Initial reactions to hearing the facts of Dr. Fraser’s case presentation.
In his TED talk, Why Eyewitnesses get it Wrong, forensic psychologist Scott Fraser makes a revelation on why eyewitness testimony is unreliable most of the time. According to Fraser, “The brain abhors a vacuum.” This is to say that witnesses to not lie, they simply fill in vivid details where they are absent. During this TED talk, Fraser narrates how he worked with at team to help make a reversal on a murder verdict against Francisco Carrillo two decades after the fact. Six teen witnesses had identified Carrillo as the gunman during a drive-by shooting that happened in 1991 at around 7 p.m. Fraser staged a re-enactment twenty years later to reveal that it was not possible for the witnesses to have seen the face of the gunman at that season of the year and time of the night. The fact that one boy identified Carrillo in a picture is what made the witnesses believe that they had seen his face. It is sad that there are so many people who are wrongfully convicted and exonerated based on the information given by the witnesses. I was also surprised to discover that as much as a memory is vivid, it does not always translate to its accuracy, and this is a case of the dynamic and volatile nature of the brain (Fraser, 2018) .
Describe the various system, post-diction, and estimator variables that were present in Dr. Fraser’s case presentation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Post-diction variables are the ones that are measurable in relation to the accuracy of the testimony given by eyewitnesses. One major post-diction variable present in Dr. Fraser’s case presentation is the eyewitnesses’ confidence . This case makes use of six teen witnesses, who all confidently and unanimously identified Francisco Carrillo as the gunman during the shooting. This confidence displayed during the testimony alone was enough for Carrillo to be prosecuted, even in the absence of other crucial information like the driver of the car and the gun used. Secondly, the fast response latency of the witnesses after being presented with an array of photos was a key post-diction. The witnesses quickly and without hesitation identified Carrillo as the gunman and this was enough conviction for the jury (Wells & Penrod, 2006) .
Estimator variables are the external factors that influence the testimony given by witnesses and the accuracy of the recollection of the events. Examples of good estimator variables present in Dr. Fraser’s case presentation are the witnesses’ vision, the closeness of the witnesses to the event, and the visual conditions when the event occurred. According to the investigation officials, the lighting at the scene of crime was good at the time of the shooting. However, Dr. Fraser is opposed to this claim because the shooting happened in mid-January, in the Northern Hemisphere, at 7 p.m. at night. He is able to prove that there was no moon at that time, and the only lighting was from artificial sources. Fraser performs a number of illumination and color perception measures. He also takes the judge to the scene and performs a number of proximity experiments using similar variables (the car and time of day). All these experiments on the estimator variables trickle down to one thing: there is no way that the witnesses were able to see the gunman given the visual conditions at the time.
Finally, the system variables are the ones that can be controlled by the individuals. In this case, it is very likely that of all the photos presented to the witnesses, they only knew Carrillo. For this reason, their brains were prejudiced because they already knew that he was a dangerous man and their father had warned them to stay away from him (Wells & Penrod, 2006) .
What could the investigating officers in this case have done to assure the accuracy of their eyewitnesses?
Scott Fraser provides a solution for this issue of wrongful testimonies by eyewitness. The truth is that the vividness of our memories is never an enough measure to gauge their accuracy. The fact that our brains cannot tolerate blank spaces means that they convert sketchy memories into colourful stories that are often unreliable. Therefore, there is need to consider the relative accuracy of our memories and scrutinize what we believe to be facts by our memories. Secondly, there is need to incorporate more science into trials. Judges and lawyers should be aware of the areas of scientific study that are applicable to trials. Science makes it possible to affirm the accuracy of the eyewitnesses’ testimonies. There is, therefore hope that the incorporation of science will result in less innocent people being wrongfully convicted due to the partial nature of the witnesses’ memory (Fraser, 2018) .
References
Fraser, S. (2018). Why eyewitnesses get it wrong. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fraser_the_problem_with_eyewitness_testimony?language=en#t-473152
Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological science in the public interest , 7 (2), 45-75.
