http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/the-memory-wars/4982084

When an eyewitness gives evidence in a trial, how much faith should we place in their testimony? At first brush the answer would seem to be, why not trust them? After all, if an impartial witness says with certainly they saw something—why be sceptical?

However, Elizabeth Loftus, a renowned professor of both law and psychology based at the University of California’s Irvine campus, urges caution. Professor Loftus has been at the forefront of complex and controversial debates around the nature of memory for many years, and her research has made her a much sought-after expert witness in both criminal and civil trials. In fact, she has testified in over 250 trials.

Professor Loftus says eyewitness testimony is the major cause of wrongful convictions in the USA. In one project where more than 300 cases of wrongful conviction were established using DNA testing, the major cause of these wrongful convictions was faulty eyewitness testimony.

——

Others followed in Professor Loftus’ footsteps, conducting experiments that planted more unusual and bizarre memories. A Tennessee study planted a false memory of nearly drowning and being rescued by a lifeguard; a Canadian study found that people believed they had been the victim of a vicious animal attack and an Italian study showed you could get people to believe they’d witnessed people being demonically possessed.

Loftus describes repressed memories as ‘one of the great mental health scandals of the 20th century’.

‘We saw thousands of lawsuits, all that money, all that waste, all that pain. When people have been abused in childhood, their problem is not that they can’t remember, but that they can’t forget.’

——

Personal anecdote time~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A few years ago I was called to be a prosecution witness to testify to what I had seen and heard regarding a very serious crime. In the time from the police statement (48 hours after the event) to the time I was called into the witness stand (6 years later) I had attempted to forget what I’d witnessed.

When on the stand, I was asked to recount what took place 6 years earlier. I told the prosecutor, the defendants solicitor and the judge that due to the period of time I was not confident in recalling what had happened and that they should refer to my police statement as it was the most accurate account. I hadn’t been given a copy of my initial police statement to refresh my memory.

My testimony was thrown out and I was classified as an unreliable witness by a hostile court. So much for attempting to be an unbiased witness.

(/anecdote)

dv said:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/the-memory-wars/4982084

When an eyewitness gives evidence in a trial, how much faith should we place in their testimony? At first brush the answer would seem to be, why not trust them? After all, if an impartial witness says with certainly they saw something—why be sceptical?

However, Elizabeth Loftus, a renowned professor of both law and psychology based at the University of California’s Irvine campus, urges caution. Professor Loftus has been at the forefront of complex and controversial debates around the nature of memory for many years, and her research has made her a much sought-after expert witness in both criminal and civil trials. In fact, she has testified in over 250 trials.

Professor Loftus says eyewitness testimony is the major cause of wrongful convictions in the USA. In one project where more than 300 cases of wrongful conviction were established using DNA testing, the major cause of these wrongful convictions was faulty eyewitness testimony.

——

Others followed in Professor Loftus’ footsteps, conducting experiments that planted more unusual and bizarre memories. A Tennessee study planted a false memory of nearly drowning and being rescued by a lifeguard; a Canadian study found that people believed they had been the victim of a vicious animal attack and an Italian study showed you could get people to believe they’d witnessed people being demonically possessed.

Loftus describes repressed memories as ‘one of the great mental health scandals of the 20th century’.

‘We saw thousands of lawsuits, all that money, all that waste, all that pain. When people have been abused in childhood, their problem is not that they can’t remember, but that they can’t forget.’

——

There seems to be four different points made in that post. People forget, people, remember, people can’t forget and people can remember stuff that didn’t happen. Which one are we looking at?

Stealth: you should read the article, which will place those excerpts into fuller context.

Sorry DV, I missed that you linked it at the top of the article. It does improve the context. I wonder if eye witness testimony is more problematic due to lawyers’ biased influence and court etiquette than whether the person can actually remember what happened.

stan101 said:

My testimony was thrown out and I was classified as an unreliable witness by a hostile court. So much for attempting to be an unbiased witness.

(/anecdote)

You’ve done grand laddy! Now you know what you have to do! Burn the house down! BURN ‘EM ALL!

if I was busted for doing something my strategy would be twofold

1 stall the whole thing for years and then claim that its been too long since witnesses could reliable

2 show “remorse” for my crime and with a nudge and a wink let the judge know i’ll be back in court again in no time so they could make more money out of me

i’ll be let out or back on the streets in no time

just recently the legal system has allowed a “serious” offender out of gaol and the state gov is trying to put him back in gaol, as he is so dangerous – the legal system does this because it knows by letting him out the gov will be forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars putting him back in his box.

the greatest danger to society eventually becomes the legal system that becomes dependent on crime and chaos to survive. look at America – home of the greatest number of lawyers and the place is in chaos.

the more law the more crime

stan101 said:

Personal anecdote time~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A few years ago I was called to be a prosecution witness to testify to what I had seen and heard regarding a very serious crime. In the time from the police statement (48 hours after the event) to the time I was called into the witness stand (6 years later) I had attempted to forget what I’d witnessed.

When on the stand, I was asked to recount what took place 6 years earlier. I told the prosecutor, the defendants solicitor and the judge that due to the period of time I was not confident in recalling what had happened and that they should refer to my police statement as it was the most accurate account. I hadn’t been given a copy of my initial police statement to refresh my memory.

My testimony was thrown out and I was classified as an unreliable witness by a hostile court. So much for attempting to be an unbiased witness.

(/anecdote)

Interesting anecdote, Stan.
Illustrates some flaws within “the system”…..in my view.

Aquila said:

stan101 said:

Personal anecdote time~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A few years ago I was called to be a prosecution witness to testify to what I had seen and heard regarding a very serious crime. In the time from the police statement (48 hours after the event) to the time I was called into the witness stand (6 years later) I had attempted to forget what I’d witnessed.

When on the stand, I was asked to recount what took place 6 years earlier. I told the prosecutor, the defendants solicitor and the judge that due to the period of time I was not confident in recalling what had happened and that they should refer to my police statement as it was the most accurate account. I hadn’t been given a copy of my initial police statement to refresh my memory.

My testimony was thrown out and I was classified as an unreliable witness by a hostile court. So much for attempting to be an unbiased witness.

(/anecdote)

Interesting anecdote, Stan.
Illustrates some flaws within “the system”…..in my view.

What flaws, Stan walked into court and said my testimony will be unreliable and the court declares his testimony as unreliable???

Stealth said:

Aquila said:

stan101 said:

Personal anecdote time~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A few years ago I was called to be a prosecution witness to testify to what I had seen and heard regarding a very serious crime. In the time from the police statement (48 hours after the event) to the time I was called into the witness stand (6 years later) I had attempted to forget what I’d witnessed.

When on the stand, I was asked to recount what took place 6 years earlier. I told the prosecutor, the defendants solicitor and the judge that due to the period of time I was not confident in recalling what had happened and that they should refer to my police statement as it was the most accurate account. I hadn’t been given a copy of my initial police statement to refresh my memory.

My testimony was thrown out and I was classified as an unreliable witness by a hostile court. So much for attempting to be an unbiased witness.

(/anecdote)

Interesting anecdote, Stan.
Illustrates some flaws within “the system”…..in my view.

What flaws, Stan walked into court and said my testimony will be unreliable and the court declares his testimony as unreliable???

The six year period for starters, ridiculous waiting period.

Stealth said:

What flaws, Stan walked into court and said my testimony will be unreliable and the court declares his testimony as unreliable???

1. The hearing was 6 years after the event and they asked him to “recount his story”
2. They refused to use his more reliable written statement taken by police….48 hours after the event.