Even the most basic, everyday items often fail to be encoded into our memory. When reconstructing their memory of the crime, the eyewitness “unknowingly fills in the gaps in his or her factual memory of the crime based on such factors as the eyewitness’s expectations, attitude, beliefs and knowledge of similar events” (Wise, Fishman and Safer, 2009). This, in turn, produces a testimony that may seem believable and accurate, but does indeed contain many faults and inaccuracies. Another cause of faulty eyewitness testimony is eyewitness bias. Encoding is defined as “the set of mental operations that people perform on sensory information to convert that information into a form that is usable in the brain’s storage systems” (Ciccarelli and White, 2010 pg 214).
In the State v. Cotton case, empirical evidence was discounted for in the jury’s eyes. Cotton was wrongfully convicted due to the persuasive speech from Jennifer Thompson. Although eyewitness accounts are now discredited, they tend to provide in-depth descriptions that evidence could not explain alone. Eyewitness accounts are ineffective due to our memory. Many people believe that our memory works like a video or tape recorder.
An eyewitness memory relates to a person's episodic memory for a crime or other dramatic event that he or she has witnessed. Eyewitness testimony is often relied upon in the judicial system. However, the accuracy of eyewitness memories is sometimes questioned because there are many factors that can act during encoding and retrieval of the witnessed event which may adversely affect the creation and maintenance of the memory for the event. Various scholars for instance, Feldman (2009), have found evidence to suggest that eyewitness memory is volatile. It has long been speculated that mistaken eyewitness identification plays a major role in the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals.
The setting of an interrogation is formal and in a controlled environment conducted, only after the individual has been accused of a crime, and read their Miranda rights. When conducting either interviews or an interrogation, the most important thing is communication. Prior to the start of either one, the interviewee must be prepared with questions they want to ask, or other known facts about the case. Professionalism plays an important role while questioning or interviewing
Encoding may be only partial and distorted because some crimes happen very quickly. The second stage is the witness retains information for a period of time. Memories may be lost or modified during retention and other activities between encoding and retrieval may interfere with the memory. The third stage is when the witness retrieves the memory from storage. What happens during the reconstruction of the memory may significantly affect its accuracy.
As our minds are unlike cameras it is difficult to recall events with 100% accuracy. Many things can influence our recollection of events. Our pre existing bias and stereotypes can colour our memories, as can information obtained following the event. Therefore our memory of events are reconstructed from various sources, thus what we think may not always be to a high degree of accuracy. When considering the role of memory in the law, the issue of the fallibility of human memory is especially important.
Cons. a- Grand Jury investigations are a lengthy process. b- They might think that there is not enough evidence to move forward. c- Grand Jurors are not investigators. d- There might be someone involved in the crime, in the grand jury.
The aspects of scene documentation and evidence collection as regard to the case scenario are discussed below. Scene documentation The documentation process at the scene of the crime commences from the moment an investigating officer receives a call until the time the scene is relinquished, (George, 2011). Scene documentation is a very important step in the crime scene investigations. Producing and preserving records of the location of evidence and establishing the relationship between the available evidence and the condition of the scene as it was when the investigator observed it. The result of a well-documented scene is the ability of others who were not part of the investigation to take the finished product and use it to reconstruct the scene and the chain of events during the incident.
The information they gathered from this and the FBI’s experience and intuition they developed the classification system. This classification is why the US approach is a top-down approach. There are stages to the US Approach which are; data assimilation, crime scene classification, crime reconstruction and profile generation. Data assimilation is where all the data is collected from the crime scene, e.g. pictures, autopsy, witness reports etc.
All details are documented, and “intended to guide the exam, evidence collection, and crime lab analysis of findings (Turvey, 2012, p. 167). Gathering information from the victim about the events that may have led up to the crime is another important goal of forensic victimology. By categorizing victim exposure, it can be determined if a victim “contributed to their own victimization” (Turvey, 2012, p. 170). The 13 categories are outlined in Turvey (2012) p. 171-172. Some elements include being female, young, promiscuous, or a minority.