Elizabeth Loftus theory of reconstructive memory proposes that when we try and remember an event, we will piece it bit by bit from our memories to reconstruct that event. However, gaps in our memory can distort our recollection of events, and our tendency is to fill in those gaps with our own plausible information, thus creating memories that never really occurred. These ideas imply the high malleability of our own memories, and the likelihood of not being able to accurately discriminate from what is real and what is imagined. With that in mind, does a question influence it's answer? Do words enhance or distract our different sensory memories? What do we really remember about certain incidences that occur in our everyday lives? Moreover, does confidence correlate with accuracy? These are a few questions that are highly applicable in the PBS Frontline documentary, "What Jennifer Saw."

In the documentary, we learn that Jennifer Thompson was attacked and raped by an armed black man, and somehow managed to escape and call for help. During the attack however, Jennifer realized that if she did escape, her only way of identifying her assailant would be by closel

interviewed she had trouble identifying several suspects that the police had put together. In further questioning, and in order to speed up the investigation, police investigators suggested Ronald Cotton implicitly because they had discovered he had a prior conviction of sexual assault. This bit of information gave Jennifer more reason and more confidence in believing that Ronald Cotton was the man that raped her. However, the fact that she was not confident prior to the disclosure of this information, suggests that it distracted her memory and helped her make a decision because ultimately it made more sense. This was a crucial mistake that was made by the investigation because it mislead Jennifer into believing that Ronald was her attacker. Furthermore it helped her form a new mental image of the night of the attack. Of course the job of the police is to help catch criminals, in this case however, they should have relied more on patience rather than on suspicions. Instead of just helping to incriminate and prosecute by throwing ideas into Jennifer's mind, the investigators could have used a cognitive interview to help in establishing the actual facts about the crime. With a cognitive interview, they would have cut down on information contamination, because Jennifer would have disclosed information about what she actually remembered, before the investigators could help change her mind with their intuitions.

Convicted and sentenced, Ronald served a punishment for a crime he did not commit. In a reopening of his case, DNA evidence along with a confession by the real assailant, ultimately proved that he was not guilty of assaulting and raping Jennifer Thompson. Suggestive questions, inconclusive evidence, and objectionable deliberation by the jury proved to be the determining factors in convicting Ronald Cotton. This helps me understand that anyone can become a suspect and be wrongfully accused of a crime they did not commit. Furthermore, it shows how easily our memories can make us believe certain events in our lives that never really occurred. Based on these ideas, we need to keep an open mind to the power of suggestion, and examine our thoughts more carefully. According to this case, we can easily be fooled by our own minds. Jennifer still believes and remains confident that Ronald is the man that raped her even though the real attacker confessed to the crime. This is the proof that illustrates that we believe may not always be true and that confidence does not correlate with accuracy.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Ronald Cotton, Memory Inconsistencies, Elizabeth Loftus, Jennifer Thompson, Inevitably Jennifer, Thompson Suggestive, ronald cotton, PBS Frontline, Jennifer's Jennifer, memory inconsistencies, correlate accuracy, confidence correlate accuracy, confidence correlate, believing ronald, convicting ronald cotton, inconclusive evidence, crime commit, witness identification, ronald attacker, believing ronald cotton, objectionable deliberation jury, cognitive interview,
Approximate Word count = 1705
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)