Abbiamo costruito un sistema legale che distrugge i ricordi dei testimoni oculari — sostenuto da una scienza cautelativa e esoneri di alto profilo. John Wixted, uno dei principali ricercatori in psicologia, sfida questa saggezza convenzionale con una scoperta controintuitiva: il problema potrebbe non trattarsi della memoria in sé, ma del modo (e delle tempistiche) in cui la corte la mette alla prova.

La nuova scienza sui testimoni oculari

Eyewitness memory is not inherently unreliable, but becomes contaminated when tested too late or improperly. Dozens of wrongful convictions, like Ronald Cotton’s, occurred because courts trusted confident trial testimony instead of the earliest memory test. New research shows that a witness’s first, uncontaminated identification—done soon after the crime and with proper procedures—can be highly reliable. Prioritizing this initial test could prevent innocent people from being imprisoned or even sentenced to death.

Eyewitness Memory Is Trustworthy—If Tested At The Right Moment

Eyewitness memory has long been viewed with suspicion, leading to wrongful convictions, like that of Ronald Cotton, who spent 11 years in prison before DNA proved his innocence. Decades of scientific research show human memory is easily contaminated, yet the first test of a witness's memory—conducted soon after the crime—can be highly accurate if handled properly. Later identifications, shaped by repeated questioning and feedback, often become distorted and misleading. Shifting focus to early, uncontaminated memory tests can both prevent and overturn injustices in the legal system.