Analysis of Elizabeth Loftus’ Eyewitness Testimony in the Lockerbie Bombing Case Jelena Petrovic University of the Ozarks Analysis of Elizabeth Loftus’ Eyewitness Testimony in the Lockerbie Bombing Case The following summary will examine the article Eyewitness testimony in the Lockerbie bombing case by Elizabeth Loftus, a cognitive psychologist form University of California, Irvine, CA and analyze the elements of social cognition she talks about in her article. The “Crime Scene” The article Eyewitness testimony in the Lockerbie bombing case describes the arrest of a Libyan named Al-Megrahi based on a single testimony by a shopkeeper who identified Al-Megrahi sometime after the bombing as the man who bought the clothes considered to be in the suitcase with the explosives used in the bombing of a flight over Lockerbie, Scotland (Loftus, 2013). As a cognitive psychologist, Loftus was personally asked by a lawyer working on Al-Megrahi’s case to give an opinion on the presented eyewitness testimony, while she was kept out of the details as to which case this was. She was able to find several important details from the testimony that were a factor of time, memory and Gauci’s initial description and Al-Megrahi’s appearance in 1988 and the final one in 2000. The impression her article leaves is that Mr. Gauci’s testimony had too many changes over the years, therefore making his testimony and unreliable source for evidence. As a cognitive psychologist, she examines the possible biases he might have had in his recollection of the night he saw the man he was identifying in this investigation. She mentions in the conclusion that the case was later on reviewed by The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which, based on the evidence, concluded Al-Megrahi’s case was a miscarriage of justice, proving Loftus’ suspicion of the Mr. Gauci’s faulty
In the magic of the mind author Dr. Elizabeth loftus explains how a witness’s perception of an accident or crime is not always correct because people's memories are often imperfect. “Are we aware of our minds distortions of our past experiences? In most cases, the answer is no.” our minds can change the way we remember what we have seen or heard without realizing it uncertain witnesses “often identify the person who best matches recollection
Mr. Cockburn concluded that the evidence presented in this case was misinterpret and misapprehend, the leading investigation was “unscientific and slipshod” which lead to the sentence of Edward splatt. Many questions were raised, whether police officers should collect trace elements from the crime scene? The involvemet of police officers collecting samples rather than scientific experts which could lead to wrong and misleading evidence? The scientific procedure undertaking in this investigation. And these collected samples collected from officers and tested would lead to unvaluable piece of evidence.After Edward splatt conviction, anattorney- general by the name of Mr Griffin keeped a close eye on the case and examined the moran report and
One of the key points that are point out in this case is that the eyewitness had variables that may have affected her memory causing her to point Williford as the culprit. One of these variables was weapon focus and its believed that the eyewitness focused more on the culprit’s weapon in this case it was a board used to beat and the gas used to set Foxworth on fire. The reason behind this is probably because of the unusualness of the weapons used in this attack thus causing the witness to focus more on the weapon than the culprit. Another argument that is being made in the validity of the eyewitness testimony is that she was exposed to information after the attack from newspaper causing the post-information effect. The cause of the effect in this case were that newspapers published pictures of the suspect which may have caused the witness to form false memories. It was also said that the eyewitness was shown a picture of Williford before picking him out of a photo array which is another potential way for the witness to form false memories associated with the picture. An additional point that’s made is because there were two other people involved in the attack that it would divert the attention of the eyewitness, thus causing her to remember fewer details about the culprits face. Despite all these arguments the witness stays with her choice of
Embar-Seddon, A., & Pass, A. D. (2009). World Trade Center Bombing. In Forensic science (3rd ed., pp. 1028-1031). Pasadena, California: Salem Press.
Popular Mechanics.eds. “Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report.” Popular Mechanics Online. March 2005. 26 August 2008. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html.
Luminet, O., Curci, A., Marsh, E. J., Wessel, I., & al, e. (2004). The cognitive, emotional, and social impacts of the September 11 attacks: Group differences in memory for the reception context and the determinants of flashbulb memory. The Journal of General Psychology, 131(3), 197-224. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/213650518?accountid=10901
Elizabeth Loftus, is a psychologist, mainly concerned with how subsequent information can affect an eyewitness’s testimony. Loftus has focused on misleading information in both the difference in wording of questions and how these questions can influence eyewitness testimony. This research is important because frequently, eyewitness testimony is a crucial element in criminal proceedings. Throughout Loftus’s career she has found a witness’s memory is highly flexible and subject to being influenced. The classic study by Loftus and Palmer (1974), illustrates that eyewitness testimony can be influenced by leading questions and ultimately proved unreliable.
This essay is going to look at eye witness testimony. It will discuss whether or not it is reliable and studies will be looked at and evaluated to either back up or refute eyewitness reliability.
The use of eyewitnesses has been a constant in of criminal justice system since its very beginning. Unfortunately, people do not make the best witnesses to a crime. The person may not have seen the actual criminal, but someone that looks similar to them. The witness may lie about what he or she may have scene. Also the witness can be influenced by the police as to who or what they saw at the time of the crime. The witness or victims memory of the person may have faded so that they don’t remember exactly what had seen, which could be disastrous for the accused.
To our knowledge, eyewitness memory could be simply defined as a person’s episodic memory that he or she has been a witness of a certain criminal event. However, psychologists have discovered that the confidence of memory recall of eyewitness, would increase significantly by asking them the simple question, (e.g., Do you see the perpetrator below the following pictures?), even though the feedback
Susa and Meissner (in press ) conducted a similar experiment; however, the settle distinction resonates in the retrieval process of the data. These researchers provided a brief video clip to participants of an offender committing bank robbery, and data recovery were manipulated between the two conditions: a one-week delay in description retrieval, and half hour delay in description retrieval of the perpetrator’s identity. Although immediate retrieval is commonly coined as the best technique to providing an accurate description, many argue the immediate retrieval may, in fact, contribute to the effects of verbal overshadowing. The results of this experimental study were similar to the immediate description and delayed description study, which evidently supports the effects of verbal overshadowing (Susa & Meissner in press). This study illustrates that the effect of verbal overshadowing is a pervasive occurrence in the immediate description retrieval of eyewitness testimonies opposed to the delayed description retrieval in accurately identifying the correct perpetrator. In essence, collectively eyewitness remembrance possesses ambivalences, no matter the person providing the depiction of the events occurred (also see, Brown C., Lloyd-Jones, T. J., &
This study took place because if memories are believed to be inaccurate then why are things such as eyewitnesses’, in legal proceedings, taken so seriously when their memory can easily be false
Eyewitness identification and testimony play a huge role in the criminal justice system today, but skepticism of eyewitnesses has been growing. Forensic evidence has been used to undermine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the leading cause of false convictions in the United States is due to misidentifications by eyewitnesses. The role of eyewitness testimony in producing false confessions and the factors that contribute to the unreliability of these eyewitness testimonies are sending innocent people to prison, and changes are being made in order to reform these faulty identification procedures.
For example, the old man that lived beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard a fight between the boy and the father and heard the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill you,” along with a body hitting the ground, and then claims that he saw the boy running down the stairs. With this information, along with other powerful eyewitness testimonies, all but one of the jury members believed this boy was guilty. The power of eyewitness testimony is also shown in Loftus’s (1974) study. In this study, Loftus (1974) found that those who claimed to “see” something were usually believed even when their testimony is pointless. She discovered in her study that only 18 percent of people convicted if there was no eyewitness testimony, 72 percent of people convicted when someone declared, “That’s the one!”, and even when the witness only had 20/400 vision and was not wearing glasses and claimed “That’s the one!”, 68 percent of people still convicted the person. This proves that in 12 Angry Men and Loftus (1974) study, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and influential in one’s decision to convict a
Representative studies including Loftus’s weapon effect study showed how attention has affected reliability. On the same token, research on the role of stress and emotion on eyewitness testimony provides additional information about the settings in which eyewitness testimony may be expected to be unreliable. Ultimately, we should be conscious on how our schemas work, as it can distort our memory through generalization and misinterpretation. All in all, schemas play a role in filling the big picture, but not the details, suggesting us to carefully monitor the details in what we expect, assume and