Problem
Imagine yourself as a juror in the following murder case (from Loftus, 1993). The defendant is George Franklin, Sr., 51 years old, standing trial for a murder that occurred more than 20 years earlier. The victim was 8-year-old Susan Kay Nason. Franklin's daughter, Eileen, only 8 years old herself at the time of the murder, provided the major evidence against her father. Eileen's memory of the murder, however, had re-emerged only recently, after 20 years of being repressed. Eileen's memory first began to come back when she was playing with her 2-year-old son and her 5-year-old daughter. At one moment, her daughter looked up and asked a question like "Isn't that right, Mommy?" A memory of Susan Kay Nason suddenly came to Eileen. She recalled the look of betrayal in Susie's (Susan's) eyes just before the murder. Later, more fragments would return, until Eileen had a rich and detailed memory. She remembered her father sexually assaulting Susie in the back of a van. She remembered that Susie was struggling as she said "No, don't!" and "Stop!" She remembered her father saying "Now, Susie," and she even mimicked his precise intonation. Next, her memory took the three of them outside the van, where she saw her father raise a rock above his head. She remembered screaming and walking back to where Susie lay, covered with blood, the silver ring on her finger smashed. When questioned by prosecutors, Eileen was highly confident in her memory. Based on what you have learned in the course thus far (Ch. 1-6), would you convict George Franklin of the murder of Susan Kay Nason? Why or why not? What concerns or questions would you like to ask or have addressed before making your decision? Your answers should demonstrate application of course content and include specific reasoning/evidence to support your decision.