The Cognitive Interview and the Justice System
             The criminal justice system relies heavily on the testimony of eyewitnesses to
             develop leads, identify suspects, and establish circumstances of crime. The impressionable memory of eyewitnesses has been proven unreliable testimony with previous techniques. More than twenty-five years ago, psychologist Elizabeth Loftus published results on her experiments demonstrating the suggestibility of eyewitnesses.
             Loftus studied how the wording questions, after a film viewing of a car accident, effected what each person remembered. By using words like "smashed" or "bumped" the various groups responded differently and sometimes incorrectly to what they had actually seen in the film. Now, years after her publications on the limitations of eyewitness accounts, the Department of Justice published recommendations for law enforcement covering investigations such as 911 calls, formal interviews with eyewitness accounts, preparing and presenting "mug" books, and conducting line-up.
             Though the guidelines vary with each procedure, several general rules apply. Investigators should: "(1) ask open-ended questions; (2) refrain from asking leading or suggestive questions; (3) separate witnesses during interviews and instruct them not to discuss the details of the incident with other witnesses; (4) caution witnesses about listening to or reading the media reports of the crime; (5) not disclose that they have identified a suspect; (6) encourage witnesses to contact the investigator if they recall more details." (Cassel).
             On a government website (www.talkingquality.gov) the process of a cognitive interview is as follows: the respondent is shown a mock report that contains either real data or fictional data. The interviewer then encourages the respondents to share their thought processes as they look at it. Through observation the interviewer is to watch thing ...