Remembering the War: An Autoethnography of Survival

This is an autoethnography of World War II (WW2) survival and trauma based on a recovered family archive and a reflexive engagement with my own childhood memories. Driven by subjective imperatives to bear witness to forgotten war experiences, and to explore family mental health problems, I delve into not just personal memories but forgotten voices found in the archive whose stories have never been told thus offering a perspective of multiple subjects. My grandmother’s witness testimony of concentration camp survival recorded in 1946 compels me to research and reflect on life in the state of exception and the long-term and intergenerational impact on survivors. This autoethnographic work helps me examine the character of survival of war trauma as a form of exclusion from community and often an incomplete return from bare life to polis. Through engaging with the archive, I find some partial answers to questions about my family members, and reconstruct my family memory narrative.

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ON EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE OF WITNESSES USING BEOS PROFILING

This review study focuses on a forensic psychological tool, Brain electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling, and its mechanism. In precise, this paper reviews the studies of eyewitness testimony and BEOS in particular. The previous empirical studies and review articles elucidate that BEOS can be used to overcome the effect of internal and external factors in eyewitness testimony. False memory or confabulatory experiences would not affect the accuracy of Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling. During the trial process, witness testimony can do through BEOS in the future. More empirical researches are necessary for the application of forensic psychology tools in the field of witness testimony.

Verbalisan Witness Position as Evidence of a Criminal Case

The presence of Constitutional Court Decision Number 65/PUUVIII/2010 expands the meaning of witnesses in Article 1 point 26 of the KUHAP, resulting in the emergence of various interpretations in criminal justice practice concerning the position of verbal witness testimony as evidence. Juridically, the decision creates problems considering that the Criminal Procedure Code or Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) does not recognize verbal witnesses' testimony as evidence. This study examined the position and the strength of verbal witnesses' testimony as evidence in criminal proceedings. After gathering all the data using normative and empirical juridical research, this paper concludes that the testimony of verbal witnesses is grouped in the evidence of guidance in Article 188 Paragraph (1) of the KUHAP because the testimony of verbal witnesses is not primary evidence. After all, its existence is contingent on the judge's willingness to employ it. The strength of proof of testimony of verbal witnesses is that they must satisfy the elements of Article 188 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP, namely the information referred to in the form of events or circumstances concerning a criminal act, as well as conformity with other evidence, as required by Article 188 paragraph (2) of the KUHAP.

KEDUDUKAN SAKSI VERBALISAN DALAM SISTEM PEMBUKTIAN MENURUT KUHAP

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah keterangan saksi verbalisan dapat menunjang keyakinan hakim dalam memutuskan suatu perkara tindak pidana dan apakah keterangan saksi verbalisan tidak bertentangan dengan upaya penegakan hak-hak terdakwa sebagaimana yang diatur dalam KUHP sesuai dengan Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Mamuju Nomor 204/Pid.B/2018/PN.Mam.Penelitian ini dilakukan menggunakan metode penelitian kuantitatif – normatif.lokasi penelitian di Pengadilan Negeri Mamuju. Berdasarkan penelitian yang telah dilakukan oleh Penulis lewat wawancara dengan Majelis Hakim dan Penyidik kepolisian serta menganalisis sebuah putusan yang berkaitan dengan tema peneltian ini, diperoleh hasil: (1) keterangan saksi verbalisan dapat menunjang keyakinan hakim dalam memutus suatu perkara pidana. (2) keterangan saksi verbalisan tidak bertentangan dengan upaya penegakan hak-hak terdakwa sebagaimana yang diatur dalam KUHP. Hakim bebas menilai kebenaran yang terkandung di dalamnya. Serta, kekuatan saksi verbalisan dalam penggunaannya tidak dapat berdiri sendiri melainkan juga harus didukung dengan alat-alat bukti yang lain. Apabila keterangan saksi verbalisan sesuai dengan alat-alat bukti yang lain maka keterangan saksi verbalisan dapat mempunyai nilai dan dapat digunakan dalam membantah sangkalan saksi dalam persidangan. Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini yaitu Penggunaan saksi verbalisan (saksi penyidik) dalam proses pembuktian perkara pidana diperlukan apabila dalam pemeriksaan sidang pengadilan saksi dan atau terdakwa memungkiri keterangan yang ada berita acara penyidikan karena adanya unsur paksaan atau tekanan baik itu berupa tekanan mental maupun fisik dari pihak penyidik pada waktu pembuatan berita acara penyidikan, sehingga menyebabkan fakta-fakta hukum yang didapat dalam pemeriksaan pengadilan menjadi kurang jelas. This study aims to determine whether the verbal witness testimony can support the judge's conviction in deciding a criminal case and whether the verbal witness testimony does not conflict with efforts to enforce the defendant's rights as regulated in the Criminal Code in accordance with the Mamuju District Court Decision Number 204/Pid.B /2018/PN.Mam. This research was conducted using quantitative, normative research methods. The research location was at the Mamuju District Court. Based on the research that has been done by the author through interviews with Judge Majelis and police investigators and analyzing a decision related to the title of the thesis, the results obtained are: (1) verbal witness testimony can support the judge's belief in deciding a criminal case. (2) the testimony of the verbal witness does not contradict the efforts to enforce the rights of the accused as regulated in the Criminal Code. Judges are free to judge the truth contained therein. Also, the power of verbal witnesses in their use cannot stand alone but must also be supported by other evidence. If the verbal witness testimony is in accordance with other evidence, the verbal witness testimony can have value and can be used to refute the witness's denial in the trial. The conclusion of this study is that the use of verbal witnesses (investigating witnesses) in the process of proving a criminal case is necessary if during a trial the witness and/or the defendant denies the information contained in the investigation report because of an element of coercion or pressure either in the form of mental or physical pressure from the investigator at the time of making the investigation report, causing the legal facts obtained in court examination to be less clear.

Memory and witness testimony: what the psychiatrist cannot know

SUMMARYPsychiatrists called on to assess the reliability of witness testimony in the courts enter an arena fraught with uncertainties. This commentary discusses Commane & Kopelman's exploration of both the ‘normal’ fallibility of memory and disordered memory and considers the unavoidable limitations of their guidance on memory assessment and medico-legal work.

Between Fact and Opinion: The Sui Generis Approach to Expert Witness Testimony in International Criminal Trials

It is a fundamental tenet of the law of evidence, spanning all jurisdictions, that witness testimony should ideally be delivered in open court by the individual who observed the event in question, or by the expert whose technical knowledge is relied upon. A notable exception to this principle has emerged in the field of international criminal justice, where courts and tribunals may allow ‘summarising witnesses’ to present a summation of witness testimony. In the case of Ayyash et al., the Special Tribunal for Lebanon extended the principle, allowing voluminous expert opinion evidence to be presented in factual summation. This article analyses such approaches, utilising doctrinal methods alongside empirical Wigmorean analysis, to assess the probity of these sui generis practices. The results are placed in legal and theoretical perspective, demonstrating that international courts and tribunals are departing from an overarching obligation to integrate international and domestic standards in respect of expert testimony.

Mediators and Moderators of Reinforced Self-Affirmation as a Method for Reducing the Memory Misinformation Effect

The misinformation effect occurs when an eyewitness includes information in his or her account that is incongruent with the event he or she witnessed, and stems from being exposed to incorrect external sources. This is a serious threat to the quality of witness testimony and to the correctness of decisions reached by courts. However, few methods have been developed to reduce the vulnerability of witnesses to misinformation. This article presents such a method, namely, reinforced self-affirmation (RSA), which, by increasing memory confidence of witnesses, makes them less inclined to rely on external sources of information and more on their own memory. The effectiveness of this method was confirmed in three experiments. It was also found that memory confidence, but not general self-confidence, is a mediator of the impact of RSA on misinformation effect (ME), and that contingent self-esteem and feedback acceptance, but not sense of self-efficacy or general self-esteem, are moderators of this impact. It is concluded that RSA may be a promising basis for constructing methods, which can be used by forensic psychologists in real forensic settings.

The Consistency of Repeated Witness Testimony Leads Triers-of-Fact to Over-Rely on the Power of a Single Voice

<p>Are claims more credible when made by multiple people, or is it the repetition of claims that matters? Some research suggests that claims have more credibility when independent sources make them. Yet, other research suggests that simply repeating information makes it more accessible and encourages reliance on automatic processes—factors known to change people’s judgments. In Experiment 1, subjects took part in a “misinformation” study: Subjects first watched a video of a crime and later read witness reports attributed to one or three different witnesses who made misleading claims in either one report or repeated the same misleading claims across all three reports. In Experiment 2, subjects who had not seen any videos read those same reports and indicated how confident they were that each claim happened in the original event. Subjects were more misled by—and more confident about—claims that were repeated, regardless of how many witnesses made them. These findings led us to hypothesize that the repeated claims of a single witness are seen as consistent, while the claims of multiple witnesses are seen as having consensus. We tested this hypothesis in Experiments 3 and 4 by asking subjects who had not seen the video to read the reports that repeated the claims. In Experiment 3, half of the subjects read reports that contained some peripheral inconsistencies. In Experiment 4 all subjects read reports that contained inconsistencies, but half of the subjects were warned about the accuracy of the inconsistent reports. Later, everyone indicated how confident they were that each claim really happened. Warning subjects about the inconsistent reports (Experiment 4) led them to rate the repeated claims of a single witness—but not multiple witnesses—as less credible; A finding consistent with our hypothesis. In Experiment 5, we tested an alternative explanation that a failure to attend to the source of the information may explain our findings by asking half of the subjects to complete a source monitoring component with their confidence test. We failed to find evidence for this explanation. We conclude that subjects interpreted both the consistency of a single witness's repeated claims, and the consensus among multiple witnesses' converging claims, as markers of accuracy. Importantly, warning subjects about the accuracy of the inconsistent reports reduced subjects’ confidence in the claims made by a single witness, but not multiple witnesses. These findings fit with research showing that repeating information makes it seem more true, and highlight the power of a single repeated voice.</p>

The Consistency of Repeated Witness Testimony Leads Triers-of-Fact to Over-Rely on the Power of a Single Voice

<p>Are claims more credible when made by multiple people, or is it the repetition of claims that matters? Some research suggests that claims have more credibility when independent sources make them. Yet, other research suggests that simply repeating information makes it more accessible and encourages reliance on automatic processes—factors known to change people’s judgments. In Experiment 1, subjects took part in a “misinformation” study: Subjects first watched a video of a crime and later read witness reports attributed to one or three different witnesses who made misleading claims in either one report or repeated the same misleading claims across all three reports. In Experiment 2, subjects who had not seen any videos read those same reports and indicated how confident they were that each claim happened in the original event. Subjects were more misled by—and more confident about—claims that were repeated, regardless of how many witnesses made them. These findings led us to hypothesize that the repeated claims of a single witness are seen as consistent, while the claims of multiple witnesses are seen as having consensus. We tested this hypothesis in Experiments 3 and 4 by asking subjects who had not seen the video to read the reports that repeated the claims. In Experiment 3, half of the subjects read reports that contained some peripheral inconsistencies. In Experiment 4 all subjects read reports that contained inconsistencies, but half of the subjects were warned about the accuracy of the inconsistent reports. Later, everyone indicated how confident they were that each claim really happened. Warning subjects about the inconsistent reports (Experiment 4) led them to rate the repeated claims of a single witness—but not multiple witnesses—as less credible; A finding consistent with our hypothesis. In Experiment 5, we tested an alternative explanation that a failure to attend to the source of the information may explain our findings by asking half of the subjects to complete a source monitoring component with their confidence test. We failed to find evidence for this explanation. We conclude that subjects interpreted both the consistency of a single witness's repeated claims, and the consensus among multiple witnesses' converging claims, as markers of accuracy. Importantly, warning subjects about the accuracy of the inconsistent reports reduced subjects’ confidence in the claims made by a single witness, but not multiple witnesses. These findings fit with research showing that repeating information makes it seem more true, and highlight the power of a single repeated voice.</p>

Exiles as Witnesses

This chapter explores the role of witness testimony in exile politics. Drawing on the duty of assistance, it argues that exiles are capable bystanders uniquely positioned to assist those left behind. This duty often involves bearing witness to the suffering from which they have fled, alerting others—especially capable outsiders—in order to secure assistance. This chapter then considers three objections to imputing such a duty to exiles, who are victims of persecution. The chapter concludes by examining limits to the duty to assist, as well as the limits of testimony as a mode of providing assistance, given the challenges of reaching consensus, coordinating efforts, and navigating the asymmetries that characterize the transnational domain.