Apparently, scientists have developed a new tool to “freeze” crime scene memories.
The tool – a self-administered interview applied by witnesses at crime scenes – combats natural memory decay by using the latest research in cognitive psychology techniques. It ‘freezes’ images and details of crime scenes and perpetrators in the minds of witnesses, particularly small and seemingly insignificant details that provide major leads for detectives that turn out to be crucial in solving cases.
While this might have utility in memorizing details from the scene itself, I have to question its usefulness in remembering descriptions of perpetrators. Part of the problem with eyewitness identification testimony (and partly why experts are starting to be used) is eyewitness confidence. Studies have shown that there is very little correlation between eyewitness confidence and accuracy. I fear that this tool might serve to cement incorrect recollections of the perpetrator.
It is a tool that seems to work, though:
Tests at simulated crimes scenes were remarkable with witnesses using the tool recalling forensically relevant information 42 percent more accurate than other witnesses who were simply asked to ‘report as much as you can remember’. The tests also revealed the witnesses using the self-administered interview (SAI) were 44 percent more correct with details about people – therefore, possible suspects – who had been involved in the event.
In another test there was a delay of seven days between witnessing the event and providing a full account. Half the participants completed self-administered interviews after witnessing the event while the other participants simply gave their name and contact details – as normally happens to a large number of witnesses at crime incidents. Scientists tested the group after seven days and found participants who had completed the SAI were still reporting almost 30 per cent more correct details than other witnesses.
That’s just staggering. This goes to show that in every case we have involving eyewitness testimony, we must explore any and all challenges to its reliability and perhaps retain an expert. This cannot be ignored any more in practice. For the CT practitioner, Lisa Steele’s Law Review article at 25 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 799 is very helpful (thanks to JC).