The Fallibility of Perception and Memory

[Sukerkin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8617945.stm

The above is a link to an interesting new study on the limits of the accuracy of what we see and hear.

Not a new subject but certainly an interesting approach to the problem, with especial focus (no pun intended) on how the 'eye-witness' is not as solid a proposition for the police as many people might think.

 

[Big Don]

Very interesting. Anyone who has watched a few cop shows on TV would think an eye witness is a slam dunk, anyone whose read a few police procedural novels, knows eye witnesses are as unreliable as TV weather reports.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Last year a Belgian university did an experiment. They arranged for a redheaded 'student' to walk up the speakers desk in a crowded auditorium, grab the laptop and walk out at fast pace (not running).

The speaker acted as if it was a genuine theft, called security etc.
A couple minutes later, security marches in 3 'suspects', one of which has to have done it: a brunette, a blonde, and a blackhaired woman.

Then they interrogated the individual students and asked them to point out who took the laptop. The vast majority picked one of the 3 available candidates, and only 1 or 2 percent insisted that it was someone else. So yes. eye witnesses are very unreliable.

And that was even staying within the same skin color. All where white. As soon as the witnesses are from a different color and culture than the suspects, reliability goes out of the window altogether. That is why eye witnesses are really unreliable despite the popular misconception.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Eyewitnesses are great witnesses for one reason: they're human. You can present documents, bloody fingerprints, entirely objective direct evidence that make your case indisputable, but they STILL wont have as much of an effect on the jury as a victim or bystander giving a human voice to what they observed.

But yes, perception and memory are all kinds of unreliable. Personal biases, confusion, mental condition (as in high stress during the event, not being a psychopath) create plenty of room for doubt. However, the same factors affect members of the jury, so that's why eyewitnesses are still preferred evidence.

 

[Empty Hands]

What annoys me is everyone involved in the justice system KNOWS that eyewitnesses are unreliable, but people continue to be put away on eye witness testimony alone.

 

[blindsage]

It's because the vast majority of people relate it to themselves personally. Most of us believe we would be good eyewitnesses and therefore eyewitnesses in general are probably reliable. Jurists think this way too. It doesn't matter if scientific evidence is provided to prove otherwise, most people believe their senses are extremely reliable, even under stressful conditions, and that trumps science.

 

[Archangel M]

An eyewitness is just another element of a good case. When witness statements match the physical evidence they become mutually supporting. I would never entirely do away with human witnesses in favor of scientific evidence. It's humans who have to sit on juries too remember.

 

[Deaf Smith]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8617945.stm

The above is a link to an interesting new study on the limits of the accuracy of what we see and hear.

Not a new subject but certainly an interesting approach to the problem, with especial focus (no pun intended) on how the 'eye-witness' is not as solid a proposition for the police as many people might think.

That is why I write things down. The only problem I have is reading what I write.

Deaf

 

[MBuzzy]

This happens to me all the time....my memory is always being impacted by preconceptions and other things going on in my mind. My wife HATES it! But hers is just as bad.