An investigation into a minor collision at a local supermarket car park has highlighted the fragility of eyewitness memory under the influence of suggestive questioning.
Witnesses to the incident between a blue hatchback and a delivery vehicle were interviewed by insurance adjusters a week after the event. Several witnesses recalled that the car was traveling at a high speed, with some estimating it was going over 35 mph, and claimed to have seen shattered headlight glass scattered across the tarmac. The driver of the hatchback was initially held liable for reckless driving.
However, review of the supermarket's high-definition CCTV footage revealed a very different story. The hatchback was traveling at less than 10 mph and had merely nudged the delivery vehicle's bumper while trying to park. No headlights were broken, and there was absolutely no glass on the ground. The discrepancy in the witness accounts was attributed to the highly suggestive phrasing used by the adjusters during initial telephone interviews, which included verbs such as 'slammed' and 'smashed'.
Briefly outline one of the experiments from the core study into eyewitness testimony by Loftus and Palmer and explain how it could relate to the article.
