Monday, March 16, 2009

When eyewitnesses are wrong

See two notable recent news items related to the relative unreliability of eyewitness identification:


Anonymous said...

That 60 Minutes did an incredible story. I'm glad to see this issue finally getting the attention it deserves.Yes-it would seem, that the prosecutors and law enforcement would be in favor of the suggested changes. That way, the real offender is taken off the streets, not some innocent person.

Anonymous said...

Life has a universal memory, in which it can be so clear event happened a long time ago, Deepak Chopra came with this theory and of course it’s more spiritualistic rather than scientific. To prove that memory is valid to be used as evidence.. It won’t work

Informed Citizen said...

The SAME problems with accurate recall apply to OTHER witnesses, including character witnesses.
When the STATE asserts, by accusing, or representing the accusor, of being a "bad person" deserving of punishment; MANY witnesses will try to make their 'impression' of events, or of the accused, conform.
Those of us who have been accused, and tried, have witnessed this from even those who knew us, and we thought were our friends.
Incredibly; even HARD, unquestionable, evidence will be IGNORED by even some Jurors in their desire to "do their civic duty" to THE STATE. Jurors will proclaim "the accused is innocence until proven guilty", but they cannot help but have a belief they don't want to admit. A belief the accused is guilty or would not have been charged.
In ACTUAL practice, the accused stands as guilty until they prove their actual innocence. The admonishment required by law to be given, of innocence until proven guilty, MIGHT help the jurors to be impartial. But will not be true in reality.
This is why I have a blog titled "the law of the law" to compare THE LAW, with its intent, and THE PRACTICE OF LAW, to expose how the process can be perverted to attain the OPPOSITE of the intent for the creation of law by humans.