From the day on which the very first judiciary system has been born, words given by the eyewitnesses have had such tremendous influence over the condemnation of the suspect - that it is fair to say that the eyewitness testimony is the determinant of the fate of the accused.
Nonetheless, I come to question the reliability of the testimony after learning the case from the videotape.
Firstly, the victim's recount the incident is unreliable. Medical reports prove that this "victim of rape" is still a virgin, yet she clearly "remembers" every single detail of the whole incident, and insists that she has been raped. It is unkind and inappropriate to denounce this woman as a liar for that the fear and trauma with which she becomes overwhelmed as she recalls the terrible event that happened twenty years ago seem all too genuine. However, the question is that how accurate can we expect the recollection to be when the woman is so overwhelmed with trauma? Lamentably, the court utterly overlooks the possibility that the agony follows this mishap may distorts the woman's memory and plants false memory, making her believe false, yet firmly that it is the man who is now imprison that raped her.
Secondly, the lineup that is mentioned during the examination has been extremely misleading to the victim. In the photo of the lineup, the man (what is his name?) is the only one who is handcuffed; what kind of message does is send to the victim? This guy is the only one handcuffed, therefore he must be a criminal, he is the bad guy, and therefore he must be the one who raped me. Look at how amazingly the speculation is done! The carelessly set up lineup greatly affects the witness/victim's ability to point out the true...