Ronald Cotton Eyewitness Testimony Essay
Ronald Cotton - Eyewitness Testimony
Jennifer Thomas, a 22-year old college student from Burlington, North Carolina, was raped in her off-campus apartment on July 28, 1984. During the assault, Jennifer studied her rapist’s face and other characteristics in the case that she made it out alive. Thomas was able to escape and ran to a police station and with the help of a detective, she was able to make a composite sketch of the perpetrator. The rapist also managed to rape another woman a few blocks down from Thomas’s apartment. Once the sketch was release to the public, tips came in about a man named Ronald Cotton. Cotton had a record of sexual assault and breaking and entering. A photo spread was done and Jennifer Thomas identified Ronald Cotton …show more content…
Thomas said, “When you’re sitting in a photo lineup, you just assume, one of these guys are the suspect…Bobby Pool wasn’t in the photo line-up.” Gary Wells, from Iowa State University, states, “When the real guy isn’t there, witnesses tend to pick the person who looks most like him.” With recognition memory rapid, Thomas shouldn’t have taken 5 minutes to identify the perpetrator, Thomas should have identified the perpetrator in seconds rather than minutes. To have conducted the photo lineup better, the suspects should have been shown to Jennifer Thomas, one by one for her compare the person to her memory thus, reducing the chance of identifying the wrong person. Another mistake in identifying her assailant, was the police reinforcing Jennifer Thomas’ accuracy, telling Thomas that the person who she identified as her rapist from the photo spread was in the photo lineup as well.
Gary Wells’ experiment was in regards to reinforcing the witnesses’ memory. Wells had two groups of subjects that watched a low quality video of man committing a crime. After the video, the first subjects were asked to identify the man in the video from a photo lineup. With no reinforcement, the subjects were rather insecure with their selection. The second group of subjects were asked to watch the same video and identify the man from a photo lineup. With reinforcement from the conductor of the experiment,
Jennifer Thomas, a 22-year old college student from Burlington, North Carolina, was raped in her off-campus apartment on July 28, 1984. During the assault, Jennifer studied her rapist’s face and other characteristics in the case that she made it out alive. Thomas was able to escape and ran to a police station and with the help of a detective, she was able to make a composite sketch of the perpetrator. The rapist also managed to rape another woman a few blocks down from Thomas’s apartment. Once the sketch was release to the public, tips came in about a man named Ronald Cotton. Cotton had a record of sexual assault and breaking and entering. A photo spread was done and Jennifer Thomas identified Ronald Cotton …show more content…
Thomas said, “When you’re sitting in a photo lineup, you just assume, one of these guys are the suspect…Bobby Pool wasn’t in the photo line-up.” Gary Wells, from Iowa State University, states, “When the real guy isn’t there, witnesses tend to pick the person who looks most like him.” With recognition memory rapid, Thomas shouldn’t have taken 5 minutes to identify the perpetrator, Thomas should have identified the perpetrator in seconds rather than minutes. To have conducted the photo lineup better, the suspects should have been shown to Jennifer Thomas, one by one for her compare the person to her memory thus, reducing the chance of identifying the wrong person. Another mistake in identifying her assailant, was the police reinforcing Jennifer Thomas’ accuracy, telling Thomas that the person who she identified as her rapist from the photo spread was in the photo lineup as well.
Gary Wells’ experiment was in regards to reinforcing the witnesses’ memory. Wells had two groups of subjects that watched a low quality video of man committing a crime. After the video, the first subjects were asked to identify the man in the video from a photo lineup. With no reinforcement, the subjects were rather insecure with their selection. The second group of subjects were asked to watch the same video and identify the man from a photo lineup. With reinforcement from the conductor of the experiment,