The Key Witness' Dilemma

For a long time it was thought that memory was infallible, meaning that the stored information is kept intact and it can also be actualized with the same accuracy. The recent studies have proven however the fact that our memory is fragile and it has an outstanding capacity to invent. These details lead to question the accuracy and fidelity of the actualization, especially under its specific forms of reproduction and recognition.

The type of memory which is concerned with storing the information is called the episodic memory. Its content is made of experiences associated with spatial and temporal characteristics plugged together around an emotional knot. The episodic memory has as an important feature the so-called interference. This term refers to the influence the gathered cognitions have one over the other and which eventually results in the alteration of the original acquisition. The alteration is not only produced by the interference, but also by the inevitable oblivion and by the imagination.

Therefore, the episodic memory is the source of the witness' testimonies in a trial, for the remembered information represents the former events located in a spatio-temporal frame. Since the testimonies are made on oath, is it possible for the witness to have a false memory and that this memory may appear unwittingly? If so, which would be the causes to produce such a phenomenon?

The answer to the first question is an affirmative one, according to the psychologists. The false memory can be built up unconsciously throughout the phenomena presented above: interference, oblivion and imagination. In this way, the witness can present his testimony honestly, without knowing that its accuracy was altered by a series of factors he does not know anything about.

It has been proven that the interference between the memorized items belonging to the same category is very strong. So, if the eye-witness changed ideas after the accident with another witness, and this last one, for the sake of making the story more intriguing, added new non-existing details, our eye-witness would remember them and in his episodic memory the process of interference occurs.

Also, because of the gaps produced in the memory by the inevitable passing of time, the witness might fill these gaps, unconsciously with his imagination. The products of his own imagination are very familiar to his mind and this familiarity gives him the assurance that all those details came from the experience he had at the scene of the accident.

In addition, this false memory can also be created with the contribution of the prosecutor. He can take advantage of the process called "imagination inflation" and by this he can manipulate the memories of the witness. The lawyer can resort to verbal tricks in order to obtain the wanted information, namely that which goes in the direction of the accusation part.

For example, in the moment when the witness does not remember the answer to a certain question, the prosecutor can use such vivid descriptions of the crime scene that the witness can imagine himself there. This leads to the point where his imagination begins to build up the answers according to the prosecutor's expectations. The lawyer can use specific wording in order to induce the answer and to influence its meaning: "Isn't it that...?" or "Do you remember when...? ". Another verbal trick very often used is the one with replacing certain words with their synonyms, synonyms with a drastic meaning and also, the using of intensifiers: instead of the verb "to touch", the lawyer can use the verb " to strike against", or instead of the collocation "spot of blood", he can use " puddle of blood" .

In conclusion, the fragility of the memory leads to the fragility of the reproduction of information. Therefore, false memories can be created as in this case presented above. In daily life these false memories have no devastating effects, maybe they don't even make a difference, but in the judicial case such an inaccurate reproduction can lead to destruction of lives, accusing or absolving wrongly. Because of this, the entire judicial system should be very informed in this direction and a strong suggestion for the witnesses would be to take notes the moment they see an accident, before being influenced by the others' opinions.