thy are pointing out is one hundred per cent the suspect or they could be so certain when it comes to retelling the incident, although these people are so sure on what it is they are doing, their testimony cannot always accurate. Due to the lack of accuracy with eyewitness

After Jennifer Thompson-Cannino was raped in 1984, she identified a man in a police lineup and in court as her attacker. The detective conducting the lineup told Jennifer that she had done great, confirming that she had chosen the suspect. Eleven years later, DNA evidence proved that the suspect, Ronald Cotton, had been wrongfully convicted of the rape. A man named Bobby Poole, who Thompson testified she had never seen before, was the man who actually raped her. Ronald and Jennifer's book, picking cotton, portrays common factors that contribute to erroneous convictions. Although it addresses a variety of important issues, the most crucial is how subtle factors like eyewitness misidentification, confirmation bias and nature of a defendant can

The second mistake of the use of eyewitness testimonies in the Thompson & Cotton case was the focus Jennifer had on the weapon during

In Canada, the leading cause of wrongful conviction is due to the factor of eyewitness account. It has been proven that individual’s minds are not like tape recorders because everyone cannot precisely and accurately remember the description of what another person or object looks like. The courts looks at eyewitness accounts as a great factor to nab perpetrators because they believe that the witness should know what they are taking about and seen what occurred on the crime scene. On the other hand, eyewitness accounts lead to a 70 percent chance of wrongful conviction, where witnesses would substantially change their description of a perpetrator.

Eyewitness misidentification can pose a serious threat in forensic evidence. Eye witness testimony can easily be tampered with due to words or phrases used. Bias is a major issue in identification especially if the police officer uses suggestive tones to portray whom they believe is the suspect. Some witnesses will change their opinion when they hear new information of the suspect. A study has shown that words can play a major impact in the witness' mind and cause them to recall false information. False information can also stem from human memory, age, distance, and how long it took before a witness could recall the information. It has been shown that due to the confidence that a witness may have, it could impact the court systems' reliability on the witness; however, there are several solutions that can be done to prevent misidentification in the court of law. Some examples that can be done are blind administration, lineup composition, instructions, confidence statements, and

Christopher was identified in a crime line-up and two of the women-mother and sister of the rape victim was in court and identified Coleman as the offender. They didn’t find any physical evidence to show that Coleman committed this crime. The victim's mother told the prosecutor that she had know Coleman years earlier and she had not seen him recently, but recognized his voice and distinctive walk. Another sister told the court that she knew Christopher by the nickname “Fat” and that he had removed his mask during the crime when it was occurring. Nevertheless, these women had identified Coleman to responding during the grand jury hearing, and the other sister had incorrectly identified at least two other alleged

For example, Officer Bates assumed that Andrew Madison was pulling out a knife. He then tried to disarm him without knowing it was a weapon for sure. This resulted to both people getting a cut from a knife ,and Andrew Madison acquired a broken wrist. Another example is when witness statements contradict each other. Officer Tommy Majors said that he didn't remember what he said to Officer Kevin Bates during the time of the incident. On the contrary, Andrew Madison’s friend, James Lincoln, remembers Officer Majors telling the other officer to take it easy while he was trying to wrestle Andrew Madison. As you can see, every little confusing piece can be used against the

Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder, we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully, or it can be contaminated. A case I would like to mention is the Calvin Willis Case. One night in 1982, three young girls were sleeping alone in a Shreveport, Louisiana home when a man in cowboy boots came into the house and raped the oldest girl, who was Ten years old. When police started to investigate the rape, the three girls all remembered the attack differently. One police report said the Ten year old victim didn’t see her attacker’s face. Another report which wasn’t introduced at trial said she identified Calvin Willis, who lived in the neighbourhood. The girl’s mother testified at trial that neighbours had mentioned Willis’s name when discussing who might have committed the crime. The victim testified that she was shown photos and told to pick the man without a full beard. She testified that she didn’t pick anyone, police said she picked Willis. Willis was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. In 2003, DNA testing proved Willis’ innocence and he was released. He had served nearly Twenty Two years in prison for a crime he didn’t

Eyewitness identification, for the most part, is considered reliable eyewitness identification by the courts as excellent evidence to proof crimes at trial. Yet, Bennett Barbour’s arrest revealed these inaccuracies as he was wrongly arrested due to an over-reliance on eyewitness identification. Barbour’s physique, specifically his

There are many different factors that play a part in the increased chance of a witness correctly identifying a suspect. Such factors should be brought to the attention of the jury and the judge to help in properly assessing whether a witness is correctly identifying a suspect. A study by Magnussen, Melinder, Stridbeck, & Raja (2010) found that of the three different types of people: judge, jury, and general public, that for the most part all where fairly ill-informed on the reliability of eyewitness testimony with judges having the most. Judges only had about an 8% difference in knowledge when compared to jurors. With this information it is very clear that education on the reliability of eyewitness testimony needs to become more of a general knowledge information for the everyone, especially people who are involved in upholding the law. Another factor to look into when evaluating the accuracy eyewitness testimony is the role that memory plays. Memory is divided into three processes: perceiving, remembering, and recalling information (Simmonsen, 2013). There is plenty of room in all three of those stages to forget or falsely remember something. Some factors that play a part when a person perceives an event is the amount of time they are exposed to the event and the suspect. A study conducted by Horry, Halford, Brewer, Milne, & Bull. (2014) found that witnesses were increasingly more likely to correctly identify a suspect if they had been exposed to the suspect for sixty

“Violence, stress, and the presence of a weapon at the time of a crime all may have detrimental effects on the ability of a witness to make an accurate identification” (Vallas, 2011). Stress distorts an eyewitness’s observations, and while it is understandable to focus on the weapon when faced with a situation in which the eyewitness is in danger, the focus on the weapon is not as important as the description of the perpetrator. Since it is not within the power of researchers studying the effects of violence and stress on witnesses to replicate the exact stress and violence of an actual crime, it has been difficult to determine the actual effect that these two factors have on witnesses (Vallas, 2011). However, many experiments conclude that an increase in the level of violence used in the crime results in a decrease in both the accuracy of the identification as well as the witness’s recall abilities (Vallas, 2011). Weapon focus is described as