Question

Scott Fraser: Why eyewitnesses get it wrong <- your first lab link

1. Describe the crime that happened and the trial.

2. What is the problem with the evidence and the case?

3. What does Fraser mean when he says that the "brain abhors a vacuum"?

4. What is a reconstructed memory?

5. What are some of the problems with the eyewitness testimony of the murder?

6. Should eyewitness testimony be allowed in the courtroom? Write at least three paragraphs discussing your position. Use information from the video, course, and other credible sources to support your points.

Answer 1

1 Describe the crime that happened and the trial. 2 What is the problem with the evidence and the case?

Step-by-step explanation:

1. In the year 1991 a father was shot by a drive bye shooting. In a couple days they convicted a teenager boy who lived about 3 blocks away from the shooting after another teenager reassured the cops the following day. Therefore the teen was sentenced to imprisonment.

2. The problem with this case is that the teenager was convicted of the killing yet it was false. Scott Fraser used his knowledge besides law and order, he was able to find out that the teen was lying. He stated, “ All teenagers testified during the trial that they could see very well. But this occurred in mid-January, in the Northern Hemisphere, at 7pm. So when I did my calculations for the lunar data and the solar data at the location on Earth at the time of the incident of the shooting, all right it was well past the end of civil twilight and there was no moon up that night.

Answer 2

4. Reconstructive memory is a theory of elaborate memory recall
3.the brain fills in information that was not there, not originally stored, from inference, from speculation, from sources of information that came to you, as the observer, after the observation. But it happens without awareness such that you don't, aren't even cognizant of it occurring. It's called reconstructed memories.
5.First of all, we have all the statistical analyses from the Innocence Project work, where we know that we have, what, 250, 280 documented cases now where people have been wrongfully convicted and subsequently exonerated, some from death row, on the basis of later DNA analysis, and you know that over three quarters of all of those cases of exoneration involved only eyewitness identificationtestimony during the trial that convicted them. We know that eyewitness identifications are fallible.

Hope i helped!