The Unreliability of Witness Statements: A Psychological Analysis

This essay critically examines the unreliability of witness statements within the context of the criminal justice system, arguing that psychological research supports the notion that such testimonies are not always reliable. It delves into the factors that can compromise the accuracy of eyewitness accounts, including memory distortion, the influence of third parties, cognitive biases, stress, and issues related to age and vision. The essay references studies by Elizabeth Loftus and others to demonstrate how memory can be manipulated and how leading questions or exposure to stress can affect the accuracy of recollections. It also discusses the impact of factors such as the presence of weapons, suspect identification procedures, and the use of fillers in police lineups. The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for courts to consider the inherent weaknesses of eyewitness testimonies and to rely on corroborating evidence, such as scientific proof, to avoid potential miscarriages of justice.

Running head: WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THEIR UNRELIABILITY 1
Witness Statements and Their Unreliability
Name
College of Affiliation

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THEIR UNRELIABILITY 2
Witness Statements and Their Unreliability
The major argument contained in this paper is that psychologists have a point when they
denote that eye witness statements are not always reliable. Eye witness testimony plays an
important role in the criminal justice process. This is because the conviction of a suspect will
depend on the reliability and the accuracy of an eye witness, when he provides his testimony to
the court of law (Vrij, Hope & Fisher, 2014). However, there is a problem regarding eye witness
testimonies. The problem lies on whether their statement of facts is accurate and credible. A
large number of wrongful convictions have relied on the testimony of eye witnesses, some of
which have been proved to be false. Some of the reasons that an eye witness testimony cannot be
reliable is if the memory of the witness is low, poor vision and old age.
Note that, some people who are over 70 years of age normally have poor memory and
vision, and this affects their capability to provide reliable and accurate statements of facts. It is
based on these factors that psychologists have come up with the assertion that eye witness
testimonies are not always reliable, and extensive reliance on them can lead to a mistrial.
A number of studies have been carried out on this concept of human memory, and the
capability of an individual to provide an accurate testimony in a court of law (Vrij, Hope &
Fisher, 2014). One of the psychologists who has carried out extensive research on the human
memory, and its propensity to recognize erroneous occurrences and details is a researcher by the
name of Elizabeth Loftus. Most of her experiments focused on the capability of third parties to
introduce false facts and events in the memory of a witness (Laney & Loftus, 2016). These
experiments were carried out in the 1970s, and the results were startling and surprising. For
instance, in one of the experiments, Elizabeth Loftus showed a stop or a yield sign to the subjects

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THEIR UNRELIABILITY 3
of the study. This is when they were driving a car. When a question was asked on the yield sign
that the participants saw, the examiners falsely introduced a stop sign.
From this study, the conclusion was that people can produce an answer based on the false
images that are depicted to them. Loftus also carried out an experiment of a car accident (Nahari,
Vrij & Fisher, 2016). Two terms were introduced when asking the participants questions on how
fast the cars were travelling before causing an accident. The first term was hit and the second
term was smashed. The population, who were questioned by the use of the term smashed,
provided an answer of seeing a broken glass (Laney & Loftus, 2016). This answer was
inaccurate. Basing on these experiments, it is possible to denote that a third party can interfere
with the memory of a witness, through the introduction of false cues. This will definitely make
the testimony to be inaccurate and false. Submission of false testimonies to a court of law would
definitely lead to an injustice, if the judge relies on such a testimony to convict the suspect.
Moreover, eye witnesses do not have to rely on third parties for purposes of distorting
their memories. They can distort their own memories, without the help of police officers or any
third parties (Vrij, Hope & Fisher, 2014). This is basically because they have some element of
bias towards certain conditions or events. Note that, people normally retell certain events with a
purpose on mind (Nahari, Vrij & Fisher, 2016). On this note, any act of storytelling is always
aimed at a specific listener. Because of this fact, the eye witness always engages in the process of
editing the information he wants to provide, so that it may fit the context in which he is narrating
the story (Laney & Loftus, 2016). For instance, if a witness has a perception of a particular
perpetrator in a negative manner, and identifies him as such, he might be unable to provide an
accurate testimony, based on his reconstruction of memory that emanates out of the bias that he

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THEIR UNRELIABILITY 4
has towards the perpetrator. Thus, because of the capability of bias to affect the eye witness
testimony, chances are high that the information provided might be incorrect.
In a study carried out by psychologists from the University of Virginia on the reliability
of eye witness testimonies: they found out that extensive reliance on eye witness testimonies can
result to a mistrial. On a specific note, if the court is relying on a person who is over 60 years of
age. In this study, the population of study was aged people between 60 to 80 years, and college
going students (Nahari, Vrij & Fisher, 2016). From the results of this study, psychologists found
out that the aged people were poor eye witnesses compared to the college going students. This
result is not surprising, given the fact that the aged people normally have poor eye sights and
vision, and this may result to their inability to accurately witness the criminal activity that
occurred and to provide a correct identity of the person who committed the act.
Psychologists criticize the reliance of visions for purposes of providing a testimony in the
courts of law. For instance, tests suggest that a person with very good eyesight may not have the
capability of accurately witnessing an event that occurs 10 feet away from him (Vrij, Hope &
Fisher, 2014). This is because he may not accurately see the eye lashes of the suspect or maintain
an eye contact, and this is crucial in the identification of a suspect. Moreover, research indicates
that at 200 feet, the eyes of a suspect may become blurred, irrespective of whether they have a
good eye sight or not. It is far much worse when the suspect is at 500 feet, and this is basically
because they will not have the capability of distinguishing the facial features of the suspect,
limiting their capability to accurately identify them.
Despite these weaknesses of eye witness testimonies, Burrows & Powell (2014) explains
that majority of murder charges are always determined by the testimony of witnesses who were
more than 450 feet away from the scene of crime. Another finding from this study by

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THEIR UNRELIABILITY 5
professionals from the University of Virginia that is of interest to psychologists relates to how
the aged people behave when giving testimonies in the courts of law (Weisweiler, 2014). This
behavior touches on the confidence and adamance of the aged people during the process of
giving testimony. This confidence normally makes the judges to be convinced on the credibility
and reliability of the statements provided by the aged people, and may ultimately result to a
mistrial or a wrong conviction. To avoid such a scenario from happening, it is important for the
court to always ensure that there are other ways and methods that can be used to examine the
credibility of the eye witness, and the facts that he is providing.
This is one of the major reasons that make lawyers to seek and analyze the history of the
witness for purposes of ascertaining whether they are people whom the courts can rely upon to
give an accurate and correct statement. Some of the facts that lawyers normally seek to find out,
about a witness is their criminal history and whether they have issues pertaining to dishonesty of
problems with the law (Fisher, Vrij & Leins, 2013). Chances are high that the courts may not
believe an inconsistent testimony that is provided by a person with a suspicious or criminal past.
However, if the testimony is accompanied by a scientific proof, chances are high that the courts
will take the testimony serious, and use it to determine the fate of the suspect who is under trial.
Another factor that makes eye witness testimonies to be unreliable deals with the issue of
stress. Note that, when a person suffers from stress, his mind is under pressure and is prone to
errors (Volbert & Steller, 2014). Research indicates that stress has the capability of affecting the
account of an eye witness. Furthermore, when the eye witness suffers from stress, he may be
unable to accurately pick a suspect from a police lineup. Note that, it is unethical for police
officers to induce the identification of a suspect. However, when the process is not handled
professionally, and the eye witness is suffering from stress or depression, chances are high that

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THEIR UNRELIABILITY 6
the police will help top induce the identification of the suspect, which may result to a wrong
identification.
Yuan et al (2016) denotes that a photographic lineup can be done through the use of a
number of ways. An exampling is by excluding a suspect from the mug shot, and providing the
photos to the witness to try and identify if the suspect is there. Yuan et al (2016) calls this type of
identification as simultaneous lineup. This process has a number of disadvantages. For instance,
Vrij (2015) denotes that one of the disadvantages is that chances of errors are high in this process
if the suspect is suffering from stress.
This is further compounded by the fact that the eye witness may choose a look alike
picture, if the image of the suspect is not found amongst the picture set that is provided by the
police. In the view of Howe & Knott (2015), photographic lineup policies have been developed
for purposes of minimizing the risks of choosing a wrong suspect in the lineup. This is because
of the requirement that a police officer should notify a witness that a suspect may not be in the
photos provided to him. Police officers can also allow an eye witness to view photos one at a
time. This type of suspect identification has the capability of being accurate, since it produces
less false identification.
Richter (2015) denotes that the development of such policies is an indication that the eye
witness account may be unreliable; thus, the need of supporting them with other types of
evidence, such as scientific evidence. Note that, people who are used in the police lineups
together with suspects are called fillers (Steblay, Wells & Douglass, 2014). The use of these
people who do not resemble a suspect can easily make an eye witness to identify them, because
the suspects stand out. Moreover, psychologists explain that when a person is of the same race,

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THEIR UNRELIABILITY 7
it is easier for the eye witness to identify them. This is as opposed to when the suspect comes
from a different race to that of the eye witness.
Another important factor that may affect the capability of a suspect to provide an accurate
account of the crime or to accurately identify the victim is whether there was the presence of a
weapon. The reasons why this may affect the eye witness account is because focus is always on
the weapon, as opposed to the identity of the suspect (Hahn, Oaksford & Harris, 2013).
Moreover, leading questions that are asked by police officers may affect the testimony of a
witness, and this is the reason that makes most judges to prevent the police or an attorney from
asking certain questions.
Finally, eye witness testimonies have a number of weaknesses; thus, the courts of law
should not rely on them entirely, while coming up with a decision about the fate of a suspect.
One of the weaknesses is the fact that a person may have poor vision, and this may limit his
capability to provide an accurate account of what happened. Moreover, factors such as stress,
depression, presence of a weapon and poor suspect identification procedures may affect the
capability of a witness to provide an accurate account of what actually happened in the scene of a
crime. It is based on these factors that psychologists are right, when they assert that reliance on
witnesses may lead to a mistrial.

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THEIR UNRELIABILITY 8
References
Burrows, K. S., & Powell, M. (2014). Prosecutors' recommendations for improving child witness
statements about sexual abuse. Policing and Society, 24(2), 189-207.
Fisher, R. P., Vrij, A., & Leins, D. A. (2013). Does testimonial inconsistency indicate memory
inaccuracy and deception? Beliefs, empirical research, and theory. In Applied issues in
investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 173-189).
Springer New York.
Hahn, U., Oaksford, M., & Harris, A. J. (2013). Testimony and argument: A Bayesian
perspective. In Bayesian argumentation (pp. 15-38). Springer Netherlands.
Howe, M. L., & Knott, L. M. (2015). The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: Lessons
from the past and their modern consequences. Memory, 23(5), 633-656.
Laney, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2016). Eyewitness Testimony and Memory Biases. Noba textbook
series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. DOI: https://doi. org/nobaproject.
com.
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). Exploiting liars' verbal strategies by examining the
verifiability of details. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19(2), 227-239.
Richter, L. L. (2015). Posnerian Hearsay: Slaying the Discretion Dragon. Fla. L. Rev., 67, 1861.
Steblay, N. K., Wells, G. L., & Douglass, A. B. (2014). The eyewitness post identification
feedback effect 15 years later: Theoretical and policy implications.
Yuan, X., Mei, Q., Zhou, S., & Ma, X. (2016). Reliable and robust entanglement
witness. Physical Review A, 93(4), 042317.
Volbert, R., & Steller, M. (2014). Is This Testimony Truthful, Fabricated, or Based on False
Memory?. European Psychologist.

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THEIR UNRELIABILITY 9
Vrij, A. (2015). Verbal Lie Detection tools: Statement validity analysis, reality monitoring and
scientific content analysis. Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive
approaches, 3-35.
Vrij, A., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). Eliciting reliable information in investigative
interviews. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 129-136.
Weisweiler, J. (2014). Unreliable Witness: Failings of the Narrative in Ammianus
Marcellinus. Literature and Society in the Fourth Century AD: Performing Paidea,
Constructing the Present, Presenting the Self (Leiden: Brill), 103-133.