What is the first thing you must do with your witnesses? Why?
During the process of evidence gathering, witness testimony is highly valuable given the accuracy, validity and credibility attached to it. However, the process of identifying the most appropriate witness for an investigation is a daunting one that requires patience in addition to the adoption of a strategic approach. The first thing to do after the witnesses are identified is to define the witness type, whether the witnesses are eyewitnesses to the crime to the witnesses are corroborative witnesses. The witness statement of eyewitness is more reliable especially when the investigators establish that the witness is offering the right information to the investigators as compared to corroborative witness statements.
Eyewitness statements are more reliable given the fact that the eye witness is a witness to the actual crime and can identify the perpetrators and the victims in the crime scene. Additionally, given the length and amount of exposure to the crime by an eyewitness, an eyewitness is more likely to offer credible and accurate information concerning the crime. Furthermore, the identifying of eyewitnesses is accompanied by recognizing the most conveniently positioned among the witnesses to ensure that the information is both elaborative and exhaustive.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
What things are each individual most likely to recall? Who could potentially be your best witness? Why?
On the other hand, Trina who is 8 years old could have recalled the altercation between the two parties and witnessed as the perpetrator fled the scene. However, given her age, the competency of the witness would be put to question in addition to her ability to comprehend the gravity of the situation. Grace who was coming out of the store when the crime was committed is most likely to recall the perpetrator and the victim. She is likely to recall how the robbery and homicide occurred in addition to how the perpetrator fled the scene of the crime. Al, the greeter at the store is likely to have witnessed the whole ordeal. However, given the advanced age of the witness, it is likely that the witness could have had challenges clearly discerning the face of the perpetrator in addition to hearing the ordeal. Sherrie, who was shopping at the time of the event is likely to recall hearing the altercation. Additionally, Sherrie is likely to recall the face of the perpetrator in addition to the details of the robbery and the victim, given that she has the mental competence to recall in addition to being properly positioned.
Shawn, the accountant on his way home could possibly recall witnessing the whole event as it unfolded, therefore recalling the perpetrator and the victim in addition to how the homicide was committed, and how the robber fled. Shawn would have been the best witness. Shawn is of competent age and mental capacity given the fact that he is a working professional. Additionally, Shawn was passing by and is therefore likely to have been ideally located and positioned to witness the robbery and homicide as it happened.
The least effective? Why?
Al, who is 80 years old, would have been the least effective witness. This is due to the fact that given his advanced age, Al could be disqualified as a witness due to an inability to accurately perceive events due to loss of senses. Poor eyesight in addition to poor hearing could render the testimony questionable as impeccable sensory health is vital for accurate witness accounts.
Which of the common memory faults might affect your witnesses? At what point? Why/How?
Blocking could result in the witnesses being unable to affirmatively identify the perpetrator. Blocking may occur during investigation when the witness has to identify the suspect. This would be due to the absence of interest or lack of concentration on the unfolding event despite being on the scene of the crime, or poor view of the suspect due to anxiety.
