A “quick” reliable response to a simple question becomes unreliable.
Depends on your question, if someone says; “what is your name,” where do you live,” and “what is your address,” all of your answers would be 100% reliable. However, when we ask an eyewitness to describe a shooter that just committed a crime we doubt their testimony. Why is that?
Someone just witnessed a murder and the police ask the witness what did the person look like that just killed the store clerk? The witness responds, “quickly” and gives the policy every detail, the witness is very confidence of their recollection of the shooting. The witness is asked to go downtown to the police station to submit a detailed report of what happened. So, the “quick response” the witness gives the police officer is no longer reliable because his or her testimony is now tainted with time. It’s human nature to fill in the gaps when asked to recall something that has been witnessed. So, now that, “quick” answer that was deemed reliable has become an unreliable source. However, there is some truth to the witnesses testimony because the original memory had to be recalled from the actual event. The process of the witness interpretation occurs at the very formation of memory in turn introducing distortion from the beginning. Furthermore, witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out some of the details. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event.
Work Cited
“Eyewitness Testimony.” Eyewitness Testimony. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.Eyewitness Testimony
Cline, Austin. “Unreliability of Eyewitness Testimony and Memory.” N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2015. Unreliability of Eyewitness Testimony and Memory.
The Gamer 2.0
SleepyCat
Coffee Lover 03
doglover7025
Snowman10
excellentstudent27
Gymrat
hockeyfan
holistic25
ilovebeesss
ilovemydog
The Gamer
Naturechild101
BreakingBad45
ravensfan8
temporal111
thatpersonoverthere
toetio
username1132005
Calm&Patient
webbwrestler135
Counterintuitive Spring 2024 
Juggler, this is deeply intriguing, but I have questions about virtually every sentence. I don’t mean to be critical, I seek only clarification. I’ve numbered your sentences for P1 and P2.
P1 S1. I think the answers don’t require recalling an incident. There’s no afternoon on which you learned your name or heard your name spoken for the first time. Similarly for your address. You may have learned it two years ago, but that’s not the question you’re being asked. You’re being asked: What is the formula for the area of a circle, not: when did you learn the formula and from whom.
P1 S2. We doubt the witness’s testimony ONLY IF her testimony diverges from the answer we expect and desire. If the witness names the suspect we favor, we don’t doubt her veracity at all. It’s our expectation and hope, not her statement, that drive our doubt.
P1 S3. See P1 S2. We have a vested interest in the witness remembering things in our favor.
P2 S1. The answers will differ substantially depending on whether the witness knew the shooter, knew the clerk, will be working in this store tomorrow, is a member of the police force, etc . . . . So many factors will influence that testimony besides the witness’s memory.
P2 S2. The witness may very well seem certain, but we can’t know whether that confidence is genuine or false. Confusion also can be faked by a witness who does not want to testify.
P2 S3. The trip to the police station affects memory. That first spontaneous report, if it was genuine, seemed to be of little consequence. But the formality of the police interrogation at the station emphasizes the danger that a false identification might convict an innocent person or set a criminal free. The witness loses confidence.
P2 S4. I’m not sure time is the difference, certainly not the big difference. But if it IS a factor, the difference (it seems to me) is that what the witness testifies to at the station is not “What the Witness Saw” but “What the Witness Remembers Telling the Police at the Scene.” Already the witness is testifying to a recounting of a memory, not to the memory itself.
P2 S5. I think you’re exactly right. The memory is incomplete. Asked to elaborate, every human who wants to be helpful will fill in details that seem to corroborate the remembered details (in other words, make stuff up).
P2 S6. Says who? Doesn’t the first recollection still have primacy? Are you making the claim that prosecutors value the later testimony? Or are you claiming that the later memory is more reliable? We need to know whose “truth” you’re reporting here, juggler.
P2 S7. This is completely debatable. Along the way to the police station, or in the precinct before the interrogation, the witness may have heard or seen countless bits of information the completely taint the original memory.
You should start a new paragraph here:
P2 S8. Agreed. The very first eye-witness report includes not just the details the witness observed, but also her interpretation of what she sensed, which means there is distortion even in the first recounting. Surely every later re-telling becomes both more confident and less reliable. Right?
P2 S9. Granted. Given just a few minutes, we can start to re-craft our memory to justify our prejudices.
(P2 S10. You skipped a sentence in which you indicate that WITH the interference of examiners, police, and lawyers, our memories can be even more distorted, TO THE ADVANTAGE OF OTHERS.)
P2 S10. That’s very nice. We remember FOR A PURPOSE.
P2 S11. Brilliant. The version we tell is designed to please our audience!
P2 S12. Agreed. It’s a vicious cycle. We distort first to explain the scene to ourselves / later to explain it to others / finally we re-interpret our memories to conform to the beliefs of others.
How is this a Rebuttal Argument, juggler?
Does it refute one of your core arguments?
If so, what argument does it refute?
And if so, what is your counterargument?
LikeLike
Good afternoon, Professor Hodges.
Thank you for your response, I look forward to your “constructive criticism.” I wanted to answer your question. I read your response and will work on revising my rebuttal.
Q1 – How is this a Rebuttal Argument, juggler?
A1- Generally witnesses are encouraged to take their time and carefully consider each possible suspect. But strong memory traces are easier to access than weak and mistaken ones, which is why witnesses should be able to give a quick response when identifying a suspect in a police line-up. A quick response to an event that just happened is more reliable than an eyewitness taking their time to identify. Choosing quickly is much more trustworthy and in my rebuttal I’m arguing that a quick response is not trustworthy as the quick response relates to “memory.”
Q2 – Does it refute one of your core arguments?
A2 – Yes
Q3- If so, what argument does it refute?
A3 – When it comes to human memory, more deliberation is often dangerous. Instead of assessing our familiarity with a suspect’s face, we begin searching for clues and guidance.
Q4- And if so, what is your counterargument?
A4 – My counterargument is, eyewitness’s that deliberate can also be reliable even though deliberation IS proven to be dangerous as opposed to an eyewitness making a quick decision when identifying a suspect in a police line-up.
I hope I’m on the right track. Thank you for your time!
LikeLike