Memory and Eyewitness Identification

I picked person number five. That is because he looks suspicious from the way he is rolling his eyes sideways. The other individuals are facing the camera straight while person number five is rolling his eyes to the sides when facing the camera. I was confident enough when picking the person from the lineup. That is since all the other individuals are courageous, while person number five is less bold in front of the camera, and he is equally not at ease. The distinctive looks disturbed. 

My opinion of Ronald Cotton's case is that sometimes, the eyewitness can make a mistake when identifying a suspect. One may not have a vivid and clear picture of the one who committed a crime as the mind is delusional and makes us believe in what we want to think and not what is supposed to be. Equally, due to the fragility of the memory, the memory is not a video recorder that records and thus cannot be played back for reference. Instead, the mind is malleable and full of holes that can contaminate our suggestions. Also, I have the opinion that before conviction, a DNA test should be done because when a suspect is not in the lineup, individuals tend to pick someone who looks more like the suspect. The case relates to the activity I did on the line up in that I identified the suspect using body language and physical appearance. Therefore, it would be better to look for more evidence that would prove person number five is the suspect rather than just finger-pointing at him at the lineup and accepting that to be the final decision.