Troy Davis

In light of the recent execution of death row inmate Troy Davis, the debate about the truth of eyewitness testimony flares up again. Recently, studies have been conducted to determine the accuracy of eyewitness accounts and their power in convicting those on trial. These researchers and clinical analysts are delving into the same topic that we discuss every day in class: is what an individual perceives the truth of the matter?

Studies are finding that in any eyewitness account the witness can only tell the truth as he perceives it. Often times any act, but more pertinent to these studies - any crime, occurs so quickly that the brain doesn’t have time to process the events which are occurring. As a result the witness is left with only a fragmented series of incidents which the brain then attempts to reconstruct. This reconstruction is what the eyewitness recounts to the authorities, and often times does not reflect the events as they actually happened. The eyewitness, however, believes that his account of the events is accurate.

The brain cannot stand that the fragmented pieces of the story do not relate together. This is why it insists on reconstructing the events in a manner where they flow seamlessly. The human brain insists on having a set framework within which it can relate. The same thing happens when we are reading fiction novels. The brain finds it difficult to function on a level in which it cannot relate. Therefore it insists on interjecting its own perceptions to make the story fit into a more familiar framework and therefore, more believable or relatable. Therefore it is important for any story to contain a bit of truth. Without this the reader would not be able to relate to the story and would not become emotionally or mentally involved. Even in science-fiction novels, the relationships between characters or the struggles they endure are relatable to the reader. Without these grounding points, the reader would be unable to become involved in the fantasy world in which the characters live.

Like the narrator of a novel, we must be wary of how much trust we put into the eyewitness. The account was simply a reconstruction of the events from his perspective. This is no different than that of a narrator. In The Things They Carried the reader is introduced to an untrustworthy narrator, yet we still find ourselves being uncontrollably engaged in his story. In The Things They Carried Tim O’Brien the narrator tells us that all of his stories are untrue, and then begins to tell us one that is. He tells us how he didn’t actually kill a man but rather watched a man be killed. At the end of this story, however, he tells us that even this story is untrue. But even after we found out he lied for the first half of his book, we still wanted to believe the truth in his words. In the Troy Davis account, seven of nine eyewitnesses changed their testimonies after the trial. Although Troy Davis’s case went to multiple appeals courts, his verdict was upheld. This shows the tendency of people (or a jury) to believe something if it fits within a familiar framework or falls within their expectations. The jury believed these seven witnesses even though later they recanted their testimonies. This is the same as when the reader believes Tim O’Brien’s (the narrator’s) story even though he later admits that it was not true.