CAE writing

   Why is it difficult to know he truth about historical events?

    It is often claimed that we would never get to know the real events from our past. In this essay I will argue on how descriptions of historical events vary according to cultural and political influence.

   Firstly, we can state to be true that a similar situation might be pictured from different points of view depending a persons´s background, for instance, would the native Americans share opinion with the Europeans about the colonization of America? Definitely not. Natives will surely tell another story,they would speak about murder and fear rather than a civilized cultural exchange. Mostly while talking about a past situation we will approach the topic through a biased view about it and depending on our own world view. 

   Secondly, we have the political influence. Not only only do politicians create history, but they also benefit from it. The way in which incidents take place has a great impact on them. Therefore, they might retell history based on their outright-lies in order to benefit. Hence, we can argue that politicians will be one-sided or distort the information due to their own vested interest.

   Taking everything into consideration, we can say that how past events are told will be influenced mainly on the interests of politics and by people´s beliefs and values. To my mind, our past is and, unfortunately, will always be uncertain since it is difficult for people to leave their ideals a side and be objective.

Wrongful conviction and eye witness accounts

Case: MARVIN ANDERSON

In December 2001, Marvin Lamont Anderson became the ninety-ninth person in the United States to be exonerated due to post conviction DNA testing.

Anderson was convicted in 1982 of a rape he didn't commit and sentenced to 210 years in prison. He was released on parole after 15 years, but he continued to fight to overturn his wrongful conviction. It would be five more years before DNA testing obtained with the help of the Innocence Project finally proved his innocence.

The victim was a woman who was raped on July 1982 by a black man. The assailant beat her, threatened her with a gun, raped her, and sodomized her. After she reported the crime, a police officer singled out Marvin Anderson as a suspect because the perpetrator had told the victim that he "had a white girl," and Marvin Anderson was the only black man the officer knew who lived with a white woman. Sine he had no criminal record, the police had to investigate his personal data. Afterwards, they showed the victim many possible pictures of the aggressor; among them, Anderson´s one. The victim identified him between the pictures as well as in in the lineup whose picture was in the original photo array shown to the victim. Anderson’s trial counsel offered an alibi defense including his white girlfriend. Despite the fact of Anderson’s lack of previous conflicts with the law and that from the very beginning the community became aware that it was John Otis Lincoln a more likely suspect, a all-white jury convicted Anderson on all counts, even though the owner of bicycle which was identified to be used by the assailant reported it as robbed by Lincoln some hours before the rape. 

In 1988, John Otis Lincoln came forward and took up the guilt and the following consequences in the hearing held in August, in order to free Anderson from the case. Even so, the judge refused to vacate the conviction, claiming Lincoln to be a liar. 

For Anderson´s luck, fifteen years after his conviction, a DNA test prove his innocence and he was set free.