1 00:00:01,080 --> 00:00:06,920 Speaker 1: I battle between what I remember and this narrative that 2 00:00:07,000 --> 00:00:10,799 Speaker 1: I developed over the time with the police. How did 3 00:00:10,800 --> 00:00:13,680 Speaker 1: it go from Melissa saying Bill was a perpetrator to 4 00:00:13,840 --> 00:00:18,119 Speaker 1: Rodney Lincoln being arrested and eventually convicted. And I know 5 00:00:18,480 --> 00:00:22,759 Speaker 1: on some level how it happened, and that I wasn't 6 00:00:22,920 --> 00:00:33,120 Speaker 1: solely responsible. The city was out for blood. I'm Leah Rothman. 7 00:00:33,880 --> 00:00:39,840 Speaker 1: This is the Real Killer Episode ten. Memories and misidentifications. 8 00:00:49,640 --> 00:00:53,480 Speaker 1: You know what I did ask myself many times? Why 9 00:00:53,520 --> 00:00:56,120 Speaker 1: I said Bill? Could it happened? I was a little 10 00:00:56,160 --> 00:00:59,120 Speaker 1: kid misheard or this was the name I knew the 11 00:00:59,200 --> 00:01:02,880 Speaker 1: man by. I don't know how it got to be 12 00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:06,200 Speaker 1: from one person to the other. I can't explain the 13 00:01:06,280 --> 00:01:09,800 Speaker 1: moment it happened, but I think it was an evolution. 14 00:01:11,440 --> 00:01:15,880 Speaker 1: Maybe my recollections and memories were not as good as theirs. 15 00:01:16,560 --> 00:01:22,959 Speaker 1: I didn't trust myself anymore because Melissa's memory is really 16 00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:25,880 Speaker 1: the lynchpin of the whole case. I want to understand 17 00:01:25,880 --> 00:01:28,959 Speaker 1: more about it. Where did her early memories of the 18 00:01:29,000 --> 00:01:34,040 Speaker 1: perpetrator come from? And why did those memories change? Somewhere 19 00:01:34,040 --> 00:01:38,840 Speaker 1: along the way things pivoted away from Bill and to Rodney. 20 00:01:38,840 --> 00:01:43,120 Speaker 1: Why and how? And what part the detectives play in 21 00:01:43,160 --> 00:01:46,600 Speaker 1: all of it. I started with reaching out to Gary Wells. 22 00:01:48,000 --> 00:01:52,200 Speaker 1: He's a distinguished professor of psychology at Iowa State University. 23 00:01:52,560 --> 00:01:57,560 Speaker 1: He's a giant in the field of social psychology, cognitive psychology, 24 00:01:57,680 --> 00:02:02,040 Speaker 1: and its intersection with the law. He's also done extensive 25 00:02:02,040 --> 00:02:06,480 Speaker 1: research on lineup procedures and the accuracy of eyewitness identification, 26 00:02:07,040 --> 00:02:12,720 Speaker 1: dating back to n He's authored over three hundred articles. 27 00:02:12,760 --> 00:02:17,079 Speaker 1: His findings have been included into psychology and law textbooks, 28 00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:19,880 Speaker 1: and he's worked with the Justice Department to write the 29 00:02:19,919 --> 00:02:28,440 Speaker 1: training manual on eyewitness identification evidence. We've got a reliability 30 00:02:28,480 --> 00:02:33,280 Speaker 1: problem in eyewitnessification because most of the DNA generations about 31 00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:41,200 Speaker 1: involved cases of mistaken identification in the Midwest. Innocence Project 32 00:02:41,320 --> 00:02:44,040 Speaker 1: reached out to Gary Wells asking him to review and 33 00:02:44,120 --> 00:02:48,920 Speaker 1: advise them on Rodney's case. This was before Melissa's recantation. 34 00:02:50,440 --> 00:02:54,200 Speaker 1: If it's okay, let's first talk about Melissa. The first 35 00:02:54,400 --> 00:02:58,200 Speaker 1: thing she says is Bill did it. From there in 36 00:02:58,280 --> 00:03:01,919 Speaker 1: the hospital she starts from and bring other things about Bill. 37 00:03:02,840 --> 00:03:07,560 Speaker 1: She remembers that Bill drove a yellow car, then it 38 00:03:07,600 --> 00:03:10,080 Speaker 1: turns into a taxi, and then a white Volkswagon. She 39 00:03:10,240 --> 00:03:12,840 Speaker 1: remembers spending the night at his house. There was a 40 00:03:12,880 --> 00:03:15,200 Speaker 1: park across from the house. What do you make of 41 00:03:15,639 --> 00:03:19,720 Speaker 1: the first responses that come from her, Well, I think 42 00:03:19,720 --> 00:03:24,160 Speaker 1: the first responses are you know. She could say I 43 00:03:24,200 --> 00:03:26,160 Speaker 1: don't know, I don't know, I don't know, but she didn't. 44 00:03:26,480 --> 00:03:31,440 Speaker 1: In general, the spontaneous mentioning of this person Bill is 45 00:03:32,480 --> 00:03:35,600 Speaker 1: big lead. I mean, it should be followed up on. 46 00:03:35,720 --> 00:03:38,240 Speaker 1: That's a meaningful statement, and especially if you have nothing 47 00:03:38,280 --> 00:03:42,840 Speaker 1: else to to really contradict that. I don't want to 48 00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:47,200 Speaker 1: attribute bad motives to the to the case investigator here, 49 00:03:48,360 --> 00:03:55,440 Speaker 1: but throughout this process it just looks very chaotic. I mean, 50 00:03:56,520 --> 00:04:00,440 Speaker 1: early in this process, she's been being shown people who 51 00:04:00,800 --> 00:04:03,640 Speaker 1: don't fit their description. They don't look at all like 52 00:04:03,720 --> 00:04:06,480 Speaker 1: each other. The only thing they seem to have in 53 00:04:06,560 --> 00:04:09,520 Speaker 1: common is most of them were named Bill or William 54 00:04:09,840 --> 00:04:14,800 Speaker 1: or Billy or Willie. And so that whole strategy was 55 00:04:14,960 --> 00:04:17,560 Speaker 1: to put a bunch of bills in front of her. Right, 56 00:04:18,080 --> 00:04:28,040 Speaker 1: that was a bad idea. That's a fishing expedition with 57 00:04:28,080 --> 00:04:31,480 Speaker 1: Melissa unable to ide any of those men in time. 58 00:04:31,720 --> 00:04:35,680 Speaker 1: The composite sketches drawn, Remember they start with a photo 59 00:04:35,720 --> 00:04:39,760 Speaker 1: of a family friend named Dennis Smith. Allegedly, Melissa had 60 00:04:39,800 --> 00:04:45,160 Speaker 1: said he kind of looked like the killer. For the 61 00:04:45,200 --> 00:04:48,400 Speaker 1: sketch artists to have a picture of the person, she says, 62 00:04:48,440 --> 00:04:51,320 Speaker 1: he looks like as another like, what is the what 63 00:04:51,480 --> 00:04:53,560 Speaker 1: is the point of that? Did he even need her 64 00:04:54,360 --> 00:04:58,640 Speaker 1: at that point? Is she adding anything? I doubt it. 65 00:04:59,800 --> 00:05:05,599 Speaker 1: We We have done experiments to produce composites. What we 66 00:05:05,680 --> 00:05:07,680 Speaker 1: find is that in general, they tend not to look 67 00:05:07,800 --> 00:05:11,600 Speaker 1: very much like the perpetrator, like the person they saw, 68 00:05:12,600 --> 00:05:16,159 Speaker 1: because it's just so difficult. We can't pick out the 69 00:05:16,240 --> 00:05:18,440 Speaker 1: nose and the eyes, and then you know, we don't 70 00:05:18,680 --> 00:05:24,480 Speaker 1: have those things separately, uh, in memory. So here's the 71 00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:28,960 Speaker 1: big problem though, When you produce a composite and the 72 00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:32,760 Speaker 1: composite may or may not resemble the real perp or 73 00:05:32,920 --> 00:05:36,480 Speaker 1: very much, but you use that to find a suspect. 74 00:05:36,880 --> 00:05:43,440 Speaker 1: Guess what, You put the composite out to lots of people, right, Well, yeah, 75 00:05:43,480 --> 00:05:48,360 Speaker 1: of course it always looks like somebody, which is exactly 76 00:05:48,560 --> 00:05:51,400 Speaker 1: what happened in this case. The sketch is released to 77 00:05:51,440 --> 00:05:54,680 Speaker 1: the public. Joanne's family sees it and says the man 78 00:05:54,760 --> 00:05:58,640 Speaker 1: looks familiar and after going through Joanne's diary with police, 79 00:05:59,200 --> 00:06:03,719 Speaker 1: they land on raw me. So then they decide that 80 00:06:03,839 --> 00:06:08,240 Speaker 1: Rodney is their suspect, and they go to Melissa with 81 00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:14,760 Speaker 1: two photos. One is of a family, remember, a cousin, 82 00:06:15,240 --> 00:06:18,359 Speaker 1: of her half sister, her older half sister, and the 83 00:06:18,440 --> 00:06:22,400 Speaker 1: other and that's a color polaroid and the other is 84 00:06:22,400 --> 00:06:27,160 Speaker 1: a black and white mug shot of Rodney Lincoln. Sort 85 00:06:27,160 --> 00:06:31,560 Speaker 1: of just talk me through that, okay, So if you 86 00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:35,599 Speaker 1: if you just come in at that point where they 87 00:06:35,640 --> 00:06:39,680 Speaker 1: decide that they're going to try to do an identification 88 00:06:40,600 --> 00:06:44,680 Speaker 1: with Rodney Lincoln, they would have needed to understand and 89 00:06:44,760 --> 00:06:50,280 Speaker 1: appreciate the fact that, well, we suspected Lincoln only because 90 00:06:51,080 --> 00:06:54,880 Speaker 1: he was the closest match to the composite. Right. What 91 00:06:54,960 --> 00:06:58,640 Speaker 1: they needed to do then was create a proper identification procedure, 92 00:06:58,880 --> 00:07:03,080 Speaker 1: which would be at least six photos. And in those 93 00:07:03,080 --> 00:07:07,960 Speaker 1: six photos, they need to pick other people who also 94 00:07:08,400 --> 00:07:12,400 Speaker 1: have some similarities to the composite and use those. It 95 00:07:12,520 --> 00:07:17,960 Speaker 1: can't just be too So she picks Rodney. Burgoon said 96 00:07:18,320 --> 00:07:23,120 Speaker 1: his name is not Bill, and Burgoon said, Melissa replied, 97 00:07:23,760 --> 00:07:26,240 Speaker 1: it's that's him, that's him, and he's like, but his 98 00:07:26,360 --> 00:07:29,480 Speaker 1: name is not Bill, and she said that's him. She 99 00:07:29,600 --> 00:07:35,560 Speaker 1: had seen Rodney before, and so when she says that's him, 100 00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:38,440 Speaker 1: is that what she's what she's doing, is she's recognizing 101 00:07:39,240 --> 00:07:43,840 Speaker 1: someone that her mother did have a relationship with at 102 00:07:43,880 --> 00:07:48,240 Speaker 1: some point, and that this is what we call a 103 00:07:48,360 --> 00:07:53,720 Speaker 1: source monitoring error, which is a particular problem that flicks everyone, 104 00:07:53,840 --> 00:07:57,320 Speaker 1: but it's stronger with children and stronger with the elderly. 105 00:07:57,720 --> 00:08:02,120 Speaker 1: And that is you remember, in this case, the face, 106 00:08:03,120 --> 00:08:08,120 Speaker 1: but you've confused the context. So yeah, it's a familiar 107 00:08:08,160 --> 00:08:11,160 Speaker 1: it's a it is a familiar face. You have been 108 00:08:11,160 --> 00:08:14,800 Speaker 1: in the same room with that person. Right by that point, 109 00:08:14,840 --> 00:08:18,480 Speaker 1: that memory maybe of the perpetrator may start to almost 110 00:08:18,720 --> 00:08:22,240 Speaker 1: be blending with this person. And I say that because 111 00:08:22,600 --> 00:08:27,000 Speaker 1: she was right about some things about it turned out 112 00:08:27,040 --> 00:08:31,720 Speaker 1: about Rodney, not about Bill, right, that he lived with 113 00:08:31,760 --> 00:08:34,959 Speaker 1: his mom, and that there was a park right park 114 00:08:35,000 --> 00:08:39,040 Speaker 1: across the street. So so it's quite possible that what 115 00:08:39,240 --> 00:08:42,839 Speaker 1: is augmenting this identification is the fact that now you're 116 00:08:42,840 --> 00:08:46,719 Speaker 1: showing her someone she has seen before and and and 117 00:08:46,720 --> 00:08:50,320 Speaker 1: and seen in the context of an interaction with her mother. 118 00:08:54,720 --> 00:08:59,000 Speaker 1: She picks Rodney right, and then within two hours she 119 00:08:59,400 --> 00:09:04,000 Speaker 1: is viewing a live lineup right so the live lineup. 120 00:09:04,240 --> 00:09:07,199 Speaker 1: I mean, once you get an identification of somebody from photos, 121 00:09:07,240 --> 00:09:10,120 Speaker 1: turning around and doing a live lineup in which he's 122 00:09:10,160 --> 00:09:16,080 Speaker 1: the only person in common between um, the photos and 123 00:09:16,200 --> 00:09:19,079 Speaker 1: the live lineup, it's pretty much guaranteed the witness is 124 00:09:19,120 --> 00:09:21,800 Speaker 1: just gonna turn around and pick the same person. And 125 00:09:21,840 --> 00:09:23,920 Speaker 1: it doesn't matter if the child are an adult, Right, 126 00:09:23,920 --> 00:09:25,640 Speaker 1: they're gonna pick the same person out of the live 127 00:09:25,720 --> 00:09:28,360 Speaker 1: lineup that they that you just led them to pick 128 00:09:28,880 --> 00:09:35,200 Speaker 1: out of photos. Besides this, there are other issues with 129 00:09:35,320 --> 00:09:40,640 Speaker 1: lineups that need to be considered. So the big problem 130 00:09:40,720 --> 00:09:45,080 Speaker 1: with I win a cientification is that witnesses tend to 131 00:09:45,559 --> 00:09:48,440 Speaker 1: pick the person from the lineup who looks most like 132 00:09:48,559 --> 00:09:52,360 Speaker 1: the perpetrator relative to the other members of the lineup. Right, 133 00:09:52,760 --> 00:09:57,400 Speaker 1: That makes sense, comes very natural, two people. It's just 134 00:09:57,520 --> 00:10:02,920 Speaker 1: kind of baked into our psychology is to make relative judgments. 135 00:10:02,960 --> 00:10:06,960 Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know the actual size of this, 136 00:10:07,200 --> 00:10:10,240 Speaker 1: whatever it might be. I can't tell you in in 137 00:10:10,559 --> 00:10:13,600 Speaker 1: millimeters or whatever, but I can see that this is 138 00:10:13,720 --> 00:10:17,320 Speaker 1: bigger than that, right, So this is how we make 139 00:10:17,440 --> 00:10:22,480 Speaker 1: most of our judgments, right, in terms of them being 140 00:10:23,080 --> 00:10:26,480 Speaker 1: relative to something else. And so it is the case 141 00:10:26,559 --> 00:10:30,880 Speaker 1: with a line up to the natural tendency. The natural 142 00:10:30,920 --> 00:10:34,559 Speaker 1: propensity is to look at a lineup quickly home in 143 00:10:34,720 --> 00:10:38,439 Speaker 1: on who best matches my memory relative to the others. 144 00:10:38,960 --> 00:10:42,800 Speaker 1: This is the best person, and then there's a tendency 145 00:10:42,920 --> 00:10:46,320 Speaker 1: to run with that and pick that person. The problem 146 00:10:46,360 --> 00:10:48,839 Speaker 1: with that is that what if the perpetrator is not 147 00:10:48,920 --> 00:10:51,880 Speaker 1: in the line up, there still is somebody who better 148 00:10:51,960 --> 00:10:56,240 Speaker 1: matches your memory than somebody else. So an absolutely critical 149 00:10:56,280 --> 00:11:00,959 Speaker 1: and essential type of instruction is keeping mind the person 150 00:11:01,760 --> 00:11:04,760 Speaker 1: who committed this crime, person you saw might not be 151 00:11:04,880 --> 00:11:07,960 Speaker 1: in here, and so maybe maybe the correct answer is 152 00:11:08,120 --> 00:11:12,679 Speaker 1: none of these. That's a very important instruction. It takes 153 00:11:12,679 --> 00:11:19,200 Speaker 1: pressure off the witness. So then they're at this live lineup. 154 00:11:20,080 --> 00:11:26,440 Speaker 1: I know you've seen it, and these gentlemen are and 155 00:11:26,520 --> 00:11:32,720 Speaker 1: eighteen years old, shaggier, longer hair, inches taller than Rodney 156 00:11:32,800 --> 00:11:39,800 Speaker 1: Rodney's thirty seven, shorter dark hair um and also just shorter. 157 00:11:41,320 --> 00:11:45,319 Speaker 1: And in terms of fillers, how did metro p D 158 00:11:45,520 --> 00:11:50,080 Speaker 1: do with the fillers in this live lineup? On the 159 00:11:50,120 --> 00:11:52,679 Speaker 1: live lineup? I mean, not only is Melissa coming into 160 00:11:52,720 --> 00:11:59,320 Speaker 1: it having already only two hours earlier picked Rodney Lincoln 161 00:11:59,679 --> 00:12:05,079 Speaker 1: from two choice alternative but in addition, for three other 162 00:12:05,120 --> 00:12:09,240 Speaker 1: people in the live lineup are very poorly selected fillers. 163 00:12:09,480 --> 00:12:12,040 Speaker 1: They don't fit the description. Rodney is the only one 164 00:12:12,040 --> 00:12:15,360 Speaker 1: who who fits the description. If by that point we 165 00:12:15,400 --> 00:12:19,880 Speaker 1: consider the description to be this uh composite. When you 166 00:12:20,040 --> 00:12:25,199 Speaker 1: select good fillers, they should all have that same characteristic, 167 00:12:25,760 --> 00:12:30,839 Speaker 1: so that if he's innocent, he shouldn't stand out. So 168 00:12:31,040 --> 00:12:35,520 Speaker 1: I I interviewed Detective Burgoon recently and I asked him 169 00:12:35,559 --> 00:12:40,440 Speaker 1: about the live lineup, and he basically said that it 170 00:12:40,520 --> 00:12:45,040 Speaker 1: was a Saturday, and there weren't too many people there, 171 00:12:45,480 --> 00:12:49,200 Speaker 1: and they only had twenty hours in Missouri at the time. 172 00:12:49,240 --> 00:12:51,920 Speaker 1: They only had twenty hours to apply for a warrant. 173 00:12:53,080 --> 00:12:55,800 Speaker 1: You know, we basically had twenty hours to put together 174 00:12:55,880 --> 00:13:00,880 Speaker 1: this live lineup. I would think that twenty would be 175 00:13:01,080 --> 00:13:04,800 Speaker 1: enough time to round up people. You don't have to 176 00:13:04,800 --> 00:13:07,160 Speaker 1: get them from jail cells. I mean you can, you 177 00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:10,280 Speaker 1: can get them off the street. Personally, I don't think 178 00:13:10,280 --> 00:13:15,200 Speaker 1: that's a good excuse. And the fact that Lead Detective 179 00:13:15,280 --> 00:13:18,440 Speaker 1: Joe Burgoon, a man that Melissa came to love, is 180 00:13:18,520 --> 00:13:22,600 Speaker 1: part of the lineup at all, is a problem. Talk 181 00:13:22,640 --> 00:13:27,240 Speaker 1: to me about double blind lineups. The idea of the 182 00:13:27,360 --> 00:13:30,280 Speaker 1: double blind lineup, which I came up with in the 183 00:13:30,400 --> 00:13:34,760 Speaker 1: late eighties and started pressing pretty hard on into the 184 00:13:34,840 --> 00:13:41,600 Speaker 1: ninety nineties, was that began discovering oftentimes, Um, the person 185 00:13:41,720 --> 00:13:46,160 Speaker 1: doing the line up, the detective who knows that his 186 00:13:46,760 --> 00:13:51,640 Speaker 1: suspect is in position three, is inadvertently unintentionally We're not 187 00:13:51,679 --> 00:13:58,600 Speaker 1: saying it's intentional queuing the witness towards number three. Consider 188 00:13:58,640 --> 00:14:02,160 Speaker 1: what you would do, I mean, perfectly natural. Nobody thinks 189 00:14:02,200 --> 00:14:07,040 Speaker 1: they're they're doing something inappropriate. So let's say your case, detective, 190 00:14:07,600 --> 00:14:10,200 Speaker 1: you think that you know, you put together a lineup. 191 00:14:10,280 --> 00:14:12,400 Speaker 1: You think that number three, You know number three is 192 00:14:12,400 --> 00:14:17,120 Speaker 1: your suspect. You know that numbers one to four or five, six, 193 00:14:17,559 --> 00:14:21,760 Speaker 1: those are just fillers. Right. You show it to the witness, 194 00:14:22,280 --> 00:14:28,360 Speaker 1: and the witness says, um, number two. Now take your time. 195 00:14:28,840 --> 00:14:30,840 Speaker 1: Are you sure you look at all of them? Right? 196 00:14:31,720 --> 00:14:35,800 Speaker 1: But if the witness says, um, number three, yeah, yeah, 197 00:14:35,960 --> 00:14:39,400 Speaker 1: tell me about number three. So it's just human nature 198 00:14:39,480 --> 00:14:43,320 Speaker 1: on the part of in this case, the lineup administrator 199 00:14:43,880 --> 00:14:49,400 Speaker 1: to sort of leak or inadvertently steer. And so the 200 00:14:49,400 --> 00:14:51,880 Speaker 1: double blind lineup is a pretty simple idea. I mean, 201 00:14:51,880 --> 00:14:54,360 Speaker 1: I just borrowed it from what we already know in 202 00:14:54,560 --> 00:14:58,800 Speaker 1: scientific testing, namely that well, the person who administers this 203 00:14:58,840 --> 00:15:01,720 Speaker 1: photo lineup and any buddy who's in that room should 204 00:15:01,800 --> 00:15:05,880 Speaker 1: not know which person is the person who is the 205 00:15:05,920 --> 00:15:11,640 Speaker 1: suspect and which ones are fillers. Then they cannot inadvertently, 206 00:15:11,800 --> 00:15:18,320 Speaker 1: unintentionally or whatever, steer the witness around or influence how 207 00:15:18,320 --> 00:15:23,440 Speaker 1: the witness feels about their choice. So you know how 208 00:15:23,440 --> 00:15:26,960 Speaker 1: the rest goes. Melissa picks Rodney. Then two trials later, 209 00:15:27,240 --> 00:15:34,920 Speaker 1: he's convicted. Fast forward three decades. So Melissa in two 210 00:15:34,960 --> 00:15:38,960 Speaker 1: thousand and fifteen says Rodney didn't do it, he was 211 00:15:39,000 --> 00:15:42,880 Speaker 1: never there that day. And then she also says, I 212 00:15:42,920 --> 00:15:47,840 Speaker 1: believe tommylind Cells did it. So what do you make 213 00:15:47,880 --> 00:15:53,640 Speaker 1: of that new memory? Well, I think that Melissa's showing 214 00:15:54,120 --> 00:15:59,680 Speaker 1: great bravery here and saying that she now believes that 215 00:16:00,120 --> 00:16:04,800 Speaker 1: it was not Rodney Lincoln because that requires her to 216 00:16:04,960 --> 00:16:10,240 Speaker 1: like sort of rewrite a significant part of her life history. 217 00:16:10,440 --> 00:16:15,880 Speaker 1: That's that's huge. Now. I do think that what she's 218 00:16:15,880 --> 00:16:19,800 Speaker 1: doing is she's weighing. Maybe she's weighing the evidence a 219 00:16:19,840 --> 00:16:23,040 Speaker 1: little bit better. I mean, she's coming to grips with 220 00:16:23,440 --> 00:16:25,920 Speaker 1: things that she didn't know at the time. I mean 221 00:16:25,960 --> 00:16:30,160 Speaker 1: as an adult, she's now processing his name. Isn't Bill right? 222 00:16:30,480 --> 00:16:33,000 Speaker 1: He does have an ali by in the words, she's 223 00:16:33,040 --> 00:16:37,720 Speaker 1: taking into consideration, Uh, this other evidence at the same time, 224 00:16:38,720 --> 00:16:42,760 Speaker 1: why is she saying that it's this other person? It 225 00:16:42,840 --> 00:16:49,360 Speaker 1: seems very unlikely that she's able to recover that original 226 00:16:49,400 --> 00:16:53,840 Speaker 1: memory and based it on that. Because too much time 227 00:16:53,960 --> 00:16:56,960 Speaker 1: is passed. It seems unlikely she would be able to 228 00:16:57,560 --> 00:17:02,640 Speaker 1: cast her mind back and recover that original memory. I 229 00:17:02,680 --> 00:17:06,040 Speaker 1: think that's long gone. It wasn't that good in the beginning. 230 00:17:06,680 --> 00:17:10,000 Speaker 1: There's too much water under the bridge. She's already made 231 00:17:10,000 --> 00:17:13,000 Speaker 1: this mistaken identification and believe that it was somebody else 232 00:17:13,040 --> 00:17:18,720 Speaker 1: All along. These things make that original memory largely untraceable. 233 00:17:20,200 --> 00:17:23,480 Speaker 1: The legal system tend not to buy recantations, sort of like, 234 00:17:24,000 --> 00:17:28,280 Speaker 1: well then you must have if you were wrong before, 235 00:17:29,119 --> 00:17:32,000 Speaker 1: why wouldn't you be wrong now? You know? Does memory 236 00:17:32,000 --> 00:17:44,679 Speaker 1: get better? With your memories better now? I have a 237 00:17:44,800 --> 00:17:48,399 Speaker 1: lot of questions about memories. I mean, how exactly do 238 00:17:48,480 --> 00:17:52,520 Speaker 1: memories even work and what causes them not to I 239 00:17:52,600 --> 00:17:55,560 Speaker 1: asked three memory experts to share their years of knowledge 240 00:17:55,640 --> 00:17:58,840 Speaker 1: and research with me. They agreed to talk about the 241 00:17:58,840 --> 00:18:03,880 Speaker 1: case as a high pathetical. I've heard people compare memory 242 00:18:04,359 --> 00:18:09,040 Speaker 1: to a video recorder. Is that reasonable? I mean, the 243 00:18:09,080 --> 00:18:14,480 Speaker 1: fast answer is straightforward yes and no. That's Daniel Reiesberg. 244 00:18:15,040 --> 00:18:19,080 Speaker 1: He's an emeritus professor and a cognitive psychologist whose research 245 00:18:19,160 --> 00:18:22,480 Speaker 1: focuses on how people remember emotional events in their lives. 246 00:18:23,080 --> 00:18:26,000 Speaker 1: For the last twenty years, he's been called to testify 247 00:18:26,040 --> 00:18:29,960 Speaker 1: as an expert witness in i D cases, confession cases, 248 00:18:30,359 --> 00:18:36,520 Speaker 1: and cases involving children's and adults memories. Like a video recorder, 249 00:18:36,600 --> 00:18:40,040 Speaker 1: memory has an input side, akin to what happens when 250 00:18:40,040 --> 00:18:43,320 Speaker 1: you hit the record button on your phone or a player. 251 00:18:43,720 --> 00:18:47,359 Speaker 1: Memory has a storage time when the information is just 252 00:18:47,440 --> 00:18:51,240 Speaker 1: sitting there waiting for some eventual playback, and memory also 253 00:18:51,320 --> 00:18:54,200 Speaker 1: has a playback function. But the moment you start looking 254 00:18:54,200 --> 00:18:57,000 Speaker 1: at the comparison in any sort of serious way, the 255 00:18:57,040 --> 00:19:00,640 Speaker 1: comparison just collapses. And I would put at the top 256 00:19:00,680 --> 00:19:04,399 Speaker 1: of the list two crucial points. One of them is 257 00:19:04,480 --> 00:19:09,679 Speaker 1: that the input to memory is selective. And there is, 258 00:19:09,800 --> 00:19:13,960 Speaker 1: in many occasions a lot of information arriving at your ears, 259 00:19:14,080 --> 00:19:16,240 Speaker 1: or a lot of information out in front of your eyes, 260 00:19:16,760 --> 00:19:19,280 Speaker 1: and if you're not paying attention to it, it does 261 00:19:19,320 --> 00:19:23,160 Speaker 1: not get recorded. Into memory. But the other I think 262 00:19:23,680 --> 00:19:28,480 Speaker 1: even more important distinction is that one's information is recorded 263 00:19:28,520 --> 00:19:32,119 Speaker 1: on your phone. It's it's their dormant and in that way, 264 00:19:32,600 --> 00:19:36,160 Speaker 1: what you eventually get in playback really is a high 265 00:19:36,280 --> 00:19:40,119 Speaker 1: quality rendition of exactly what went in in the first place. 266 00:19:40,760 --> 00:19:45,399 Speaker 1: And memory is massively different because our memories are dynamic 267 00:19:45,480 --> 00:19:49,760 Speaker 1: and information that's in storage is constantly getting updated and 268 00:19:49,840 --> 00:19:56,960 Speaker 1: elaborated and merged together with other sources of information. I 269 00:19:57,000 --> 00:19:59,520 Speaker 1: agree with you, that's the way memory works. It's a 270 00:19:59,600 --> 00:20:04,240 Speaker 1: wonder for wonderful system, UM, but it's um. It's a 271 00:20:04,280 --> 00:20:09,399 Speaker 1: system that was not not developed for the courtroom. That's 272 00:20:09,480 --> 00:20:13,480 Speaker 1: Iris blend On Gitlin. She's a professor of psychology at 273 00:20:13,520 --> 00:20:18,159 Speaker 1: California State University, Fullerton. Her research focuses on memory in 274 00:20:18,160 --> 00:20:22,320 Speaker 1: the forensic context, memory as it relates to identification of 275 00:20:22,359 --> 00:20:26,280 Speaker 1: people and events, and detecting deception as it relates to 276 00:20:26,359 --> 00:20:30,760 Speaker 1: interviewing and interrogation. She also works as an expert witness, 277 00:20:30,920 --> 00:20:36,359 Speaker 1: primarily in criminal cases. Within the courtroom, a lot of 278 00:20:36,400 --> 00:20:39,960 Speaker 1: time needs to be accurate and complete. That's not what 279 00:20:40,040 --> 00:20:44,160 Speaker 1: it evolves to be. So it's there's a conflict between 280 00:20:44,400 --> 00:20:48,080 Speaker 1: what the legal system meets, you know, in order to 281 00:20:48,160 --> 00:20:53,360 Speaker 1: self crimes um and what human humans can give from 282 00:20:53,400 --> 00:20:56,679 Speaker 1: their memory, which is it's wonderful for every day, for 283 00:20:56,760 --> 00:21:01,199 Speaker 1: all of our experiences, but not for the courtroom. The 284 00:21:01,240 --> 00:21:03,159 Speaker 1: only other piece that I would add to that is 285 00:21:03,200 --> 00:21:07,120 Speaker 1: people don't necessarily have a good sense of when their 286 00:21:07,160 --> 00:21:11,440 Speaker 1: memory fails, and that's how they're Clydeer off it. She's 287 00:21:11,480 --> 00:21:15,800 Speaker 1: a research professor at Georgia State University. Her work focuses 288 00:21:15,880 --> 00:21:19,680 Speaker 1: on memory errors, with an emphasis on courtroom applications. Her 289 00:21:19,720 --> 00:21:24,760 Speaker 1: work also looks at face recognition and eyewitness identification. Most recently, 290 00:21:24,880 --> 00:21:27,639 Speaker 1: she's been looking at how people remember information that's been 291 00:21:27,680 --> 00:21:32,440 Speaker 1: imagined versus actually experienced and the confusion that comes with it. 292 00:21:33,160 --> 00:21:35,479 Speaker 1: Like Dan and Iris, for the last ten years, how 293 00:21:35,520 --> 00:21:39,440 Speaker 1: There has also been working as an expert witness. People 294 00:21:39,480 --> 00:21:43,080 Speaker 1: can feel um because they remember something with a lot 295 00:21:43,119 --> 00:21:46,640 Speaker 1: of vividness or a lot of detail. Then they can 296 00:21:46,680 --> 00:21:49,880 Speaker 1: come to believe that it's highly accurate and become very 297 00:21:49,920 --> 00:21:52,200 Speaker 1: confident in that. And again, to add to what Irish said, 298 00:21:52,440 --> 00:21:55,440 Speaker 1: that isn't necessarily the case that works in the courtroom 299 00:21:55,520 --> 00:22:00,360 Speaker 1: because memory fades over time, over time, and right off 300 00:22:00,359 --> 00:22:07,159 Speaker 1: the bat, here's Dan again, memories fade, All memories fade. 301 00:22:07,480 --> 00:22:11,720 Speaker 1: The fade begins immediately. Um, you know, there's no honeymoon 302 00:22:11,800 --> 00:22:14,359 Speaker 1: period in which the memory is, you know, resting before 303 00:22:14,400 --> 00:22:16,399 Speaker 1: the fade starts. That's just not the way it works. 304 00:22:16,920 --> 00:22:20,640 Speaker 1: One of the claims of that memory I commonly encounter 305 00:22:20,960 --> 00:22:25,920 Speaker 1: is that some events are immune to forgetting, and people say, 306 00:22:26,200 --> 00:22:28,360 Speaker 1: I will remember that till the day I die. I'll 307 00:22:28,400 --> 00:22:31,120 Speaker 1: never forget it. I remember it as though it were yesterday. 308 00:22:31,240 --> 00:22:33,919 Speaker 1: And you know, there's a kernel of reality there because 309 00:22:34,160 --> 00:22:38,439 Speaker 1: some events are memorable. But at the same time, no 310 00:22:38,720 --> 00:22:43,880 Speaker 1: event is immune to forgetting. To what Dance saying, it's 311 00:22:43,920 --> 00:22:47,040 Speaker 1: not that you're necessarily going to forget that the thing happened. 312 00:22:47,040 --> 00:22:49,200 Speaker 1: I'm not going to forget I was in a car accident, 313 00:22:50,400 --> 00:22:53,960 Speaker 1: but the details surrounding that event are going to update 314 00:22:54,000 --> 00:22:58,159 Speaker 1: and change. So you know, it's not that people completely 315 00:22:58,200 --> 00:23:01,359 Speaker 1: forget something happened. I can remember all the details of it. 316 00:23:02,400 --> 00:23:05,560 Speaker 1: And it turns out event memories are very different than 317 00:23:05,680 --> 00:23:12,879 Speaker 1: facial ones. Here's iris again, the event is likely to 318 00:23:13,000 --> 00:23:17,600 Speaker 1: be replay rehearsed. Right as people give the account of 319 00:23:17,680 --> 00:23:20,320 Speaker 1: an event and they talk about it and trying to reconcile, 320 00:23:20,400 --> 00:23:23,520 Speaker 1: they think about it, and so potentially there's a stronger 321 00:23:23,800 --> 00:23:27,760 Speaker 1: memory for the details of the event, of parts of 322 00:23:27,760 --> 00:23:30,840 Speaker 1: that event, and there is not the image of a 323 00:23:30,880 --> 00:23:36,000 Speaker 1: perpetrator because that doesn't get rehearsed. And trauma has a 324 00:23:36,040 --> 00:23:41,520 Speaker 1: surprising effect on memory, actually a contradictory one. Here's Dan. 325 00:23:43,840 --> 00:23:45,879 Speaker 1: One of the things that trauma does, you know, in 326 00:23:46,080 --> 00:23:49,480 Speaker 1: you know, lots of field studies, lots of laboratory studies, 327 00:23:50,119 --> 00:23:54,000 Speaker 1: is sharpen your focus. The things that they do focus 328 00:23:54,080 --> 00:23:58,240 Speaker 1: on during the trauma tend to be longer lasting compared 329 00:23:58,240 --> 00:24:03,080 Speaker 1: to memory for some you know, mundane, everyday occurrence. And 330 00:24:03,119 --> 00:24:06,600 Speaker 1: part of the complication here is that it's often difficult 331 00:24:06,600 --> 00:24:09,240 Speaker 1: from the outside to figure out exactly what the person 332 00:24:09,320 --> 00:24:11,920 Speaker 1: is going to focus on. And so, you know, two 333 00:24:11,920 --> 00:24:15,160 Speaker 1: people going through what seemed to be similar events may 334 00:24:15,320 --> 00:24:17,800 Speaker 1: end up focusing on different things, and therefore they're going 335 00:24:17,840 --> 00:24:21,560 Speaker 1: to have very different memories. And the opposite can also 336 00:24:21,600 --> 00:24:24,560 Speaker 1: be true, like when someone experiences a lot of stress 337 00:24:24,560 --> 00:24:31,119 Speaker 1: and arousal, something called catastrophic memory loss can occur. So 338 00:24:31,160 --> 00:24:33,640 Speaker 1: in regards to Melissa, we don't know which one happened. 339 00:24:34,160 --> 00:24:36,800 Speaker 1: Did she have some very sharp memories based on where 340 00:24:36,800 --> 00:24:40,080 Speaker 1: she put her focus or was she so stressed that 341 00:24:40,440 --> 00:24:44,320 Speaker 1: like the perpetrator's face just became a blur. We'll never know. 342 00:24:44,920 --> 00:24:47,919 Speaker 1: But what about exposure time. It seems the man was 343 00:24:47,960 --> 00:24:50,600 Speaker 1: in the apartment for a long time. Melissa said she 344 00:24:50,680 --> 00:24:52,960 Speaker 1: got a good look at him. At times his face 345 00:24:53,080 --> 00:24:57,800 Speaker 1: was a foot away. Here's iris we know of cases 346 00:24:57,840 --> 00:25:00,840 Speaker 1: and also from research that even if you have long 347 00:25:00,960 --> 00:25:04,080 Speaker 1: exposure time to a phase, I mean the famous case 348 00:25:04,160 --> 00:25:11,200 Speaker 1: of the Ronald Cotton a case. You know, the rapist 349 00:25:11,440 --> 00:25:15,320 Speaker 1: was in the room for a long period of time 350 00:25:16,000 --> 00:25:19,240 Speaker 1: with Jennifer the victim, right, And so she even said 351 00:25:19,240 --> 00:25:22,560 Speaker 1: that she studied his face. She wanted to be able 352 00:25:22,600 --> 00:25:25,480 Speaker 1: to remember him right, to be able to you know, 353 00:25:25,560 --> 00:25:28,280 Speaker 1: make sure that they got to him. And she still 354 00:25:28,280 --> 00:25:31,320 Speaker 1: made a mistake. And when she came across the real 355 00:25:32,000 --> 00:25:36,479 Speaker 1: real rapists years later in another trial, um, she actually 356 00:25:36,520 --> 00:25:39,320 Speaker 1: came in front and saw him and she could not 357 00:25:39,320 --> 00:25:42,359 Speaker 1: nothing trigger, nothing trigger in her mind. And that was 358 00:25:42,359 --> 00:25:45,320 Speaker 1: a real rapist, proven by d n A right. And 359 00:25:45,400 --> 00:25:47,440 Speaker 1: so you know from these cases, but also from the 360 00:25:47,440 --> 00:25:52,880 Speaker 1: empirical research, that is possible to also misremember or forget 361 00:25:53,840 --> 00:25:59,359 Speaker 1: a face even if you had long exposure time and again, 362 00:25:59,440 --> 00:26:02,800 Speaker 1: where was Melissa's focus? Was it on the man's face 363 00:26:03,359 --> 00:26:09,200 Speaker 1: or the knife he was stabbing her with? What about age? 364 00:26:09,760 --> 00:26:12,440 Speaker 1: Does a child's memory work the same as an adults? 365 00:26:13,320 --> 00:26:17,600 Speaker 1: The answer is basically yes, with a few exceptions, one 366 00:26:17,600 --> 00:26:23,360 Speaker 1: of the biggest being suggestibility. Here's iris again. I think 367 00:26:23,400 --> 00:26:26,199 Speaker 1: in a suggestive environment where you have suggestive kinds of 368 00:26:26,680 --> 00:26:31,280 Speaker 1: interviewing and and lots of adults with an interest of 369 00:26:31,320 --> 00:26:34,760 Speaker 1: trying to get more information, and also with authority figures, 370 00:26:35,119 --> 00:26:40,240 Speaker 1: all of that kind of environment would definitely potentially influence 371 00:26:41,119 --> 00:26:44,840 Speaker 1: that person's memory. I would add just quickly, is that 372 00:26:45,160 --> 00:26:48,760 Speaker 1: I don't want to leave the feeling that you know, 373 00:26:48,880 --> 00:26:52,840 Speaker 1: children's memory cannot be relied upon. You know it can 374 00:26:53,359 --> 00:26:57,399 Speaker 1: given the right circumstances. They're right set of protocols, and 375 00:26:57,520 --> 00:27:00,720 Speaker 1: we know that from their research is very clear children 376 00:27:00,760 --> 00:27:04,919 Speaker 1: can't give reliable, truthful information and complete information in the 377 00:27:05,000 --> 00:27:18,080 Speaker 1: right condition. So basically, memories fade almost immediately. They're malleable, 378 00:27:18,280 --> 00:27:21,240 Speaker 1: and both adults and children can make errors when I 379 00:27:21,320 --> 00:27:24,800 Speaker 1: ding someone. It seems like the burdens on law enforcement 380 00:27:25,240 --> 00:27:28,840 Speaker 1: to conduct interviews and lineups in ways that produce good, 381 00:27:28,880 --> 00:27:35,080 Speaker 1: reliable information without contaminating the original memory, which brings us 382 00:27:35,119 --> 00:27:38,359 Speaker 1: back to Gary Wells and what should have happened in 383 00:27:38,480 --> 00:27:45,960 Speaker 1: Rodney's case. I think this whole thing all along needed 384 00:27:46,000 --> 00:27:51,720 Speaker 1: to be solved with if at all possible, with harder evidence. 385 00:27:52,119 --> 00:27:55,639 Speaker 1: A seven year old You can't be shown her fifty 386 00:27:55,720 --> 00:27:59,639 Speaker 1: photos over several days and of all kinds of different 387 00:27:59,680 --> 00:28:04,000 Speaker 1: people and then giving her really biased final test of 388 00:28:04,560 --> 00:28:09,520 Speaker 1: only two photos. Once you did that, you sort of 389 00:28:10,160 --> 00:28:15,080 Speaker 1: trampled on the evidence. You know, I've been pushing this analogy, 390 00:28:15,280 --> 00:28:18,080 Speaker 1: um that I think that you know, I witness evidence 391 00:28:18,720 --> 00:28:21,600 Speaker 1: should be treated as a form of trace evidence. You know, 392 00:28:21,680 --> 00:28:25,000 Speaker 1: trace evidence we usually think of as fingerprints and blood 393 00:28:25,200 --> 00:28:29,399 Speaker 1: or semen or hair fibers that a perpetrator left behind 394 00:28:29,400 --> 00:28:32,160 Speaker 1: at the scene of the crime that can help establish 395 00:28:32,160 --> 00:28:35,399 Speaker 1: the identity of the perpetrator. Well, that's also true of 396 00:28:35,400 --> 00:28:38,640 Speaker 1: eye witness evidence. What happened here was the perpetrator left 397 00:28:38,640 --> 00:28:42,760 Speaker 1: a trace behind, except that trace was in the head 398 00:28:43,040 --> 00:28:45,960 Speaker 1: of Melissa. It's the same as going into a crime 399 00:28:46,000 --> 00:28:48,920 Speaker 1: scene and just trampling all over the place. Oh well, 400 00:28:48,960 --> 00:28:51,200 Speaker 1: you know, it doesn't matter if I pick up this object, 401 00:28:51,360 --> 00:28:55,000 Speaker 1: if I step over here, or I'm gonna I'm gonna 402 00:28:55,040 --> 00:28:58,840 Speaker 1: move the gun, you know, like you would never consider 403 00:28:58,920 --> 00:29:03,040 Speaker 1: doing those things when investigating a crime. Well, there should 404 00:29:03,040 --> 00:29:05,880 Speaker 1: be a lot of things you don't consider tampering with, 405 00:29:06,240 --> 00:29:11,200 Speaker 1: like to witnesses memory when invested getting a crime as well. 406 00:29:15,640 --> 00:29:19,480 Speaker 1: Should the detectives. Should they have known better back in 407 00:29:21,720 --> 00:29:25,360 Speaker 1: It's hard to put ourselves back into you know. I 408 00:29:25,360 --> 00:29:28,120 Speaker 1: don't want to be one who says that this was 409 00:29:28,160 --> 00:29:31,920 Speaker 1: not good faith at the time. I can't really make 410 00:29:32,000 --> 00:29:38,480 Speaker 1: that judgment. What I can do now, though, is say that, UM, 411 00:29:38,520 --> 00:29:43,480 Speaker 1: given this path of these events as they were created 412 00:29:43,880 --> 00:29:49,200 Speaker 1: and unfolded, the result in the end of Melissa picking 413 00:29:49,680 --> 00:29:53,040 Speaker 1: Rodney from that one of two photos and then turning 414 00:29:53,080 --> 00:29:56,640 Speaker 1: around and picking him from the lineup is of no 415 00:29:57,080 --> 00:30:01,480 Speaker 1: real probitive value. It's not desp positive of guilt. It's 416 00:30:01,480 --> 00:30:07,120 Speaker 1: not really something that even can qualify as evidence. If 417 00:30:07,160 --> 00:30:09,960 Speaker 1: by evidence we mean that it's that somehow we're at 418 00:30:10,040 --> 00:30:13,600 Speaker 1: least getting beyond more likely than not, it's just not there. 419 00:30:18,880 --> 00:30:23,960 Speaker 1: Gary's work, like his pre lineup instructions, choosing fillers, double 420 00:30:24,000 --> 00:30:29,480 Speaker 1: blind lineups, videotaping, the identification and better interviewing of witnesses 421 00:30:29,560 --> 00:30:32,600 Speaker 1: are procedures that have been implemented in almost thirty states, 422 00:30:32,880 --> 00:30:38,880 Speaker 1: covering about of the population. There's still a long way 423 00:30:38,920 --> 00:30:43,080 Speaker 1: to go, but we're in a much better position today 424 00:30:43,400 --> 00:30:52,840 Speaker 1: than we were certainly so, of course I had to ask. 425 00:30:54,320 --> 00:30:58,640 Speaker 1: It's Missouri one of the states that has adopted these reforms. 426 00:31:00,000 --> 00:31:09,160 Speaker 1: They have not. Next time on The Real Killer, imagine 427 00:31:10,080 --> 00:31:13,840 Speaker 1: you take this job and you're told and you don't 428 00:31:13,840 --> 00:31:18,800 Speaker 1: have the right to correct monthal conviction, a system seemingly 429 00:31:18,840 --> 00:31:22,440 Speaker 1: built to fail, not just Rodney Lincoln, but many others. 430 00:31:23,280 --> 00:31:26,160 Speaker 1: Lamar keeps me up at night, Son of a bitch. 431 00:31:26,320 --> 00:31:30,040 Speaker 1: I could. I could talk like a sailor for five 432 00:31:30,120 --> 00:31:33,600 Speaker 1: minutes talking about how mother fucking pissed I am that 433 00:31:33,760 --> 00:31:37,560 Speaker 1: Lamar is still sitting in prison makes me the puke. 434 00:31:49,160 --> 00:31:51,280 Speaker 1: The Real Killer is a production of a y R 435 00:31:51,360 --> 00:31:55,080 Speaker 1: Media and I Heart Radio, hosted by me Leah Rothman. 436 00:31:55,760 --> 00:31:59,480 Speaker 1: Executive producers Leah Rothman and Eliza Rosen for a y 437 00:31:59,600 --> 00:32:04,360 Speaker 1: R Media You. Written by me Leah Rothman, Senior Associate 438 00:32:04,400 --> 00:32:09,760 Speaker 1: producer Eric Newman, Editing and sound design by Cameron Taggy, 439 00:32:10,120 --> 00:32:15,320 Speaker 1: mixed and mastered by Cameron Taggi, Audio engineering by Jesus C. 440 00:32:15,600 --> 00:32:20,920 Speaker 1: Mario Studio engineering by Tom Weir and Kelly McGrew, legal 441 00:32:20,960 --> 00:32:25,400 Speaker 1: counsel for a y R Media, Gianni Douglas, executive producer 442 00:32:25,400 --> 00:32:29,640 Speaker 1: for I Heart Radio, Chandler Mayze. If you're enjoying The 443 00:32:29,720 --> 00:32:32,440 Speaker 1: Real Killer, tell your friends about it and leave us 444 00:32:32,440 --> 00:32:36,320 Speaker 1: a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.