False Memory

Have you ever wondered if your memory can change? People have, for many years, thought that memory is set in stone, and nothing can influence it. Over the last 40 years, however, scientists and psychologists have changed their point of view. As people noticed that memory can be malleable, we started to question the reliability of eyewitnesses in court.This leads to questions about the validity of criminal convictions that are based largely on the testimony of victims or witnesses.An important psychologist that links with this topic is Elisabeth Loftus, a leading expert in eyewitness testimony. The idea that eyewitnesses do not usually testify what they witnesses but, rather, remake their memories on the basis of relevant schematic information, was the basis of much of the pioneering work on eyewitness testimony by Loftus and her colleagues. In 1984 a man name Ronald Cotton got accused of rape, and sentenced to jail. In the end, this was the case that broke the national headlines, and pointed out that memory can be manipulable.

Composite Sketch

The Ronald Cotton case became known and set as an example of false memory. The night when Jennifer Thompson was raped, she swore to herself that she would bring her rapist behind bars. She studied his face, trying her best to capture most detail to help the police find the criminal. However, even after all her efforts to make sure the right guy was sentenced, someone made a mistake. She created a composite sketch, which brought up various suspects. These suspects were showed to Jennifer in a photo line-up, followed later by a physical line up.

When the culprit is not there in a line up, and the witness thinks that he might be there, the mind finds the "best fit." In both lineups, Jennifer hesitated, but picked Ronald Cotton.  This acted for her as a reinforcement, and her mind made the switch of the real rapist's face and Cotton's face permanent. When you are a witness, and you are not sure about your decision right away, if you cannot say "Yes, that is him!" in the first 10 seconds, there is a big chance that it is not him. This is because you take time to take old information and new information, to form a brand new memory.

The pictures of the accused, and the real rapist.

The way lineup is done is wrong. Suspects should be shown one at a time so the witness does not compare the suspects, but the picture in their mind of the criminal to each suspects. This is a better way to do line ups, because this way we can try to prevent your mind from choosing "the best fit." Ronald Cotton was not the rapist Jennifer saw, but because he was the closest thing to the image in her mind, her mind framed him. Cotton knew he was innocent, and he had suspicions that Bobby Poole was the real rapist. He had another trial in which Jennifer Thompson was presented with the accused (Cotton), and the actual rapist (Poole). She was looking at the actual rapist, but in her mind, the real criminal was Ronald Cotton. Jennifer exclaimed that Poole was "not him", and she was angry at the fact that people would doubt that she knew who her real rapist was. Jennifer Thompson did not feel anything when standing in front of Bobby Poole, because in her mind, Ronald Cotton was sealed as the real criminal. In the end, DNA tests revealed that the real rapist was, after all, Poole. 

From this we can see how easily even the littlest details can alter our memory. Eye witness testimony has two characteristics, it is unreliable, and most convincing for the jury. As a person, you cannot overcome what your brain wants to do, and that is in this case, to find the suspect. Memory is altered, every time new information is added. Any comment or reinforcement, can seal an idea, and form in into a memory. Eye witness testimonies should still continue to be used, or else criminals would be too confident that people would not be protected, but because of its low accuracy, it should not be used as solid evidence in trials which sentence people to jail.