Tunji 3AFor Part 1 of the Eyewitness Testimony, I found interesting how one person’s perception can change another person’s life instantly. Jennifer pointed at Ron in court accusing him of rape, and that decision lead to Ron spending 11 years in prison. Part 1 relates to the perception chapter because from the chapter I learned that our perception is limited and those limitation affect the way we perceive things. That summer night, Jennifer perception may have been limited due to darkness. Maybe if there would have been some light then she would have had a different perception of the man who had raped her. Our perception is limited and we should not base things on only what we see. The court should have did extra, but all they did was sentence Ron to prison within 40 minutes of his trial. Part I relates to the supplemental reading “Reading Body Language of Presidential Candidates Part 1 & 2.” In that reading it stated that, “your body language and the interpretation comes one to one thing and that is the reaction from the other person.” Jennifer showed confidence in the picture selection of the man she believed who raped her. She picked up a picture and I imagined a serious face on her waving the photo of Ron in the face of the police officer saying, “This is the man who raped me!” I predicted this is the way Jennifer acted because that is the way the police officer interpreted it when he was getting interviewed about Jennifer's picture selection. Jennifer's body language was caused by the image of Ron who she believed was her rapist. Part 1 relates to me personally because I was once blamed for hitting someone when they were not looking in elementary school. The person blamed me immediately and I had to go the the main office and I was forced to call my parents. Later on that day, some of my friends told the teacher that I did not do it. The person that actually did it got in trouble. Just like Ron I was upset that I was blamed for doing something I did not do. The only difference was that I was forced to forgive the person, Ron made his own personal decision to forgive Jennifer. For Part 2 of the Eyewitness Testimony, I learned that many innocent men that have been falsely convicted were convicted solely by the finger of an eye witness. Eyewitness testimony should not be the only step in convicting a person. Part 2 relates to the perception chapter because I learned from the chapter that our perception is limited, as stated earlier. In the video, the reporter speaks about how our memory is not like a video recorder, we can not go back and replay events. Our perception is not 100% accurate, it is very limited. This is why I said eyewitness testimony should not be the only step taken in convicting a person. Part 2 relates to the supplementary reading “Reading Body Language of Presidential Candidates Part 1 & 2.” From the reading I learned that it is important to point out whatever you are watching and reading into only matters as to what you believe. During the interview, Jennifer reenacted the way she felt when she found out the man she selected from the picture selection was the same man she selected in the lineup. She acted in a sense of relief by the way her face looked. I imagine thats how she looked back when she was told that too. Body language helps us understand the way a person feels. Part 2 relates to me personally because one time I had made a correct choice even though I was not so sure about it and that boosted my confidence, but later on I found out that was not the correct choice. Gary Wells discussed how people were not confident with their answer at first, but after being told they choose the right person, there confidence boosted. Being told that you are correct can make you more relieved and confident in your decision making, but later on finding that you made the wrong choice could possibly damage you internally. I respect Ron because he was able to create a friendship with the person who convicted him of rape. I do not think I would have been able to do that.
Do you think your connection to the body language article is an assumption?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Abigail Moore3A In the video selections the woman Jennifer was raped and when she was presented with a photo lineup of the subjects, she identified an innocent man, Rob Cotton, as her rapist. When she later identified the same man in a physical lineup, it reinforced her already strong confidence that this was the man that raped her. Her eyewitness testimony played a major role in Rob’s conviction. Later it was reviled that Rob was not actually the man who raped her and Jennifer’s memory of the tragic incident had been faulty. This was absolute shocking to Jennifer because she had be so certain that Rob had been the man to rape her. In the chapter in the TOK book about language they spoke about how language used can effect perception. After Jennifer identified Rob in both lineups she was told that she “identified the same man” and although she wasn’t told that the man she identified was guilty, being told that she had in fact identified the same man concreted the false memory in her mind. If she had not been told that she would be more skeptical of her memory and would have questioned her conviction before she identified Rob as her rapist before the court. Or if she had been told a different thing along the lines of “you identified the same man, but that does not mean that he is guilty”, it may have had a similar effect to if she had been told nothing at all. However everything she was told throughout the investigation process was counterproductive in finding the real rapist. Another way the memory of Jennifer’s memory may have been altered is when we are trying to recall a memory if something is suggested to us, if that suggestion makes sense we will often build that suggestion into our memory and become certain that the suggestion is actually fact. I can relate to this because when trying to recreate hazy childhood memories I may have a false recollection the experience because I might only remember a little and everything else is just a reasonable expansion of what I think I do remember. During the photo lineup Jennifer carefully studied all of the photos given to her before saying that Rob was her rapist. By comparing each photo to her memory she ended up altering her memory by suggestion and it became fact to her that rob had in fact raped her.
Be more specific with your personal connection. Recall an incident that provides support. Connections to supplemental readings?
Adriana 3AI think that the video was very informative on speaking about eyewitness testimonies. It was kind of a reiteration of what the TOK book said about eyewitness testimonies. They're not always reliable because our memory is not always reliable. It's kind of like when you see someone you recognize and you call out to them but then you realize that it wasn't the person you thought it was. It was just someone who resembled the person you knew. For me personally, an eye witness testimony probably wouldn't be success for because I have terrible memory. Unless the person had a really distinctive face, like they had a messed up nose or something I most likely would not be able to identify the correct person.
What else from the chapter connects to this? Personal connection? connection to supplemental reading?
Jocelyn N.The videos both showed that the mind is unreliable. Emotions as well as solely relying in memories can affect whether or not the true culprit will be found. In the perception chapter, it was noted that memory does not mean that you remember the moment of when it happened. You remember the moment based upon the previous time in which you remembered that moment. Even in the most traumatic events, memory can serve as more of a hindrance than an aid. The original investigation process puts too much reliance on memory or eyewitness testimony and not enough on physical evidence. Emotion can also get in the way of identifying the true culprit. In the 60 Minutes videos, the woman was so persistent to want to be able to at least think she identified her rapist. In fact, if she was questioned towards the idea that she chose the wrong culprit, she was offended at such a thought, asking how someone could possibly think she would forget her rapist. This is also due to the pressure given to the woman, as well as other victims, to take the culprit off the streets to receive a punishment. In the test towards seeing how memory affects a person, the interviewer chose the wrong face due to the previous slide. Dr. Lofton stated how she basically forced the interviewer’s mind to make a decision, and also proved that memory is only based on how the person previously remembered a moment. The interviewer was not completely sure about whether or not she chose the right person, but then felt pretty sure that it was the correct choice. The videos showed me that pride can get in the way of finding truth. If it were not for Ronald Cotton writing to search physical evidence of the scene, he would not have been freed. An example can be seen when a person loses something because they were in a rush. They will think that the last time they saw it might have been on a table or in a bag. While it actually may have been left in another room, they did not remember putting it there because of the rush that they were in. This is why the idea of writing things down or setting reminders has become so valuable to society. Our main instinct is to categorize and label things, even if they may be categorized/labeled “incorrectly.” The idea of categorization also appears in the case of eye witness testimony, where it was shown that if a person is given the information that they chose the same person in the line up as the photos given, then they were more sure of their choice to have been the correct choice. This example also shows how language can affect the views that a person has. It can be seen that society needs reassurance, so by stating that one is correct, it will be very difficult for the person to want to look back and question whether or not they did the right thing. While the video is showing the constant mistakes that can be seen from taking eye-witness testimony, it is not saying do not use it at all. It should be used with caution, just as all other pieces of an investigation are approached with caution.
Good entry...connections to a personal event? connections to one of our supplemental readings?
Jocelyn Martinez3AAlthough eyewitnesses have been extremely helpful in many cases and used as a tool in solving mysteries in both murder and sex crimes in the justice system it cannot always be reliable. I personally feel as if, if there is no other alternative such as using DNA as evidence then an eyewitness should be allowed to testify. Memory can deceive a person and it’s not the fault of the person. For instance, although the “victim” in the video had studied the physical features of the rapist, it would be highly unlikely to have picked out the correct guy. Instead, she chose a man who resembled the figment of her memory. Her memory was distorted because she assumed that the man who committed the crime was in the lineup. As learned in the perception chapter, it talked about our senses and the way they play a role in our preconceived notions. An example of this seen in the video would be how the detective had the notion that innocent people are not convicted for crimes they did not commit; he then found this to be wrong. Because of his experiences in life and how his senses have always been right to him as far as he knew, he believed that they could have never misguided them. Also learned in the perception chapter, was how our senses are not always right because if we truly knew the suspect then it would only take seconds to actually recognize the person. In the video, the woman trained herself to identify the man she saw in the lineup, this then led to her believing that it could not possibly be no other person but the man she had seen at first.
Why is "victim" in quotation marks? Connections to supplemental readings? Connections to a personal example?
Kelly, 3AAfter watching the videos, I feel that there are more than just flaws within eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony can either make or break someone's life. It is a fair way of evidence to a certain extent. This is because eyewitness testimony is not always right. Throughout the video, I found connections from "The Problem of Knowledge", "Language", and "Perception" chapters. Certainty plays a very important role in Jennifer Thompson's knowledge. She stated that she observed the rapist's appearance as she was being raped. I did not understand how she could be so sure of what she saw in such a terrifying situation. If I were her I would not have been able to even think straight. Jennifer was very brave and smart for what she did, but her certainty turned out to be uncertainty. I do not blame Jennifer entirely because once someone is sure about what or who they saw, they do not doubt themselves again. Especially in a situation like rape. Since she has been picking Ronald all along, she did not think twice about Bobby Poole. She may not have recognized Bobby because people's appearances change as well. Perception causes many to overlook small details. Our memory is not a recording. We often leave out or fill in things that we thought we saw. Believing something (morals) can really affect what you see. If you believe it is that person, you will see that person. This causes bias to the testimony. DNA is more reliable because it is for a fact. I was glad to see that DNA helped Ronald get out of jail. I cannot believe he lost eleven innocent years. The pro I see in this situation is Jennifer and Ronald's unbreakable, unique friendship. Although Ronald was rewarded for his lost years, he cannot get them back. In the eleven years he could have done a lot and losing them is worth more than his rewards. I agree that we have no choice in needing eyewitnesses because otherwise it would give criminals comfort, but it is incredibly risky to innocent people. While reading the comments under the video from other people, I came across a few foul opinions on what they would have done to Jennifer if they were Ronald and what they thought of the case. I understand that they are just YouTube comments, but people are always quick to judge and say things that they have never experienced themselves. "I don't care how many times she apologized. If it was me who had went to jail for 10 and 1/2 years for no reason, after I was released I was gonna go right back in because I would've killed her in the most excruciating way possible." I am bashing on what this person said, but I do not think it is right to kill under any circumstances. I do agree that what she said about praying to God for death and rape upon Ronald was wrong. Besides the fact that Jennifer made a life changing mistake that cannot be reversed, people should really put themselves in her shoes. What would they have done if they were her? During freshman year, my math teacher accused us in stealing a TI-84 Graphing Calculator. The teacher did not let us go and he called administration and security. They had the class write who stole the calculator anonymously. I did not know who took the calculator, but I quickly thought who would take a calculator and blindly wrote a classmate's name down. After we turned in who we thought, I asked around to see who other people put. They said they put they did not know or no one. I told them I put down a person's name. I felt very bad after I did that. I was scared, under pressure and thought I had to put someone's name down. I went to talk to administration about what happened. No one was in trouble and the calculator was found the next day. Since then I have not experienced anything else, but it was not a fun position to be in. Overall, I think this court case may question people's instinct in becoming an eyewitness because they do not want to accuse an innocent person. Therefore, a court case should not depend solely on eyewitness testimonies.
Ashley G 3AIn this video I have learned a lot on how our memory is not as reliable as people may perceive. It can be altered, and influenced through many factors in our environment. A show that I regularly watched called Brain Games is a very good source that demonstrates the tricks that our brains may play on us. In the 60 minute video Mrs. Jennifer is so certain that she has captured the culprit. Her confidence was not her own certainty, but also the influence of someone else. In the video where they said she has chosen the same man in the line up with the photo, her confidence escalated and she was now certain for sure. Because of the reinforcement, and the encouragement her confidence of who the man was increased, she had made the same decision and picked the same man, so she must be right. Because of this reinforcement and new found confidence her memory becomes altered and she places the face that she had a clear visual of, in the place of the rapist. In the show Brain Games another important issue about memories, and witnesses were exposed in the show. They purposely set up a certain accident that occurred and asked the witnesses what happened for example once a car crash occurred, then the car sped off and drove away. The investigator was asking each individual what happened, and majority of the answers varied from person to person. He wanted to know how fast the car was going, so to prove his “point” he purposely used wordplay to manipulate their memory/estimation. He would use “Hit” and “Crash” When he used “hit” the estimated speed of the car was not as high when he used the word “crash”. Wordplay and easily influence your certainty on things. Like when the investigators gave Jennifer reinforcement, it gave her confidence. In out TOK book, they have stated the same thing that has been said in the 60 minute video. “the eye is not a camera and visual memories are not photographs” Even though Mrs.Jennifer studied the face thoroughly, her visual memory was not precise to the specific details but ultimately there are fragments and pieces missing. That is why she was so prone, and vulnerable to a mistake in identifying the suspect. Because of certain puzzles that were missing she did not get the picture in entirety, and when she was put to chose who the suspect was she chose someone who closest resembled what she pictured. One thing that caught my attention in the video was also about the jury, how they were so quick to accept Jennifers accusation on Ronald. They were so quick about the verdict maybe not just because Jennifer was so sure about who the person was, but because they felt sorry for her and made the verdict out of emotions. Since they felt that she was so “certain” that already played a big role. But then there is sympathy because she was a personal victim that affected her in a deeper level. They chose sides out of emotions and the effect the event had on her. For example I have an older brother, and sometimes he gets on my nerves, and since I am younger, a girl, and more vulnerable my parents are more protective of me. Sometimes when I would over exaggerate when my brother hits me, even if I did something to get him angry. I would yell “Mommy Codjo hit me!” My mother would get angry at my brother and my brother would try to explain what I did but my mom would say he still has no right to hit me. My Mom would take my side because I am younger, and a girl. She sees me as vulnerable and helpless therefore she has to defend me because I can not defend myself.
So what does confirmation bias have to do with this?
Jazmine 3A I found significant chapter connections between the videos and chapter 4, which is about perception. The videos were about the eye witness testimony of Jennifer, who falsely identified a man, Ronald Cotton, who looked similar to her rapist, and had him wrongly put in jail for years. The eye-witness section in the chapter closely relates to these videos by stating that eye-witness testimonies can be unreliable and should be treated with caution because research shows that visual memories are not photographs that can be universally relied on to give an accurate record of what we have seen. In addition, it is more accurate to say that every time we remember something, we reconstruct it. This is seen when Anne identified a man that looked similar to her actual rapist, but was not him. Her visual memory reconstructed what she actually saw. The videos also relate to the story we read in class about the mouse that ate the cheese at a party that some guests saw and some didn't, and how they came to their conclusions. One party guest claimed to have actually seen the mouse eat the cheese so that's what he believed. Another guest just saw the cheese and believed there was no mouse. Depending on how people perceive things, it affects their testimonies. Therefore, there should be a second sense or another form of evidence to prove and verify their claims. My personal connection to these videos is when I was in elementary school and I accused my classmate of stealing my crayons because I saw the back of his body when he was stealing them, I didn't see his face. I went to go get my teacher and by the time I got back, the boy was gone. So I pointed out who I thought it was in my class by the color of their clothes and hair. Long story short, there were two boys matching the description I gave so my teacher had to pick the right student by checking the boys' pockets for my crayons. This is similar to when the court had to do a DNA test to verify the eye-witness testimony. Another connection to chapter 4 is the section "psychology of perception." In this section, it talks about how our senses have a limited range of sensitivity, and capture only certain kinds of data in their net. This relates to the videos because when the rape happened, the victim could only capture bits and parts of of the suspects and therefore her memory of the suspect had holes and flaws in it.
Good example of a personal connection. So figure-ground played a huge role in who you accused for taking the crayons? Since it was so long ago, do you think you are recalling an altered version of the events?
Kelly, 3A continuedI understand that they are just YouTube comments, but people are always quick to judge and say things that they have never experienced themselves. “I don’t care how many times she apologized. If it was me who had went to jail for 10 and 1/2 years for no reason, after I was released I was gonna go right back in because I would've killed her in the most excruciating way possible.” I am bashing on what this person said, but I do not think it is right to kill under any circumstances. I do agree that what she said about praying to God for death and rape upon Ronald was wrong. Besides the fact that Jennifer made a life changing mistake that cannot be reversed, people should really put themselves in her shoes. What would they have done if they were her? During freshman year, my math teacher accused us in stealing a TI-84 Graphing Calculator. The teacher did not let us go and he called administration and security. They had the class write who stole the calculator anonymously. I did not know who took the calculator, but I quickly thought who would take a calculator and blindly wrote a classmate’s name down. After we turned in who we thought, I asked around to see who other people put. They said they put they did not know or no one. I told them I put down a person's name. I felt very bad after I did that. I was scared, under pressure and thought I had to put someone’s name down. I went to talk to administration about what happened. No one was in trouble and the calculator was found the next day. Since then I have not experienced anything else, but it was not a fun position to be in. Overall, I think this court case may question people’s instinct in becoming an eyewitness because they do not want to accuse an innocent person. Therefore, a court case should not depend solely on eyewitness testimonies.
Good personal example. Connections to the chapter? Connections to supplemental readings?
Based on the video given on the faults of Eye-witness testimony, it shows me that the difference between faith and reason is significant. Jennifer Thompson was assaulted and in effort to identify her perpetrator she decides to ‘study’ him in the event of. However, when asked to identify him in a physical lineup, she chooses the wrong guy. She claims she was right because she enforces her choice by ‘studying’ the photos given at the lineup and that her decision couldn’t be wrong because she was there. When her perpetrator was put in jail she was relieved and felt whole-heartedly in her decision and that justice was real. Although, another trial was held for the rapist and she was mad as to why they would question her choices. It resulted, in her decision to be wrong. This difference between faith and reason plays a role in this situation. Jennifer’s choice was based upon faith while further investigation was reconstructed upon reason. The reconstruction happened to be a piece of carpet that was found on the back of the perpetrator’s shoe to match her bedroom Jennifer’s bedroom carpet and that her reasoning was enough for justification. Unknowingly, there could many places this man’s foot could have landed, but it just so happened that the area he had landed was similar. Similarities and Actuality also play a role throughout this whole investigation because the victim is choosing based upon faith, faith isn’t as worthy as actual facts to differentiate to what’s wrong and right. Faith is solely dependent on our senses, and our senses should be the least reliable because they are often influenced and often lose focus of the actual intention because of how their mind has reconstructed the situation. In addition to making it worse, she justified it with poor reasoning that could be justified through a list of reasons.
Was her choice based on faith? Or what she "saw" which connects to perception? Reason was used with the DNA testing. Connections to supplemental readings? Personal connections? Connections to the chapter?
Most memories, especially traumatized, is often out of impulse in a lineup because most people want this individual to be captured without another moment spent within freedom. As described, Jennifer had wanted this man dead and gone no matter what the circumstances were. In relation to the chapter, Most of our interpretations are unconsciously made and this is because we base it off what we know initially and fixate it with what we see. Our initiates are often wrong because we focus on the event, as opposed to who was involved. The chapter also mentioned that it’s harder to fixate our memories because we have to think and according to the video it shouldn’t be a matter of thought but instantly chosen, because most accurate memory is instantly given. The use of line-ups shouldn’t even be used anymore because most are based off of the trust that the investigators had confined in the victim to reconstruct, making the whole investigation based upon faith. As mentioned in the video, most line-ups don’t even contain the criminal but it’s the victim’s story that finds the case to be true because of the way she designed the case and individual is perceived to be. This relates to the reading of ‘mokatsu’ and the poor translation. America was expecting a positive response, but out of perception it was poorly recognized. This had made any hint or suspicion to a negative response make them act upon an initial definition. Similarly, Jennifer had chosen her act out of perception without any further line-up or another source of reliability, she felt that that her faith and sight was all she needed because ‘she’ was there. In the same token, America sought that their translation was accurate enough to justify their actions. In relation to my personal experiences, sometimes I choose books based off of their cover but the content isn’t what I had expected. This has happened many times, but my use of senses and prior knowledge was my motive in choice. They were viewing the situation with tunnel vision without a possibility of reevaluation because of the event itself was of such focus they weren’t seeing the different angles it could have been looked at.. All situations were dependent upon what seemed accurate but in the end they were found as wrong because they were based upon poor reasoning and judgment, because all poorly constructed. This is because they fixate what they think to what is placed in front of them. To conclude, most of these situations were only based upon faith, but it’s important to know the difference between faith and reasoning because it can depict a lot of things. Faith cannot be mistaken for reason nor can reason be mistaken for faith, the exchange between both gives its importance in a lot of situations such as the ones previously mentioned. Reason and faith have its benefits but they have to be used in an appropriate setting. Eye-witness testimonies call for reasoning and not faith because it isn’t reliable.
who is this?
Asia3AThe Narrator asked a good question in the first video. She asked the question "how is it that Jennifer studied the man so carefully, but still chose the wrong person". I believe that the answer to this question has to do with perception. In the second video, the Narrator made a good point about the fact that our memory is "full of holes". It's because of the fact the authorities did not place the correct men in the line up that she chose the wrong person. The way she perceived the man that she saw changed once they gave her the men to choose from. Since the man that she chose looked very similar to the actual criminal, eye-witness testimony can be dangerous since a lot of times it may not be true. As stated in the Chapter, Eye-witness testimony shouldn't be 100% relied on since there is not much evidence that goes along with eye-witnesses. The Chapter made an example about how someone may mistake another person holding a vase to holding something else. The person who saw the other person with the vase could be standing about 10 feet away and perceive the vase as a hat. This is why eye witnesses shouldn't be 100% relied on. Both of the videos explained the fact that our minds could be easily tricked into believing something else. The authorities try to confirm the victims by giving her options as to who the suspect may be. Since none of the options were the real suspect, she was tricked into believing that one of the men were the suspects. Things like this happen in everyday life. People may believe the person who actually saw something happen instead of another person just talking about it happening. This can relate to when i tell any of my friends something that happened in or outside of school. If I tell them about something that I witnessed, they would believe everything that I tell them but, in a way, some parts of what i am telling them may be altered since I may have perceived what had happened in a different way.
So the police put the "wrong" people in the lineup? Can you provide a specific example of when you have retold something and it was altered? Supplemental Reading?
Rebeca 3AThe documentary only reassures the viewer that eyewitness testimony is wrong. Showing Jennifer's story as a first person point of view she can remember and now see the mistakes she made. When she did the photo line up she thought she knew Ronald Cotton was the man that raped her. But as we can refer to the eye witness theory in the perception chapter that if when we can remember something, we reconstruct it. We apply what we know to what we see. Also I can connect Jennifer's story The Yellow Wallpaper. In this short story we saw the effect of confinement on the narrators mental health and her decent into psychosis. In Jane's mind she saw a women in the wallpaper as time went on she saw the dull wall paper come to life. Her perception and the way she saw things eventually made her lose her mind. I can also connect this eye witness theory to when I was taking my permit test and I could have swore I chose answer choice B but until I looked at the screen and saw I got the answer wrong I realized that I had picked C but luckily I still passed the test but till this day I openly blame getting three wrong to a technical difficulty!
Yes, technical difficulty of the person testing....YOU. :)
Jesus 3AFor these two videos that I watched, I have now seen what eye witness testimony really is. What I can say about the videos is that I learned that eye witness testimony is not reliable as a resource. Not only is it not a reliable source, it involves us using our mind to see what we can remember from our memory, that requires our perception. What I can relate with these videos and from the perception chapter is that there is more than there is than just having an eye witness, you need to get more information to be accurate with what you are trying to prove. In the video, they witness tried to accuse a man based from her memory of what she could remember of his physical appearance, when she looked at the set of pictures that were presented and she chose the picture with the man that was similar to the one she could remember off the top of her head. Furthermore the witness was wrong and it was not the man she chose that had raped her. This shows you cannot just point at one saying that is the one that committed the event; you need background information to prove it. From our perception, we believe that we can remember things if we examine them carefully, but sometimes we can easily forget them and chose something similar to what we saw. Eye testimony is not the best to rely on, we should use other things other than that, from my experience this is true, we tend to remember things from how we remember them but not fully exactly how it looks like, we chose things similar to what we think is what our eyes saw. Based on the videos I saw, I now know that a reinforcement can alter memory. There as, we can each have our own perception to what we can remember but mostly cannot remember clearly how something looks but we can compare it to be something similar to what see is close to what we can remember. Therefore, not always will we be right when making comparisons to what we can remember from our mind and can perceive different things to be true.
Elaborate on what you mean by reinforcement? Confirmation bias? Personal connection? Supplemental reading connection?
Catherine O. 3AThis incident reminds me of the eye-witness testimony section in the chapter reading. It talked about how unreliable it can be with determining whether or not someone is guilty. The section talked about how juries tend to put a lot of faith in eye-witness testimony. This was what the jury in the incident did. They didn’t rely much on any other evidence and it only took them 40 minutes to declare the verdict. It was so fast because they only took the testimony into consideration, which was not right because just as the section said, the human eye can deceive you and that’s what happened with Jennifer. It’s true that every time we remember something, we reconstruct it. In doing so, we may add or take little bits of pieces from what the actual thing was. There was another section in the book that talked about how our expectations can affect our perception. This happened in the video when the interviewer was shown the pictures of different men’s’ faces, and she picked the wrong one she saw. This supports how our expectations can change our perception. When she picked the wrong guy and she was shown another set with the right guy, who looked very similar to the guy she initially picked, she picked the wrong guy again. She already had the expectation in her mind of the guy that she picked and it was already in her head, which led to her misperception. This reminds me of the time I took the wrong bus. I didn't know I was on the bus stop for route 13, I thought it was where the route 14 stops at. When the bus was coming I looked at the bus, but I didn't read or see the number 13 there, I thought it was the 14. I think it was because I had the expectation of riding route 14, so my mind didn’t read or acknowledge that it was the 13. I normally don’t see any other route where I live except for the 14 or the 16, but I knew the 16 only drives through New Carrollton. It could also be that I ride the route 14 almost every day, so it could be that I was just used to seeing that number. Our expectations affect how and what we perceive. There’s also a connection with this case and the umbrellalogy in terms of expectations. Jennifer already had the expectation of Ronald Cotton, and when it came time to the second trial where she saw Ronald and Bobby, she still picked Ronald. This is what happens when we hear about the study of umbrellas. Most people have the expectation if science being a big thing, where a lab is involved and great discoveries are made. With this expectation in mind, when most people hear about the study of umbrellas, we automatically reject it and disregard such a thing as umbrellalogy a science.
Uchechi 3AEyewitness Testimony Part 1 and 2 revealed that eyewitness testimonies are often unreliable and is unfortunately highly persuasive to jurors. This fact is apparent in the case of Jennifer Thompson. On a hot and humid night of July 28, 1984 in Burlington, North Carolina, Jennifer was brutally raped in her off-campus apartment. In the first criminal trial for the case, the jurors put a great deal of faith in Jennifer’s eye witness testimony to determine whether or not her accuser, Ronald Cotton, was found guilty. Jennifer was supposedly the optimal witness who was seemingly conscious and assured to police that she was able to recite every memorized feature and condition of her rapist for police identification purposes. Cotton identified in a lined up of suspects and Jennifer recognized him as her accuser that night. Jennifer also helped police complete a composite drawing created by her and Detective Mike Gauldin. While the evidence against Cotton was incidental, the power of Jennifer’s testimony carried great burden of persuading the jury. Cotton was sentenced to life and 50 years in prison. In a second trial, Cotton wanted to make evident that it was Bobby Poole, a new inmate that resembled the drawing of a suspect in the crime for which he was falsely imprisoned for, raped Jennifer. In addition, a fellow inmate told Cotton that he heard Poole admit to raping Jennifer. Although Cotton recognized Poole as Jennifer's actual rapist in the composite sketch, this did not change Jennifer’s mind, as she was convinced for years that she had identified the correct suspect. When Jennifer saw Poole, she failed to believe that he was the one who raped her, although Poole looked similar to the composite drawing. Jurors believed Jennifer because they believe that she had no reason to lie. As the video stated, “the legal system is set up to kind of sort between liars and truth tellers and it’s actually pretty good at that, but when someone is genuinely mistakened, the legal system doesn’t really know how to deal with that.” Jennifer’s mistaken belief was a genuine error of her case. Seven years after the initial verdict, Cotton was riveted by a big news story, the trial of OJ Simpson. Cotton listened to the trial and was intrigued by the Simpson defense teams use of DNA evidence. He wrote to his new attorney, law professor, Rich Rosen about possibly using this new DNA technique for his appeal. Rosen warned Cotton that if the DNA comes up positive, he will spend the rest of his life in prison. Packed away, in the Burlington Police Department, was ten year old evidence from the rape that night. Inside one of the rape kits was the fragment of a single sperm with viable DNA. The flaws of Jennifer’s eyewitness testimony were exposed. Through DNA testing, it was proved that Poole was the rapist and Cotton was innocent. During the third trial, it was indisputable that Cotton was falsely convicted of raping Jennifer. “In recent years, a number of cases have come to light of people convicted of crimes on the basis of eyewitness accounts that subsequent DNA testing showed they could not have committed, including this case.”The question now is “how is it that Jennifer could study her rapist so carefully and still make this mistake and how could she have failed to recognize Bobby Poole, the actual rapist, when he sat right in front of her in the courtroom, three days later? Leslie Stahl along with experts investigated how Jennifer could have been so wrong after trying so hard to carefully identify her rapist. In addition, they investigated the task of an eyewitness to identify a criminal out of a picture and physical lineup through memory. There is a fragility of memory, and it might be more accurate to say that every time we remember something, we reconstruct it. According to a researcher, “memory is not a video recorder; you just don’t record an event and play it back. Instead, memory is malleable, full of holes, easily contaminated, and susceptible to suggestion, as in the case of Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton.”
Uchechi 3AContinuing...In all cases where eyewitnesses were wrong, the real perpetrator was usually not in the initial lineup. When Jennifer was presented with the photo lineup, she just assumed that one of men was the suspect. It was just her job to find the suspect, and Jennifer did her job. She found the suspect’s photo. The problem was Cotton was not the rapist. Poole’s photograph was not in the photo lineup or the physical line up. This is why Jennifer wrongly identified Cotton, as he most closely resembled the person who raped her that night, Poole. She assumed that the guilty person was included in the lineup, and that was not the case. Once Jennifer identified Cotton, memory was focused upon him into the guilty party in her mind. More specifically, the seemingly innocent information Jennifer said she got from police after she picked Cotton out of the physical lineup was the same person she picked out of the photo lineup. Because of this, in Jennifer’s mind she thought “bingo, I did it right.” The reinforcement dramatically altered Jennifer’s memory. This is why Jennifer sat in the courtroom and looked at Poole, the original rapist and Cotton, and said “no it’s not Poole, it’s Cotton,” because she has been picking him all along.Eyewitnesses are needed. If we couldn’t convict based on an eyewitness, that would give a lot of uncomfort to eyewitnesses. It is only right to make evidence better. The solution to all of this include showing victims line up photos one at a time, emphasizing that the right answer may be none of the above, having lineups conducted by a person who does not know who the suspect is, using computer software to have a laptop conduct photo lineups, and developing reforms.Despite all of this, Jennifer, today says “there is no face to who raped her that night.” It is great to know that Ronald Cotton had forgiven his accuser, Jennifer Thompson. Both of them have become the best of friends. Bobby Poole died in prison, and Jennifer does not ever have to worry about him hurting another woman..As a child, I have learned that is easy to confuse the source of your memories. For example, if I think back to my childhood, I am unsure whether some of my memories are really memories of the events in question, or whether my parents have told me some stories so many times that I think I remember them. A more specific example is when my mother told me “as a child, you always brought out the pots from the cupboard.” I am unsure whether I always brought out the pots from the cupboard or whether my mother has told me this story so many times that I think I remember bringing out the pots from the cupboard. Similar confusions can undermine the reliability of eyewitness evidence, such as the Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson case.
Looking for the chapter connection and supplemental reading connection?
Stanley 3AVideo Commentary These videos make it clear how unreliable eye witness testimonies can be. Ronald Cotton was put to jail and lost 11 years of his life in prison because the woman who was raped, Jennifer Thomson, mistook him for the rapist. The way in which police investigations are conducted need to change in order to reduce the chance of a situation such as this one to repeating itself. The fact that the police made it seem as if the suspects in the lineup where the only possibilities and then reinforcing Mrs. Cottons choices makes me wonder how reliable the justice system is and was. This was not an isolated case as more convicts were found innocent because of DNA testing. The Perception chapter in the TOK book also portrayed the same views as these videos. The perception chapter stated that eye witness testimonies cannot be one hundred percent reliable, however they can be better supported with multiple testimonies. If more than one woman who was raped on that night had testified that Mr. Cotton was their rapist on separate lineups, then beyond reasonable doubt could play a factor in legitimizing the testimony of Mrs. Thomson. There is no way the police could have been sure that Mrs. Cotton Knew who she was picking was actually the rapist, as she already formed in her mind that the man she chose in the photo lineup was the man who raped her. Since memory is malleable, this could have easily been the case. DNA is the only definite way to prove a person’s innocence or guilt, but only as long as the DNA used is relevant to the investigation. Upon seeing this video, I decided to take a memory test of my own similar to the one that Elizabeth Lothtes showed to the host of the show, and like the host I failed the test because of similar faces. The human mind is only capable of vaguely remembering a person’s face as bias or opinion becomes incorporated.
Great entry! we will be looking at this in more detail and how it relates to labels and stereotypes.
Jemuel3A Finding out about just how vulnerable our memories are was definitely a surprise for me. To think that someone suffered 11 years in prison for something he did not do sounded devastating to me. If that ever happened to me, I most likely would not be strong enough to forgive the person that did that to me but Ronald Cotton was able to do it. I have enormous respect for Ronald Cotton for being able to look past the wasted 11 years of his life and forgive the person that did that to him. In a way, I understand why he forgave her. She was clearly devastated by her mistake and that she did not wish it upon him. Having been raped must have damaged her life and her as a person which is why she had to she sent someone to prison. I understand how it could not have been her fault but I still do not think I would have been capable of forgiving her. On the perception chapter, the Eye-witness testimony talks about how people can confuse the source of their memories which is what happened to Cotton. He confused his weekends and accidentally gave the investigators a false alibi. This just gave the investigators a reason to think that he was lying which would have devastated me. If I had done that to myself, I don’t know what I would do. To think that your memories are capable of ruining 11 years of life is something that I find extremely scary. If he had not confused his weekends, he may have been able to walk away free without spending a day in prison but he was betrayed by his mind. Something similar to this has actually happened to me. During my sophomore year, which is last year, I saw this guy walking around the hallways who looked exactly like my friend in 6th grade whose name was Kevin R. I came up to him and asked him if his name was Kevin and he said no and I just thought to myself how stupid I looked right now. This guy looked very similar to my old friend. He had a round face, glasses, short haircut, Hispanic, and was just overall similar to him. If I heard that Kevin had committed a crime and the guy that I mistook him for was on the list, I most likely would have sent the wrong guy to jail. Watching this video reminded me of Amy Cuddy’s video on Body Language and & Perception. When the woman said that she felt angry and pissed when Cotton “dared” question her memory of the one that raped, she must have felt superior. Having sent a person to jail over something that you think he did to you, she must have felt above him and may have even practiced the body language that Amy was speaking of. She felt confident that she could not have been wrong just like how when people feel dominant; they tend to gamble more, feeling like they will win.
Is Jennifer at fault?
Telani 3AThis video was centered around eyewitness accounts and how they can be faulty. In our perception chapter, there was a section on eyewitness accounts and how sometimes they are untrustworthy. Though eyewitness accounts are basically on the same level as DNA testing, it is unable to be proven to be trustworthy. The evidence wouldn't be hardcore and provide the correct description of a person. And in some trials, the jury would automatically believe that the eyewitness is telling the truth because "they were there". In this video, it shows how easily it is to mistake someone else for who they are looking for. In class, Vaskia and I usually get mixed up with one another because we look similar. Personally I don't really see the resemblance but when looking at people who has never met you before, or just having a quick glance, it is easy to mistake the similarities. She even went up to a complete stranger and asked if we looked alike and the person said that she thought we were sisters. Our minds would be able to remember major details over a person's physical attributes, but when comparing to someone else who looks very similar my help reinforce that this is the right person. Even our minds are able to capture the many faces that we see throughout the day and place them in our dreams. The mind can change anything it can to make sure what we saw was right, that is why our eyesight deceives us the most.
Is it that they were there or because of the emotion and language used in the retelling has an effect? Supplemental reading connection?
Nnedi- 3AIt is evident that we should not always trust our perception because we make many errors. In the video, Jennifer said that she was so sure about the person she identified as her rapist in the police lineup. After using the sperm segments of DNA, it was confirmed that the person she thought raped her that night was innocent. DNA played a major part in this investigation because it determined whether her eye witness testimony was reliable. Without the DNA, Robert Cotton, the man she identified as her rapist, would have been jailed for life. How can she mistake her rapist if she studied him that night? That’s the question we tend to ask psychologists, but it is quite frankly true that eyewitness testimony comes from a person’s memory. Every detail Jennifer told the police came from what she remembered. We tend to look at eyewitness testimony as reliable because the person was there when it happened and they have a better sense of the occurrence. But in this case, the criminal justice system views eyewitness testimony as destructive as a criminal itself. It is easy to confuse what you saw with what you expect because memory and expectations go hand in hand. The drawing of a person and the actual picture of a person can affect how you see things and the decisions you make. This is because we tend to perceive things wrong due to the fact that we reconstruct the events. Reconstructing an event makes memory unreliable. From the supplemental reading at the end of the perception chapter called “Blind to Change”, Stephen Kosslyn of Harvard University said that seeing everything is a result of filling in the gaps using memory. We use our sense of imagery to make up a memory or reconstruct the initial memory. This reminds me of a quick write I had to do in my ninth grade English class. My teacher told my class to write about our most memorable birthday. I wrote about my first birthday because it was one of a kind. I said “My family members and friends came and my cake was full of flowers. When my mom turned away, I stuck my hand into the cake. I started crying when she found out.” I kept talking about that day, but at the end I realized that I reconstructed the memory. My teacher commented on my paper and said that I must have been told this information because one is too young to remember. She was absolutely correct because I came to the conclusion that I personally did not remember that day even though I have a video of the event. I seemed to have changed up the things that happened at the birthday party. This can occur in anyone’s life where someone tells you things about your childhood and you fail to remember so. We tend to reconstruct childhood “memories”. If someone expects you to remember in detail what happened on your first birthday, you would have no clue. So why is it that we use eyewitness testimony as a tool of certainty, when our memories aren’t reliable? This is the question I ask society.
Great question! Great entry! What if a crime is committed and there are multiple eye-witnesses? Then what?
Alyssa, 3AThis video is a real life example about how our perceptions can change things, it shows how easily our perceptions can be effected. I feel like because it was not emphasized that the suspect might not be among the men in the lineup or photos the witness may have felt a little pressured to pick one out of the group. She had also said that she had studied the face of the man that raped her but that made me think of a saying I heard that said something like how every time we recall something we recall it a little differently, thus saying, our memory is not always the most reliable thing in the world and even though she was confident she was right doesn’t mean she’s not actually wrong. Especially in this case when the two suspects looked alike. The video also made me think about one of the articles we read about how language can shape thought because I thought it was really shocking to see the different results from when the witness was reassured and when they weren’t. When it was communicated to the witness that they had indeed identified the right victim and then they had did that quiz, they were a lot more confident in their answers than the people who were told nothing. It reminded me of an episode of brain games I had watched, where they simulated a robbery on the streets and asked the witnesses around them what happened and the amount of different things that were said was shocking. Even I had said something a little different from what had actually happened. It just goes to show how reliable our memory really is.
So how will we ever know what is true? Was Jennifer lying? Was she wrong?
Obichi3AThe two videos about eyewitness testimony reinforced the information presented about the topic in the book. Through the book, I had already learned of how unreliable eyewitness testimony is but I was unaware of the extent to which it is flawed. Both the book and videos stated that research has shown that each time we recall a memory, we reconstruct it in our minds. However, I did not know that memory could be molded and shaped to such an extent that our own memories could deceive us. The female eye witness in the videos had been so sure of who her attacker was: every time she recalled the incident, she could even see his face and hear his voice. When I traveled back home to Nigeria a few summers ago, something similar happened to me. Then 13, I had not been to Nigeria since I was 8 and I was anticipating my return. I still remembered everything exactly as it had been, even the sizes and locations of objects, streets, and buildings. When I finally arrived and visited my childhood home, I was astonished at how different everything looked. The streets were much smaller than they had been in my memory, and everything was less glorious than I remembered. The rain did not make the streets look beautiful and overflowing, instead the constant rain of the rainy season made everything muddy. Things were not horrible, they just were not as spectacular as my memory had made them seem. When I questioned my mom, she said that everything had always been like that. Apparently, I had just been seeing it from the eyes of a much shorter, smaller child. According to the article, Blind To Change, we do not perceive everything at the same time; we only take in pieces of information at a time. So, as a 13 year old remembering her childhood, I was focusing on the information I had perceived as a child and ignoring the relative dimensions of the objects in that environment. In other words, in my recollection, I was remembering walking down a wide street as a child but I ignored the fact that the street would not seem as wide to someone who was bigger and taller. In addition, my sister, who had also been imagining and anticipating the return, had been there to confirm my memories. The Nigeria we were so sure of was nearly entirely different. As was mentioned in the article Blind To Change, memories like the ones my sister and I had were created based on expectations. We had not been home in so long that our expectations and the words of each other had constructed this world that was in-congruent with reality. The funny thing is, even now, I remember the details of my trip a little differently each time I reminisce about it.
Great post Obichi! Do expectations get tempered as we age?
anonymousMadalyn3AThis video is a great example to the perception chapter, in the moment of the scene when the women's perception was to observe the rapist for the officers. At the end when it's was Boby Pull who did the crime it made me think back to illusion. It was the darkness of the room that effected her perception and also the photos of the different people. This also leads to the truth and belief chapter, because the photo placed out to her; she was for sure it was Ronald Cotton. She had believed it so much the it was the truth to her and also that those were the other photographs put out for her. After watching the video it made me think how I would feel in her situation; I would feel exactly how she felt, ashamed, awful and shocked.
In what ways does this video about Ronald Cotton connect to illusion? What does this situation have in common with how we process illusions? Personal connection? Connection to other texts we have read?
Vaskia 3AIn the sixty minute video on the eyewitness accounts they used words such as “seem”, to convey a sense of accusation. Ronald Cotton was not a fault for rapping Jennifer. She felt as though she was being questioned, for not knowing who her rapist was. Ronald was mistaken for another man, who looked similarly to him named Bobby Pool. The people were at “disbelief” a man had lost eleven years of his life. People use to solely based the misconduct on an individual based on the eye-witness. Jennifer was certain about who her rapist was. Over seventy five percent of men are convicted of crimes they did not commit. Memory is not very reliable source of evidence. according to sixty minutes. I believe this is true because when I walk through the hall way , I sometimes think that the person I say hello to is one of my friends, either because the way they walk, or there hair and skin complexion and other facial appearances. But when I get close and have a better look at them I realize it is not my friend. Leaving me in awe of how close someone can look to other people in the world. I make sure to be careful to whom I greet, I make sure to get close and look at them before I greet them, so there will be a less chance of misunderstanding. The real perpetrator may not have been in the line up with the other people, leading Jennifer to have chosen the person that looked almost like, the person they thought they had carefully observed. In the reading about “mokusatsu”; words are mistaken for meaning something else after translation. Its as though after a person has seen something it may have been altered, to fit what they have right in front of them or what they think they know that they have seen. Without the all of the meaning of the word mokusatsu, The United States officials could not have known what Suzuki meant. In such terms that Jennifer could not understand why she was being question about whom she had thought rapped her, it was because she did not have the opportunity to have the actual perpetrator in front of her, in either the photo lineup or persons lineup. If The united States knew what Suzuki said there would be a less chance of mishap and also if Jennifer had Bobby Pool in the lineup as well. Whereas DNA can counter eye-witness accounts that may have been wrong, carefully knowing both meanings in a language can be very important in finding whether or not something is reliable source of information before applying it. Jennifer felt that he was correct because the detective made her feel as though she was correct, he told her it was the same guy from the photo line up. We a humans usually “reconstruct” something till we feel it is accurate to the situation.
Until it is accurate or convenient? What does confirmation bias have to do with the video?
Jennifer, 3AThis documentary shows how perception can deceive us. According to the video, eye-witness testimony is bias due to the inconsistency of our memory. This connects to the eye-witness testimony section in the perception chapter. According the chapter and the video, humans reconstruct their thoughts when they are in a remembering process. Moreover, this does not give complete accuracy of the accusations that can be made. For example, in the video Jennifer was asked to choose one of the suspects, even though the rapist was not present, she still chose the wrong suspect because she was "sure" that one of the suspects was her rapist. Her thoughts were reconstructed and she began seeing the new suspect as her rapist, even though he was not. The tragic experience she Jennifer was in lead her to reconstruct her thoughts. This has a slight connection with the following text read in class, "The Mouse Who Ate the Cheese." The following text is an example of how our experiences affect what we perceive. For example, in the text Bill claimed to see a mouse at the party he was in. His friends, Virginia and Adams, perceive the situation to be true due to their friendship with Bill. This is slightly similar to how Ronald, the suspect, was unfairly accused. According to the jury, if the witness states that a person is guilty because they have witness it and remember then it must be "true." This is the same way Adams and Virginia believed Bill, because they have interacted with Bill before and know that he was not drunk during the party too. Moreover, mistakes can be made this way because the eye witness is not always completely accurate. One past experience I can relate this topic to would be an accusation I made regarding one of my classmates, Stanley. A year ago, I had received a bruise by one of my male classmates. For some reason, I was quick to believe that Stanley was responsible for bruising my skin. The reason why I believed that was because Stanley I knew Stanley is a strong male, and has gripped my wrist before during a play fight. Moreover, my accusation was wrong because Stanley was not responsible for giving me a bruise because this occurred at the beginning of my Sophomore year, and I did not know Stanley then.
So if you did not know Stanley at the time, then why would you accuse him?
Akorede Period 3AI think this video ties in with the figure ground concept and how precipitation may play tricks on ones mind and becomes false. Since the lady chose the wrong man based on appearances although she studied him very well all she probably did was study certain part of his face that may have stood out while leaving the rest of his body or anything in the background as not him. Thus when she was actually told to be an eyewitness she only saw parts of a visual field or she saw the facial features that stood out more to her from her memories of being raped. However it was just not perception that may have affected her decision but confidence, emotions and maybe reasoning because when she initially chose her rapist it too her five minutes in order to pick the criminal however I think her emotions plus her sense of precipitation made it so that one person had to be guilty out of the suspects and since she was recently raped she may have picked the initial suspect out of emotions that brought out false reasoning added with perceptions that may have been twisted and altered and corrupted her memories in order to pick the wrong person. However later in the video she sees her actual rapist in the courtroom when the initial suspect acts for another trial she may have noticed it then that the second person may have been her rapist is because now all she see in her mind was her initial suspect and not her actual rapist and it is because her images of the initial man is tied in with her memories now and she may have tied emotional reasoning with the new images formed from her corrupted memory to the initial suspect which will make her overlook her actual rapist image this she will deny all account that she was wrong or the possibilities of her being wrong during the second trial because she supposedly studied her rapist. Nevertheless hard evidence was found and her actual rapist was found and this flabbergasted the eyewitness and I think her mind was playing tricks on her when she picked the suspect out of a bunch of people the first time and I think this because our eyes can deceive us because it is part of our five senses and they may altered in different situations without one knowing. For example illusions can play a trick on ones eyesight and tell you one thing however your logic may deny whatever that illusion may hold because you may know better however if the illusion is strong enough it could alter your perception and trick you. I personally think eyewitness are not the best way to pick out people for a crime because in 9th grade I learned in history that many boys that were on a train were sent to jail because two ladies said they were raped by them however this was false and it was a lie. This was the scottsboro case where nine black boys were accused of rape they did not commit and one of the accused to be raped had a testimony that the boys separated into two groups and raped them however in the future this was found to be false and were not actually raped by the scottsboro children.
Does the Scottsboro Boys case really connect to this? The two girls just plain lied because it was easier to say they were raped rather than admit they were on the train as prostitutes. Personal example? Elaborate on how figure-ground connects to this incident.
Constance3A In the YouTube videos about witness testimony, a woman mistook an innocent man as her rapist. While the woman was being raped, she memorized her rapist's characteristics. When she went to the police, they gave her a set of pictures to look at and decide if her rapist was in one of them. This contributed to the woman picking the wrong person because using a set of photos to determine whether or not the killer is there usually results in the process of elimination to find the perpetrator which makes the witness subconsciously believe that the perpetrator has to be in the set. Then the witness was put in front of a lineup of possible offenders, she used a method that resulted in finding the person who looked the most like the perpetrator. Because the real perpetrator was not in either the set of photos or the lineup, the witness did not realize that she had accused the wrong man. Later in a retrial 3 years later, the witness was asked to verify if the man who raped her was the man that she had accused before or if it was the man who had actually done it. She picked the wrong man again. Over time, the mind subconsciously tweaks your memories in order to accommodate the logic you believe in. It was logical for her to believe that the man who she accused before was the man who raped her because of the possibility that she was wrong after being so careful would not be logical. In the Theory of Knowledge textbook, chapter 3 talks about how single eyewitness testimonies are not always trustworthy because the can be subjective based on the perception of the event , honesty, role and ways they could have experienced the event differently from another witness. However, if two or more people say they saw the same event occur the testimony becomes significantly stronger. Eye-witness testimonies should not be held as one of the deciding factors in someone’s condemnation because of how many mistakes are regularly made solely because the witness or witnesses have made a mistake in their accusations. Instead, DNA tests and more concrete and least subjective evidence should be utilized in the court systems.
Constance, this is a summation of the video. You were to identify chapter connections, connections to a supplemental reading we have done for class, and then discuss a personal experience.
Ephraim 3AIn the video, it is shown how memory can influence perception. The main story is about how a women used an eyewitness test to try to detect who raped her. The result was an innocent person that had eleven years of his life wasted. Within this time, the actual criminal was in court at the same time as the falsely accused rapist. However, the woman's memory caused her to forget the picture of the actual rapist. In chapter four, there is a section that discussed independent testimony. In this section, it mentions that each time we remember something, we reconstruct it. From my personal experience, each time I get into a conflict with one of my siblings and my parents figure out that there was a conflict, they will ask what happened. While I try to remember what events took place, I will tell the story so that I am the good guy.
So how does your story with your portrayal as the good guy relate to history? What does that have to do with OPLV?
Thanks for posting!! Swift