How Accurate is Eyewitness Testimony? (Conspiracy Buffs Take Notice!)

Social Science and Research Council of Canada ^ | 1/14/98 | Elizabeth Brimacombe

[Theresa]

So, like I have been telling the conspiracy theorists on other threads....don't get a full head of steam about eyewitness testimony. It is not fool proof. So if some guy insists he saw something, the more he insists the more skeptical you should be.

For example the article in Newsmax about flight 587. An eyewitness was quoted....

"No tail fell off, not before the explosion. I swear to that," Lynch told the paper's Steve Dunleavy. The eyewitness said there was absolutely no doubt about what he saw. "

"Absolutely no doubt." Yeah, uh huh, sure. I imagine he's being sincere...but is he really right? Don't take it to the bank.

[Theresa]

"Brimacombe noted that an eyewitness’s confidence can also be inflated if the police officer conducting the lineup expresses satisfaction with the choice the eyewitness makes. "

I also expect that eyewitness confidence can be inflated if a REPORTER expresses satisfaction with the witnesses side of the story.

[Free the USA]

good article

[Lancey Howard]

Theresa,
In case you didn't see it, you may want to search FR for Attitude Canneling and Brainwashing (written by RLK) for a really good read. The piece expands greatly on the article which you have posted here.
Regards,
LH

[Lancey Howard]

fyi

[Lancey Howard]

In case you didn't see it, you may want to search FR for Attitude Canneling....

Doh...!
That's "channeling", of course, not "canneling".
Thank you.

[Mitchell]

Elizabeth Loftus, at the University of Washington, has done a lot of research in this area.

[eastforker]

There is a differance from witnessess that are solicited and those that offer also.If I witness something ,that got my attention earlier,for instance a ufo sighting,I would be able to give better details .Now compare being in the vicinity,hearing a shot,and in looking up see a man with a gun turn and run.Now compare a bank holdup when the holdup is announced,and takes place over a time period of a minute or so,one will be more inclined with their beliefs.Eyewitness testimony all depends on the circumstanses.

[Valin]

From what I understand it's one of the least reliable.

[John H K]

One unfortunate thing is, if a victim (say, of Rape) is presented with a lineup that DOESN'T have the actual rapist in the the lineup, they'll still usually pick out the one person in the lineup who looks most like the Rapist and will often be quite confident that they have picked the perpetrator.

This has been behind many of the recent cases where inmates were released because of DNA testing. If the real perp is in a lineup, overwhelmingly, the right person is picked..but any witness viewing any lineup that DOESN'T have the perp can lead to disaster.

Contributing to this is the well-documented race problem...."They all look alike" is considered a racist statement, but when people view people of other ethnicities or races, they have huge problems. It's been documented asians have difficulties telling whites and blacks apart, whites have trouble telling asians and blacks apart, and black Africans actually would have difficulty, say, telling swedes and Afghanis apart, though the differences are obvious to us. This is made worse when you have little contact with the race in question. Until I went to college, I would have not been able to tell Vietnamese from Chinese from Japanese from Cambodians...now I can, and all of those groups can tell each other from one another, for example.

If a white woman who has been raped by a black man views a lineup of police suspects picked up based on her description, but the real perp ISN'T in the lineup, there, tragically, is an extremely high chance she'll pick out the guy who looks most like the perp, and she'll very confidently point him out in a trial and say "He raped me."

[Valin]

I hope your not disparaging canneling. There nothing in the world like 20-30 mins. of canneling first thing in the morning, I find it gets the day off on the right foot.

[Mitchell]

Agreed. Eyewitness testimony is valuable, but you need to judge the source and you also need to judge the consistency of the testimony with other evidence. Loftus over-emphasizes the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, because that's a major aspect of her research program; I believe she also testifies as an expert witness (usually for the defense) in court cases, called to impeach the credibility of eyewitness testimony.

I gave the reference to Loftus because she is probably the most well-known exponent of the eyewitnesses-are-unreliable viewpoint, so I thought it was relevant. I don't agree with an extreme position on this, although I try to approach all evidence with a healthy skepticism.

[John H K]

It's incredibly easy to "contaminate" people. If you are talking about a plane crash, and there has been extensive news coverage, or a witness has seen other witness testimony, or then you get a conspiracy-oriented guy asking "so did you see ______" (What the conspiracy guy wants to hear) that witness is hopelessly contaminated.

[mlo]

Interesting post.

[Lancey Howard]

I hope your not disparaging canneling

Wouldn't dream of it, no way.

[Theresa]

"Attitude Canneling and Brainwashing." I have not read the article yet but I think Patrick Knowlton, the guy who caused so much trouble in the Foster case, was manipulated by reporters Chris Ruddy and Ambrose Evans Prichard..the kings of conspiracy. I just barely remember this, but quite some time ago, I read a description by Knowlton of the men who supposedly intimidated him prior to his testimony before the grand jury. This guy remembered the color of hair, the color of suits, the kind of shoes they had on...of about 10 men who brushed up against him and "stared at him" on the street in order to intimidate him. Can't happen. Memory is not that way.

As the article states, "Before they come to trial, they've retold that story quite a few times, embedding it in their memory,"

Huh uh. Sounds just like Knowlton. No telling how many hours he spent with Ruddy and Prichard telling his story.

[RLK]

"Pre-trial publicity can be quite biased and people are ripe to be influenced,"

-------------------------

Most trials are not conducted in the courtroom, but on the front steps in front of the media. Beyond that, I doubt what most people say.

[Theresa]

"If you are talking about a plane crash, and there has been extensive news coverage, or a witness has seen other witness testimony, or then you get a conspiracy-oriented guy asking "so did you see ______" (What the conspiracy guy wants to hear) that witness is hopelessly contaminated."

I agree. And Newsmax is run by a consipiracy oriented guy. Chris Ruddy. That's why I don't have much trust in that outfit.

[RLK]

Misperception can be all over the map under social pressure. Another facer pertaining to law was judgements are highly influenced by physical attractiveness of witnesses and defendents. It's very hard to convict a beautiful woman dor anything. Women tend to draw two to four years lighter sentences than men.

[Theresa]

"Most trials are not conducted in the courtroom, but on the front steps in front of the media. "

Well that is true. And it is the defense lawyers who do it because the prosecution cannot try the case in public. So defense lawyers know how to play the media. I think research in the field of eyewitness testimony is showing more than ever how frought with difficulty our trail system is.

I read a novel called The Truth Machine. The premise was that a genius Bill Gates type invented a machine that was 100% accurate in truth detection. The affect on society was astounding and far reaching. It changed everything. Good book. I recommend it.