Forensic science has changed what happens when someone dies. Only a few decades ago, someone who died under mysterious or violent circumstances often became what is known as a cold case, unless there was a witness to help tell the dead persons story. The definition of a cold case is one that authorities have been unable to solve previously due to lack of trace physical evidence or because the technology was unable to analyze the trace evidence. A cold case is one that remains open but is essentially inactive. Many law enforcement agencies are establishing a specialized team of forensic investigators to review the agencies cold cased annually. However, unless new information emerges the case remains inactive.
Solving Cold Cases with New Technology or Advancements in Current Technology
Many cold cases previously unsolvable, are one by one, through the advances in forensic science and forensic medicine finding closure. In addition, new technological advancements in DNA testing are helping to over-turn convictions based on eyewitness testimony alone. With DNA technology evolving and allowing smaller and smaller amounts of trace physical evidence to be tested, eyewitness testimony is used less and less when there are scientific facts or evidence to back up the case. Previously, many sexual assaults, murders, and suspicious deaths resulted in a conviction because of eyewitness testimony when the physical evidence was lacking.
Is Eyewitness Testimony Reliable?
Consider that even under the best of circumstances or during a happy occasion, memory has difficulty in recalling and describing specific details. Now imagine trying to remember what happened when people are under duress, experiencing a crisis, or witnessing a violent crime. Years ago, Dr. Robert Buckhout, a forensic psychologist and professor of psychology at Brooklyn College studied the effects of human memory and recall, and how the brain processes a memory is complex. Additionally, it is hard for people to describe verbally in detail what the mind cannot fully comprehend. Many people believe when one captures a memory it is similar to recording a television show.
This is the homunculus fallacy, believing that once a memory has occurred one can simple rewind the mind and go back to the memory to recall the specific details of what happened. Dr. Robert Buckhout dispels this theory in his Eyewitness Testimony article penned for the Scientific American in the late 1970's. His research showed how the brain is not a simple tape recorder and as a result of his research Dr. Buckhout often testified for the defendant on the inaccuracies that can occur with human memory and how it can affect court testimony.
A Simple College Experiment has Repeatedly Showed the Inaccuracy of Eyewitnesses
Even when a multitude of people witness the exact same incident the details they recall will vary vastly. In an experiment done repeatedly in college classrooms the inaccuracy of eyewitnesses is revealed. Professors for decades have staged a robbery, an assault, or a simple delivery of an item by a delivery company, which takes place during class. The students do not know what is happening until after the experiment concludes. Everyone is asked to write down what he or she witnessed for the campus police. In a classroom of hundreds, no one writes the exact same description. In addition, how an eyewitness is questioned about what happened could cause them to remember details incorrectly and those details remain etched in the brain and are recalled inaccurately even months later.
The legal system has struggled over the years regarding accuracy of eyewitness testimony, how to determine what did, and what did not happen. Therefore, in the end, what you see may not be what the person right next to you sees when something happens in the immediate vicinity. So who is right and who is wrong? Alternatively, is anyone really right? Who decides or makes the determination of accuracy? When is it appropriate to use eyewitness testimony?
Resources:
Buckhout, R. (1974). Eyewitness Testimony. Scientific American, 231, 23-31.
The Visual Expert. Eyewitness Memory is Unreliable (accessed December 31, 2010).
Erika Lyn Smith - Erika Lyn Smith - is a Psych RN, who has completed the UMSL Medicolegal Death Investigator Training Course, and is finishing a BS in ...
