Cold Case Cleopatra |
Human intolerance for uncertainty often leads us to premature conclusions.
This tendency can be particularly damaging in the forensic realm.
We can see this highlighted in the infamous, and yet somewhat obscure, case of Pharaoh Cleopatra VII.
Human beings have a psychological need for certainty, for closure, that frequently outruns the evidence that would make such certainty reasonable.
This is a special problem in criminal justice. Hundreds of DNA-based exonerations show that juries frequently convict the wrong person, based on premature conclusions (Selby, 2025). In some societies, this need for “closure” can result in the deliberate conviction of a person completely innocent of the given crime, as an example of vicarious responsibility.
My own research (Sharps et al., 2013) has shown that in cases of especially vicious crime, people are more likely to hold the accused responsible than would be supported by the evidence, and are more likely to ignore evidentiary flaws in more violent crimes. Our human need for psychological closure is strong; this should not be ignored by anyone interested in impartial justice.
An excellent example can be found in one of the most infamous cold cases in history: the death of Cleopatra VII of Egypt.
Some of the details of the Pharaoh Queen’s career are universally acknowledged. Using a combination of sexuality and political acumen (modern scholars focus on her undoubted political skills), Cleopatra manipulated Julius Caesar into supporting her as sole ruler of Egypt. After Caesar’s assassination, she used her skills to ally with Marc Antony, a fine army officer but not the best naval officer in the world. When she believed she saw Antony defeated at the sea battle of Actium (31 BC), she sailed back to Alexandria with all speed. Antony, seeing her........