This video is important because it demonstrates eyewitness testimony and how we look at things selectively, along with reconstructed memories of the brain that takes place. It teaches people that we only pay attention to what we focus on and not the details that surrounds us.
Eyewitness testimony is an account given by people of an event they have witnessed. For example, in the case of Kirk Bloodsworth, he was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine- year- old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber. Relying heavily on the testimony of five eyewitnesses, who turned out to be wrong. They use eyewitness testimony by doing a police lineup choosing from a number of police sketches, in order to come to a conclusion of which person they “think” it is. After selecting a suspect, eyewitnesses are asked to confirm the ID and try to “recall” any other events surrounding the crime that took place.
I strongly disagree with the eyewitness testimony when it comes to serious cases. Also including, one third of these overturned cases relied on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. During cases like this in order to convict someone of a crime, DNA should be the more efficient way of knowing the truth, especially if it involves the raping of a child. Eyewitness testimony alone just isn’t enough, the brain fills in information that is not there, which leads to the faul eyewitness identification, which then leads to the wrong person. Therefore, if I were accused of a crime I did not commit in my lifetime, I would use the information I’ve learned about eyewitness testimony by telling them to watch video of the event or talk to the person I was with at the time of the event, if any. So that they can tell them I wasn’t there at the time of the scene, because they’re not going to rely on what I say.