Sami Kharouf

ENG 2
Connelly
11/21/2016

The Flaws of Eyewitness Testimonies

When it comes to dealing with critical cases regarding murder, rape, burglary, arson, and
so forth, many would hope to incarcerate the individual suspected in hopes of locking away a
potential threat to the overall societys well-being. However, despite being a system meant to
protect citizens and do away with those who have ill will towards others, it also has the potential
to imprison those who are truly innocent. Aside from evidence collected from the crime scene,
eyewitness testimonies play a key role on guiding the jury and deciding the outcome of the
suspected individuals trial. From the eyes of the bystanders, or even the victim themselves, one
would think their testimonies would be the most accurate due to the fact that they were present
some time during the process of the crime; unfortunately, that is not the case. Despite being one
of the most efficient factors of judgement, eyewitness testimonies have a high possibility of
being faulty as well. At times, eye witness testimonies and the recalling of memories can be
flawed, distorted, and unreliable as a result of various influences; consequently, it is essential to
resolve such dilemmas through the use of adjustments in procedures regarding the recalling of
memories.
Regarding the actual process of remembering, it is not necessarily as simple as one would
think. The manner in which memories themselves work may play a role in influencing the
recollection of a memory. As many individuals recall a memory, one would think they are
remembering the events exactly as they have remembered, however, in the words of Elizabeth

Loftus, an American cognitive psychologist who specializes in human memory, remembering is

more akin to putting puzzle pieces together rather than retrieving a video recording (qtd. in
Arkowitz and Lilienfeld). With an action that is based on trying to complete an overall image, its
not surprising to find that some elements from outside influences may be easily accepted due to
the minds desire to come to valid conclusions when recalling certain events.
During a series of various social experiments, the reliability of eyewitness testimonies
has been challenged. Within one experiment, as documented within the article Face recognition
in context: a case study of tips on a call-in crime TV show, viewers watched a program where
they had to view footage of a fugitive and were required to call and give tips about who they
suspected the fugitive may be. This experiment focused more on facial recognition and how the
mind works recalling such features. In most occasions, the statements the viewers made about
the fugitives features were not accurate. Issues such as distractions may contribute to the
difficulty of obtaining valid results. As mentioned within the article Eyewitness Testimony, it
was found that many individuals who noticed a weapon on the suspects hands tend to have
trouble identifying features of the suspects face. Such intimidating visuals would lead the
viewers eyes away from the suspects face due to the presence of fear and emotional stress
(Wells). By having a surge of a specific emotion, individuals may be too consumed with that
emotion to accurately describe what they have witnessed. Within the article, Face recognition in
context: a case study of tips on a call-in crime TV show, it was stated that, If the facial image
closely matches a face stored in the viewer's memory, or if some of the semantic information
retrieved is criminal in nature or if the person's name is similar, the viewer may be more likely to
call in and provide a tip (MacLin,Tapscott and Maclin). Such a portrayal fits accordingly to

Elizabeth Loftuss original statement of how the mind works towards completing a puzzle,
rather than just recalling memories.
There are numerous factors that can influence the recollection of memories, whether they
may be done intentionally or subconsciously. As mentioned earlier, the process of remembering
is more reliant on filling in gaps in hopes of coming to a valid conclusion, rather than simply
remembering the event as it happened. With such a thought in mind, it is highly possible that
certain memories can be subject to distortion due to details of a certain event. Within police line
ups, for example, the bystander may start constructing memories in order to fit the traits they find
available in the line ups, despite the possibility that the prime suspect may not be in the lineup at
all. In addition, the large gap of time given between investigation and the trial itself may play a
role in distorting recollections. With an abundance of time between trials and investigations,
initial thoughts may be vulnerable to doubt, as well as influence from the investigation itself.
During the actual process of the investigations and lineups, individuals can become
subject to various influences, despite the fact that many of which are, in most cases, not intended.
Within the article, Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts, Arkowitz and
Lilienfeld state that Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witnesss testimony because
fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the
questioner, leading to inaccurate recall (Arkowitz and Lilienfeld). Instead of simply reporting
what was seen through their eyes, bystanders or victims of the crime may have their testimonies
swayed towards fitting the details of the crime, rather than what they witnessed initially. Aside
from influences from outside sources, many individuals are capable of distorting their recalling
of memories through their own retellings of such memories. According to Laura Engelhardt,
witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or

lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and
retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail
of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material (Engelhardt). With each retelling,
individuals put themselves at risk of forgetting the original events that correspond to their
recalling of memories. The memories they recall can be subject to biased thoughts, depending on
who the speaker is retelling the memory to. In the case of retellings towards officials involved in
the investigation of a crime, the calling of memories may portray the alleged suspect with
stereotypical criminal tendencies, which may sway more towards the initial details about the
suspect that were introduced to them during the investigation . Such an act can be seen as a
fabrication of memories. In the words of Elizabeth Loftus, False memories are constructed by
combining actual memories with the content of suggestions received from others. During the
process, individuals may forget the source of the information. This is a classic example of source
confusion, in which the content and the source become dissociated (Loftus). By deviating from
the original events that transpired, the recall of these memories prove to be devastating towards
the individual suspected of a certain crime. Memories themselves are both malleable and fragile,
leaving them highly susceptible to a variety of influences.
In hopes of resolving an issue with the recollection of memories during lineups, the
Innocence Project suggests that the individual viewing the lineup should be told that there is a
possibility that the suspect is not within the lineup, resulting in the reduction of pressure to
choose a suspect at that time (Eyewitness Misidentification). By doing so, the viewer of the
lineup does not feel obligated to choose someone within the lineup simply because they are
searching for an individual associate the crime with. In addition to the reformation of lineup
procedures, the use of videotaping or audio recording should also be incorporated during the

process. Such an alteration may help decide whether the bystander or victims memory
recollection may have been influenced through the use of the details within the investigation.
Another suggestion by The Innocence Project was to have the Law enforcement elicit a
document elucidating the amount of confidence the eyewitness had at the time of their
identification. By doing so, one can infer whether the confidence may have been wavered due to
influences from certain details of the investigation. In the article, The psychology of pretrial
identification procedures: the showup is showing out and undermining the criminal justice
system, it is suggested that requiring that a showup only be conducted shortly after the crime
and only under exigent circumstances reduces the opportunity for unreasonable biases and helps
to ensure that the eyewitness identification will not be influenced by suggestive elements
(Agricola). Such a suggestion would aid in resolving the issue of time and its ability to subject
individuals to influences such as details about the investigation or suspect, as well as the thought
of doubt itself.
With an abundance of controversy surrounding eyewitness statements, it seems
reasonable to doubt the validity of such statements. As illustrated before, eye witness testimonies
and the recalling of memories can be flawed, distorted, and unreliable as a result of various
influences. Although they may have some flaws, they are essential in order to determine whether
a suspected individual was involved with a certain crime. Due to these issues, it is essential to
resolve such conflicts through the adjustments in the procedure of memory recalling. The
blemishes that lie upon eyewitness testimonies simply give the method room for more
improvement. As more and more people are exonerated from the crimes they did not commit, the
flaws within the many methods of indicting guilt are revealed. Only by striving towards

exonerating those who are truly innocent will we be able to address and resolve the issues
associated with eyewitness testimonies.

Work Cited
Agricola, Barbara H. "The psychology of pretrial identification procedures: the showup is
showing out and undermining the criminal justice system." Law and Psychology
Review Annual 2009: 125+. Academic OneFile. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.
Arkowitz, Hal and Scott O. Lilienfeld. Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness
Accounts. Scientific American. 8 Jan. 2009. Web. 16 Nov. 2016.
Eyewitness Misidentification. The Innocence Project. N.p., N.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2016.
Engelhardt, Laura. The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony. Stanford Journal of Legal
Studies. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.
Loftus, Elizabeth. Creating False Memories. Sept. 1997 Web. 21 Nov. 2016.
MacLin, Otto H., Ryan Tapscott, and M. Kimberly MacLin. "Face recognition in context: a
case study of tips on a call-in crime TV show." North American Journal of
Psychology 12.3 (2010): 460. Academic OneFile. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.
Wells, Gary L., and Elizabeth A. Olson. "Eyewitness testimony." Annual Review of Psychology
(2003): 277+. Academic OneFile. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.