Unreliable Identification

In the first article, Positive False Memory,  I indicated how a fallacy can become a “true” memory. Often children are told a story to mask an incident that might be considered too mature for them. Children tend to translate what they hear into images and over time may “remember” seeing an event that never happened.

As adults we are not immune from the same kind of provoked ‘memory’. If we are told something often enough we might actually “remember” it.  And sometimes, we make fatal mistakes. Many eye witnesses are “100 percent sure” of their identifications of a perpetrator yet DNA testing has invalidated many convictions.

The science of human memory teaches the tenuousness of eyewitness identifications. Social psychologists have preached for more than a century that a crime victim’s memory is fleeting and often faulty.

The problem starts with how the mind commits faces to memory. The human eye collects information in what Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, a psychology professor, called “fixations” that last a fraction of a second.

Memory of original images are subject not only to decay, but contamination and distortion from outside influences, (such as leading questions).

A witness may begin somewhat unsure, but over time and repetition, develop a strong memory of a person they have never seen.

The memory process works well when someone is shown a face repeatedly. But when the exposure is episodic, such as in a crime, the mind might create a gist of a person’s looks, Stress that accompanies being a victim interferes even more with the ability to form memories as all energy is channeled into the survival instinct.

Studies show that victims of armed robberies, for example, tend to develop a “weapon focus” rather than focusing on the gunman’s face.

One of the most common problems cited by memory researchers occurs when one person tries to identify another person of a different race or ethnicity.

A Caucasian might look at an Asian face and notice the eyes, but that would not help in a line up of Asians.

Sometimes a victim “recognises” a face in a line up and matches it to the perpetrator, but the recognition might be of someone he or she has seen before under other circumstances, i.e. a shop clerk seen once who has a slight resemblance to the perpetrator.

In non-stress situations one often sees someone who ‘looks familiar’ but can’t immediately be placed. In stress situations this face might be pasted over that of the perpetrator.

‘Eye-Witnesses’ are the least reliable identification, and it is time the Courts realise it.?