- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How inaccurate are eye witnesses?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 7:13 am
Posted on 3/12/14 at 7:13 am
LINK
quote:
Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony.
quote:
Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.”
6
Posted on 3/12/14 at 7:19 am to tduecen
I've taken a few criminal justice classes and we talk about this a bunch. If you don't get their report in the first 30 min you might as well just disregard it. It's crazy how off some people are to. You can look a guy in the eyes that shoots the man next to you and you can say he's 5'3 and black when really he's 6'6 and white.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 7:23 am to TequilaMockingBird
Amazing how much we still rely on eye witnesses as well. So many people are falsely imprisoned because of this
Posted on 3/12/14 at 7:52 am to tduecen
I'm not a lawyer but it seems like the eye witness holds too much value.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 7:54 am to tduecen
I always wondered how somebody can give accurate descriptions of what happened at trial, which could be years after the incident. I cant tell you in detail what I did yesterday 
Posted on 3/12/14 at 7:56 am to tduecen
quote:
Amazing how much we still rely on eye witnesses as well
so we shouldn't rely on eye witnesses?
what should we rely on? Haracio and NCIS to come solve all the murders in 30 minutes with their super human crime solving skillz?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 7:59 am to ksayetiger
Plus, people can be led about what they remember based on how a question is asked.
I participated in a psych experiment while at LSU and they were testing for this very effect. The graduate students conducting the experiment said during debriefing that eye witness testimonial and free recall of events by people is actually quite terrible...even in instances when people know they will be quizzed after.
I participated in a psych experiment while at LSU and they were testing for this very effect. The graduate students conducting the experiment said during debriefing that eye witness testimonial and free recall of events by people is actually quite terrible...even in instances when people know they will be quizzed after.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 7:59 am
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:00 am to tduecen
While its great to have an eye witness to the crime, you also want as much forensic evidence as you can get to back up your witnesses story.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:03 am to LsuTool
Um catch them on camera, prints, license plate. Confession.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:06 am to tduecen
quote:
How inaccurate are eye witnesses?
During a test once, someone came in and disrupted the class and then left... Bonus question on the test was to describe the person...You would be surprised at how different the descriptions were
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:08 am to TequilaMockingBird
In addition to most people having shite memories, you also have to take into account drug and alcohol use, positional bias and outright lying when evaluating an eyewitness account.
I would only take an eyewitness account as a starting point to figure out what happened.
I would only take an eyewitness account as a starting point to figure out what happened.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:09 am to Hu_Flung_Pu
quote:
I'm not a lawyer but it seems like the eye witness holds too much value.
Can you tell me something more compelling in most cases to most people? Obviously DNA is the most compelling testimony in those cases, but assume DNA is not at issue.
And take it outside of the legal arena. When someone tells you they saw something do you typically believe them?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:11 am to tduecen
I always find it amazing how testimonies change so much through the duration of a trail.
People will straight up say one thing moment to after the crime during the initial interviews by police and then during the trail....their shite amazingly changes 180 degrees.
The Casey Anthony trail was probably the worse I've ever seen.
People will straight up say one thing moment to after the crime during the initial interviews by police and then during the trail....their shite amazingly changes 180 degrees.
The Casey Anthony trail was probably the worse I've ever seen.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:24 am to tduecen
You interview 10 people who witnessed a car crash, you'll get 10 different stories.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:42 am to StinkDog12
quote:
I always find it amazing how testimonies change so much through the duration of a trail.
quote:
People will straight up say one thing moment to after the crime during the initial interviews by police and then during the trail....their shite amazingly changes 180 degrees.
quote:
The Casey Anthony trail was probably the worse I've ever seen.
Just so we are clear. You know it is a "Trial" right? Spell correct? Mobile phone? Not being the Grammar nazi, just trying to help you out in case you don't know the difference and need it someday.
Anyway, a HUGE part of recording eyewitness testimony is based on the interviewers skills. If they lead the witness or plant ideas then the testimony is worthless. That, along with several other reasons mentioned above, mean that eyewitness testimony should be considered along with other evidence and not exclusively.
You also need to take into account the circumstances, if a guy says "it was noon in a bare parking lot and I saw Joe (my best friend of 20 years) shoot Bill twice and then run off." That is probably more reliable than "it was dark and raining and I saw a guy in a hoodie run through the bushes, I am pretty sure it was the defendant." It just depends, which is the point of a jury trial. The jury is supposed to weigh testimony based on their evaluation of the person testifying and the circumstances.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:47 am to jbgleason
Well I be damn.
Clearly I know its trial but for some reason I typed trail repeatedly... I'm on an iPad but I just typed it and it wasn't auto correct either.
No excuses...
Clearly I know its trial but for some reason I typed trail repeatedly... I'm on an iPad but I just typed it and it wasn't auto correct either.
No excuses...
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:49 am to jbgleason
The Central Park 5 documentary on Netflix
They had no evidence at all, and in fact had evidence that the rapist was a separate person yet convicted these 5 kids of raping and beating this woman nearly to death based solely on their own testimony
Oddly enough though, none of the 5 could agree on who did what, where it happened, how it happened it, when it happened; they made numerous statements that police knew for sure were wrong and contradicted established facts surrounding the case, and not one of them ever mentioned a 6th attacker that would have left what DNA evidence they did find
But after 30 hours of interrogations with no lawyer or parents, they got these kids to admit to being there and seeing each other do it
Sent a 16 year old mentally challenged kid to rikers island for 13 years
They had no evidence at all, and in fact had evidence that the rapist was a separate person yet convicted these 5 kids of raping and beating this woman nearly to death based solely on their own testimony
Oddly enough though, none of the 5 could agree on who did what, where it happened, how it happened it, when it happened; they made numerous statements that police knew for sure were wrong and contradicted established facts surrounding the case, and not one of them ever mentioned a 6th attacker that would have left what DNA evidence they did find
But after 30 hours of interrogations with no lawyer or parents, they got these kids to admit to being there and seeing each other do it
Sent a 16 year old mentally challenged kid to rikers island for 13 years
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:50 am to StinkDog12
No worries. I wouldn't have said anything except for the three times in a row. At least you didn't react like half the people on here and blow a gasket. All good.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 8:55 am to jbgleason
I've been known to do some stupid shat...but this is just an accident and not a sign of my stupidity.
Probably my worst one was the fact that I thought a "chest of drawers" was "Chester Drawers"....was in college before someone finally told me otherwise.
Probably my worst one was the fact that I thought a "chest of drawers" was "Chester Drawers"....was in college before someone finally told me otherwise.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News