For question 5, I thought cars was going around 28 to 30 miles per hour. I was in the "hit". I guess my perception of the speed was slightly slower when compared to Derrick's response. I assumed this because to the front of taxi had no visible damages. Some word and questions did influence me. I am shocked because the questions, for example “Was the animal that crossed the road moments before the accident a dog or a cat?” or “Was the windshield completely shattered or just cracked near the driver’s side mirror?”, had me reviewing the video seven to eight times scrutinizing the details. Actually, those questions I answered there was not much time and information present to answer the question. I was honest. It is baffling that there was not cat or dog, or cracked mirror, or red light. …show more content…
People might remember seeing things they actually did not actually see, because it is what they wanted to see or believe. The person could not have been fully aware of the situation at hand; this can be due to extreme stress or shock. Thus, the person will comprehend the situation with addition or subtraction to details. This demonstration did change the way I feel when listening to testimonies and eye witness interview. An eyewitness report can butcher detail and very essential facts. The faulty or "unsupported" report can place the wrong person in prison and get him or her convict. If I was a juror, I would only acknowledge the report if there was a multiple witnesses that have the same argument as testimony given. I wonder now how credible is a person's testimony in court since a person's perception changes by emotion and