Rhetorical Analysis Of Scott Fraser

Introduction “Of what use is the memory of facts, if not to serve as an example of good or of evil?” (Alfred de Vigny). Memory encodes various pieces of information that can be utilized in an enormous amount of situations to benefit people. However, memory is also fallible. It alters and creates new memories, changing the original encoded data for unknown reasons. This creates a major issue within a judicial system. It takes a few eye witness testimonies towards the prosecuted individual to incarcerate them, even if they did not commit the crime. It is because of this reason that Scott Fraser chooses to speak out against eye witness testimonies.

In his speech, he argues that memory is fallible and should not be as heavily relied upon within the judicial system. Fraser offers a different solution, suggesting that more science and mathematics should be involved within court. He presents the need for change by telling the audience about a criminal case he

in state and federal courts” (Can Eyewitnesses Create Memories?). His expertise in fallible memory, in addition to his experience with criminal and civil court cases, establish a solid foundation of ethos. To further strengthen his ethos, Mr. Fraser uses a court case in which he was personally invested in, adding in the Nine Eleven Attacks as a supporting example. In his speech, Scott Fraser states, “A good forensic expert also has to be a good educator, a good communicator…” which can be found on paragraph 8 of the transcript. Within this section of the artifact, Fraser gives an explanation of how the court systems do not focus heavily on scientific facts with statistics so to accomplish his goal, he is required to word his findings in a way that his audience will understand. At this point, Fraser proves that he has exceptional quality of