As I was reading through Let the Right One In today, there was a particular passage regarding eyewitnesses to a crime and their conversation with the police. Quoted as follows:
“Yes, but I thought I’d wait until you got down here. Apparently he’s not violent.” Holmberg turned kindly to the men and said, “We’ll be in touch. The best thing you can do now is go home. Oh, and one more thing. I understand this may not be easy but try not to discuss this among yourselves.”
The man without pants on half-smiled, nodding in agreement.
“Someone could overhear us, you mean.”
“No, but you could start to imagine that you have seen something that you didn’t really see, only because someone else did.”
“Not me. I saw what I saw and it was the most hellish…”
“Believe me. It happens to the best of us. And now you’ll have to excuse us. Thank you for your help.”
Wait, did I see… Did I see the author write regarding the fallibility of eyewitness testimony? The subject I’ve had to study over the course of the last few weeks for my Psych Law and Justice class? AND DO IT CORRECTLY? Yes, eyewitnesses speaking with one another after a crime occurs does taint testimony and people begin to believe that they saw things due to their conversations with others. At least, that’s a really bare-bones version of what’s going on. If you’re not aware, when it comes to juries and many laypersons, most do not realize that eyewitness testimony is not as strong as one would believe. This is just one of the many reasons. And it being pointed out by the author made me practically do a happy dance on my bed.
And turns me into Colbert, too, it seems.
Sorry for my Psychology major excitement, but it’s nice to see things done correctly in novels~