|
|
 |
 Over the last 30 years, great improvements have been made in the conduct of police interviews (Egeth, 1993), but it is only in the last 15 years, since the introduction of DNA testing, that the justice system has begun to take the relevant research on eyewitness testimony seriously (Wells & Olson, 2003).
The results of a study carried out by Loftus (1974) found that a higher percentage of individuals (i.e those that make up a jury) would convict an offender based the testimony of an eyewitness. With such a heavy reliance on eyewitness testimony, it is vital that the information given is correct otherwise the wrong person is convicted for a crime and this invariably happens. There have many documented cases of mistaken identity where an innocent person has been wrongly convicted of a crime based on the evidence of an eyewitness (Buckhout, 1974). In fact, it has been suggested that in as much as 20% of witness identifications, an innocent person has been selected (Wright & McDaid, 1996).
Environmental conditions at the time of the incident can have an impact on the reliability of the eyewitnesses’ identification (Sanders & Warnick, 1980). There is a tendency to concentrate on particular information such as:
- The face
- Physical features
- Clothing
However, Kramer, Buckhout & Eugenio (1990) have found that if the offender is carrying a weapon, the witness is more focused on the weapon rather than anything else. This phenomenon is referred to as the “weapons focus effect”.
Kebbell & Wagstaff (1999) have put together at leaflet for the Home Office that summarises research on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
Human memory is fallible and will never be 100% accurate. Bartlett (1932, cited in Bartlett, 1995) famously illustrated this in a study that required participants to read a story entitled "The War of the Ghosts" and recall it at a later date. It was specifically chosen because its origin was based around a culture different to that of the participants. The results of his study showed that memory accuracy is poor and that people have a tendency to fill in gaps with information they believe should be there because it matches up with their own existing schemas (Loftus & Hyman, 199
For more references on eyewitness testimony please go to:
Investigative Pyschology Library
Barry George
  George is currently serving time for the murder of TV presenter Jill Dando in 1999. However, he has recently won an appeal to have his case retried based on ‘possible’ mistaken identity and discrepancies with DNA evidence. It is therefore yet to be established whether he was incorrectly imprisoned for this crime.
Anthony Capozzi
 Capozzi was sent to prison for 35 years in 1987 for the rape of two women based on the evidence given by the victims during the trial. Capozzi had a prominent three-inch scar on his face but none of the victims had mentioned this feature when describing their attacker. Biological evidence was taken from each of the victims, which would eventually prove that Capozzi was innocent of these crimes but it remained stored in a hospital draw for two decades. He was exonerated and release from custody in April 2007.
Kirk Bloodsworth
 Bloodsworth was sentenced to death for the murder and sexual assault of a 9 year old girl in 1985. An anonymous phone call and eyewitness identification claimed that he had been seen with the girl that day. However, DNA testing carried out in 1992 proved that he was not responsible and he was released, after 8 years in prison, in 1993.
For more information: The Innocent Project
Back to Topics
|
|
