The Relative Unreliability of Eyewitness Testimony

[debbiediablo]

hatchet.jpg

[twinsrwe]

OMG, Debbie, that's funny!

[debbiediablo]

Things have been a bit dead around here..

[twinsrwe]

It sure has been!!! Two days without a single post, especially since the forum was so active. It's odd that things came to a screeching halt. I noticed that members have been checking in, but not posting; of course, I have been doing the same thing. Shame on me! I do wonder where everyone else is though.

[Aamartin]

I have been on a wild tangent -- cleaning. Minimalism and I have never met... This is my living room. I spent HOURS taking everything off the walls, dusting/washing/re-hanging-- then the tables, then vacuumed the furniture and floors-- MOVING all the furniture (not the TV stand) and vacuuming baseboards and murphy oil soaping them. I need to go back to work. I also need doans pills....

Anyone want to search for a hidden murder weapon?

[Curryong]

I have been away for a few busy days. Of course, this is our winter. I thought most of you were having a very long Indepedence Day weekend!

Love the axe in the forehead, debbie! Is that you! Also, who took it? I also like the photos of your living room, Anthony. Very cosy and interesting. You could hang a decorative hatchet on the wall and it would completely escape a search, especially if you gave it a gilt and polish.

[Aamartin]

cozy is what I was going for..... We have always been the kind of family that would be offended if you didn't think it was OK to put your feet up when visiting.

[PossumPie]

Aamartin, wow, minimalism is certainly a ways off for you!!! LOL You manage to decorate without looking cluttered...nice!

I still hold very firmly to the idea that people know their homes intimately. Anyone with a bit of imagination could hide a hatchet long enough that a cursory look from a cop wouldn't turn it up. I am unsure what really happened to it, but I am 100% certain that the killer could have left it in the house and it would have been overlooked. I debated another member last winter about this, and he swore the police were smart enough to find it if it was there....I totally disagree. People watch too much reality TV. Police are NOT like on CSI where one fleck of paint on the body takes them to a killer. They look in obvious places only. They bring in drug sniffing dogs to do the searching for them. MOST of the time the objects they are looking for (guns, stolen credit cards, drugs ) are sitting in plain sight right on the table. Cops are not that smart, but luckily crooks are even less so.

[PossumPie]

A cutaway of a typical stuffed chair. Notice inside the large springs for cushioning. Under the springs are wood slat supports, and the whole hollow area is covered on the bottom with thin fabric. If someone un-tacked one side, slid a hatchet in wedging it in the springs, and replaced the tacks, police could move the chair, turn it upside down and never find the hatchet. It wouldn't rattle even if the chair was upside down. This is just one example of hiding a hatchet. Ok...I'm obsessed with proving that cops could have overlooked it.

[Curryong]

I am quite sure Lizzie would be able to hide anything in the house that she wanted, Possum.

However, much as I admire your skill at showing the cutaway dining chair, would Miss Lizzie actually have time to do such re-upholstery work before her arrest even if she was much of a handywoman?

As far as I can recall, Alice, Emma and Uncle John were permanent residents at No 92 for much of the time. I know Alice had an epiphany about the dress burning and then went off home after informing the detective when I'm sure things became awkward, and Uncle John went to the Post Office for a short while.

However, I'm sure I read that Mrs busybody Marianne Holmes (and probably her husband) was semi-permanently there until the Sunday. The family's clergymen friends visited, giving spiritual comfort, I'm certain. Bridget bobbed in and out for a few days and the police were certainly constant visitors, hacking away at carpets and so forth. Another visitor was Dr Bowen, dosing Lizzie up.

Also, wouldn't someone, hopefully the police, notice that the tacking on a chair had been interfered with, or replaced?

[debbiediablo]

Anyone want to search for a hidden murder weapon?

No murder weapon but I think I see where Waldo is!! You and my daughter could have the same decorator. She has what she loves, and she loves to display it and enjoy it.

[Aamartin]

Anyone want to search for a hidden murder weapon?

No murder weapon but I think I see where Waldo is!! You and my daughter could have the same decorator. She has what she loves, and she loves to display it and enjoy it.

and that is exactly it.

[twinsrwe]

I agree with Possum, it is very easy to hide something in one's house, where no one would even think to look.

When I was growing up, my parents had a cast iron Warm Morning stove in the kitchen. The stove pipe attached to a chimney, which tapered down into the wall; there was a small cubby hole built into the tapered part of the chimney. This cubby hole had a shelf that my mother used to put old folded newspapers on; she would start the fire in the Warm Morning stove by using scraps of old newspapers.

I was in my teens, when one summer day my mother asked me to take the old newspapers off the shelf and burn them. While doing this task, I discovered that the shelf actually came out and there was a secret hiding place within the chimney!!! A hatchet could easily be placed in the secret hiding place, and no one would ever find it, because the shelf blended into the chimney.

[PossumPie]

Picture this scenario. Some years or months before the murder, Lizzie finds that the cloth upolstery under a chair or couch has come loose. She leans down, and sees into the cavern hole in the chair/couch. Already thinking of killing, she stores away for later that it would make a good hiding place as she replaces the upholstery tacks.
OR
Lizzie takes off a tight pair of new shoes and tosses them into the back of her closet. she notices that one short floorboard has flipped up. It was too short for the builder to tack in place, and he had just wedged it in place. peering in she sees an area about the size of a shoebox. Hmm. a good hiding place for poison, or...

The scenarios are not that far fetched. When I first went out on my own, I rented the upstairs of a hundred year old house. In the dining room against a wall, I noticed a loose floorboard about 1 foot long. I pushed on the back side, and it pivoted out exposing a hiding place between the floorboards and the ceiling of the first floor below. I being a man of imagination, was hoping to find a jar of old gold dollars...but it was empty. I KNOW it was used many years ago to hide things, it just LOOKED like someone had been using it. You hear all the time (at least I do b/c I keep my ears open) about someone remolding their old home, and finding a stash of silver coins, old stock certificates, or once, priceless paintings. It does happen. People hide stuff, don't tell anyone, and die an untimely death before they can get it out. If any of you live in an older house, keep your eyes open, you could be living in a gold mine!!!!
My point is that anyone who does NOT believe that Lizzie could have hidden a hatchet just doesn't have a Tom Sawyer imagination...

[irina]

I also agree without reservation that a hatchet could have been securely hidden from police. (Though it is easier to say Lizzie is innocent if I can get away with, no murder weapon = Lizzie is innocent.)

My dog went nuts with Fourth of July firecrackers and paces and pants for hours every night now as soon as the sun goes down.No more firecrackers. No sleep. Almost 100 degree heat all night. I took the dog camping for a little bit but it didn't cure her. In between I have been writing for the site I write for. Lots of extreme things happening in this country. Good time to be a journalist. I have never seen anything in my life like what's going on now.

[irina]

Everyone's pictures came through belatedly. Cute picture Debbie. Lovely house Aamartin!

Google won't let me share pictures unless you are in my friends circle. Otherwise I have to agree to share them with the world and the world can use them any way they see fit. So I understand it. So I won't share any pictures of my dog camping with me.

[Curryong]

We are having days of heavy rain!

With regard to hiding things. The police did not examine the closet out on the landing which held some of the dresses worn by Emma, Lizzie and Abby at all well. There were winter silk dresses covered with muslin covers I believe.

They were in the back of the closet and weren't individually examined. A bloodstained dress or apron or petticoat could have been hung under any of these outfits.

Then there was the rolled up blanket in the bottom of the closet. It was reputedly Emma's and wasn't taken out or unrolled. Bloodstained stockings or a hatchet could have been quickly concealed inside.

With police searches conducted as cursorily as these were in the days following the murder, Lizzie didn't really need gaps in chairs, loose floorboards or spaces in chimneys.

[debbiediablo]

It's tornado season here, and there have been many smaller ones.

I agree that there are places in old houses where something can be hidden and likely never found...at least not by the Fall River police in 1892. Also agreed that the closet wasn't adequately searched. But Lizzie would have no way of knowing that the closet wouldn't be searched...her assumption if she hid the hatchet had to be there would be a comprehensive search. So I lean toward a secret place within the house itself or the hatchet went out with the killer. Just as she couldn't rely on the police to search the house, she also could not rely on Dr. Bowen to take it out in his medical bag unless agreed upon a prioi. And I don't see Bowen as complicit in the crime.

[phineas]

I love thinking the hatchet is still in the house. I'm sure someone's been through it with a metal detector. But then again, once Emma and Lizzie moved, I'm sure it was spirited out just in case. Still, a fun fantasy.

[irina]

For the sake of argument, IF Lizzie was guilty I don't think she would have thought ahead to police searching the house. Calling the police wasn't the first thing on her mind and nobody ever pointed to that as odd. As we have discussed here before I don't think police and citizens had the same relationship they do today. I would assume she would have thought her family's social position would have prevented an intrusive search. I think the hatchet could still be there, possibly between boards in the walls IF Lizzie put it there. More likely though, I think IF she chucked a hatchet it was on Crowe's roof or she jammed it into the cook stove, under the coals and ashes and got it later.

It's possible searching a middle to upper class home just wasn't done in those days. It's possible the police were thought to be dishonest. I am related to some wealthy people in California who have had to evacuate good neighborhoods for brush fires. Back in the 50s & 60s the fire fighters looted the mansions as they went along. Homeowners looked for sheets & pillow cases full of valuables hidden in the bushes as soon as they were allowed back home. Sometimes the homes would be gone but some valuables were recovered from the hedges before firemen could get back. To call the fire department was to invite looting of valuables. I have heard that in other places at other times police had similar reputations.

I think you have winter, Curryong. We have our 3 or so months of summer and then we go back to at least 8 months of winter.

[debbiediablo]

For the sake of argument, IF Lizzie was guilty I don't think she would have thought ahead to police searching the house. Calling the police wasn't the first thing on her mind and nobody ever pointed to that as odd. As we have discussed here before I don't think police and citizens had the same relationship they do today. I would assume she would have thought her family's social position would have prevented an intrusive search.

I'm unsure whether the police initially suspected Lizzie or whether their first thoughts were toward a deranged intruder; we don't have access to what any of them were thinking. But I don't see her family's social position as preventing an intrusive search, partly because their social position wasn't that elevated and partly because the search for the hatchet in a hatchet murder is a given even in highest society. Plus comparing the police in Fall River, MA, in 1892 with the firemen (or police) in southern CA in the 1950s and 60s isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's more like comparing apples and tofu....

[Aamartin]

As much locking and secrecy that went on in that house leads one to believe that those living there would know several very good hiding places!

[Curryong]

We do have access to what Officer Harrington, (the fashion expert) was thinking! He disliked Lizzie at first glance, because of her demeanour, and communicated his feelings to Marshal Fleet!

I believe, in a brutal murder scene like this one a police search would be a given, even if it was the governor's mansion!

I do know what you mean, however, irena. In Britain, during the war, would-be thieves were sometimes members of officially designated search and rescue units which combed newly bombed buildings for any survivors. They became known as 'the sticky fingers brigade', because any trifles such as money or jewellery found disappeared into their pockets. There were also looters. A famous club in London's West End received a direct hit from a German bomb one night and looters moved in before the emergency services got there. One woman recovered consciousness just as her diamond rings were being removed from her fingers!

Yes, I am just a bit down in the dumps because I loathe winter and this has been an exceptionally cold and wet one! Temperatures have been about 11 degrees Celsius (51 Fahrenheit, I think) every day. I went to a ski resort with my family for a few days and tobogganed, which was fun, but I don't enjoy snow! We are lucky really because we don't get snow in Australia anywhere away from mountain ranges and ski resorts. (I'd had enough of British winters, with snow and ice up to the kneecaps, and the weather was a main reason for my emigrating.) Never mind, in September it will be Spring!

[debbiediablo]

This is a response to the argument that none of the neighbors saw anyone suspicious in the area on the morning of the murder. Although this addresses slightly different eyewitness testimony, the basic tenets are accurate no matter what the situation may be. People see what they think they see not what they really see, and it's easy to be innocently incorrect.

First, to quote Possum's favorite scientist ... :

“In 2002, having spent more than three years in one residence for the first time in my life, I got called for jury duty. I show up on time, ready to serve. When we get to the voir dire, the lawyer says to me, “I see you’re an astrophysicist. What’s that?” I answer, “Astrophysics is the laws of physics, applied to the universe—the Big Bang, black holes, that sort of thing.” Then he asks, “What do you teach at Princeton?” and I say, “I teach a class on the evaluation of evidence and the relative unreliability of eyewitness testimony.” Five minutes later, I’m on the street.

A few years later, jury duty again. The judge states that the defendant is charged with possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine. It was found on his body, he was arrested, and he is now on trial. This time, after the Q&A is over, the judge asks us whether there are any questions we’d like to ask the court, and I say, “Yes, Your Honor. Why did you say he was in possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine? That equals 1.7 grams. The ‘thousand’ cancels with the ‘milli-’ and you get 1.7 grams, which is less than the weight of a dime.” Again I’m out on the street.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson, Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier


from http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate[/b]

Jan 8, 2009 |By Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld

IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. 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. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?

Eyewitness identification typically involves selecting the alleged perpetrator from a police lineup, but it can also be based on police sketches and other methods. Soon after selecting a suspect, eyewitnesses are asked to make a formal statement confirming the ID and to try to recall any other details about events surrounding the crime. At the trial, which may be years later, eyewitnesses usually testify in court. Because individuals with certain psychological disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder and substance dependence, are at high risk for criminal involvement, they are also at heightened risk for false identifications by eyewitnesses.

Surveys show that most jurors place heavy weight on eyewitness testimony when deciding whether a suspect is guilty. But although eyewitness reports are sometimes accurate, jurors should not accept them uncritically because of the many factors that can bias such reports. For example, jurors tend to give more weight to the testimony of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their identifications even though most studies indicate that highly confident eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate—and sometimes no more so—than those who are less confident. In addition to educating jurors about the uncertainties surrounding eyewitness testimony, adhering to specific rules for the process of identifying suspects can make that testimony more accurate.

Reconstructing Memories
The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. 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.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.

Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies.

Given the dangers of mistaken convictions based on faulty eyewitness estimony, how can we minimize such errors? The Innocence Project has proposed legislation to improve the accuracy of eyewitness IDs. These proposals include videotaping the identification procedure so that juries can determine if it was conducted properly, putting individuals in the lineup who resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator, informing the viewer of the lineup that the perpetrator may or may not be in it, and ensuring that the person administering the lineup or other identification procedure does not know who the suspect is. Although only a few cities and states have adopted laws to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identifications, there seems to be a growing interest in doing so.

Expert Testimony
In addition, allowing experts on eyewitness identification to testify in court could educate juries and perhaps lead to more measured evaluation of the testimony. Most U.S. jurisdictions disallow such experts in courtrooms on the grounds that laboratory-based eyewitness research does not apply to the courtroom and that, in any case, its conclusions are mostly common sense and therefore not very enlightening. Yet psychologist Gary Wells of Iowa State University and his colleague Lisa Hasel have amassed considerable evidence showing that the experimental findings do apply to courtroom testimony and that they are often counterintuitive.

Science can and should inform ­judicial processes to improve the accuracy and assessment of eyewitness accounts. We are seeing some small steps in this direction, but our courts still have a long way to go to better ensure that innocent people are not punished because of flaws in this very influential type of evidence.

Error-Prone IDs
A number of factors can reduce the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Here are some of them:

Extreme witness stress at the crime scene or during the identification process.
Presence of weapons at the crime (because they can intensify stress and distract witnesses).
Use of a disguise by the perpetrator such as a mask or wig.
A racial disparity between the witness and the suspect.
Brief viewing times at the lineup or during other identification procedures.
A lack of distinctive characteristics of the suspect such as tattoos or extreme height.

Note: This story was originally printed with the title "Do the "Eyes" Have It?"



Getting It Worng: Convicting the Innocent

from http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _jail.html

Eyewitness misidentifications were the single greatest cause of flawed evidence in the 250 innocent exonerations I studied. And no case better explains how eyewitness errors can occur than the best-known eyewitness false identification of them all: Ronald Cotton was exonerated by DNA tests in North Carolina after spending more than 10 years in prison.

Trial records shed light on what really happened in the Cotton case. In 1984, Jennifer Thompson-Cannino, a college student, was raped in her apartment in Burlington, N.C. Mike Gauldin was the lead detective. Police asked Thompson-Cannino to help draw a composite of her rapist. Later, she was shown a photo array with six photos. She initially chose two pictures from the array, one of which depicted Cotton. Cotton's mug shot—the one she saw—is below.

She examined those two pictures for "four or five minutes." She then said:"Yeah. This is the one," and added, "I think this is the guy."

A detective asked her, "You 'think' that's the guy?" and she answered, "It's him."

"You're sure," Gauldin asked, and she said, "Positive." There was even more reinforcement of her choice by police officials. She asked them, "Did I do OK?" The detectives answered, "You did great, Ms. Thompson."

The officers did not take a confidence statement. That is, they did not ask in an open-ended way how sure she was, which psychologists recommend. Instead, they implied she needed to be sure, which only led her to feel more confident.

Was there something else the officer did that cued her to pick the photo of Cotton? We can never know, but we do know that even unintended cues by well-meaning officers can play a dramatic role during these fraught identification procedures. Psychologists have shown that if lineup administrators know which photo belongs to the suspect, even unintentionally, they may signal the "right" choice and shape the victim's responses. There is one straightforward way to prevent such cues or suggestions: To use a double-blind procedure, in which the officer does not know which is the suspect, and the eyewitness is expressly told that the officer does not know. Psychologists have long recommended double-blind lineups as the most crucial improvement to police procedures as they now exist.

Meanwhile, the district attorney, perhaps worried about Thompson-Cannino's lack of certainty, ordered a second identification procedure. Thompson-Cannino viewed a physical lineup of seven men. The actual lineup is pictured below. Ronald Cotton was No. 5.



Despite the assurances and the repetition of just Cotton's photo, Thompson-Cannino was still not sure. She was trying to be very careful in making a choice. After viewing the lineup for a while, she told detectives she was deciding between Nos. 4 and 5. Detective Gauldin asked whether she would like the lineup repeated. She said yes. She then stated that Cotton "looks the most like him."

Gauldin asked her "if she was certain," and she said she was. Again, she was not asked how certain she was—she was, in effect, just asked to be certain. Additional comments from the detectives, similarly well-intentioned and designed to reassure her, also had a dramatic effect. "We thought that might be the guy," said Gauldin, "It's the same person you picked from the photos." She later recalled: "When I picked him out in the physical lineup and I walked out of the room, they looked at me and said, 'That's the same guy,' I mean, 'That's the one you picked out in the photo.' For me that was a huge amount of relief."

At Ronald Cotton's criminal trial, the judge rejected the defense challenge to the lineups. The defense tried to call an expert on eyewitness memory—a professor of psychology—but the judge denied the request. The jury saw Thompson-Cannino point to Ronald and agree she was "absolutely sure that Ronald Junior Cotton is the man."

Cotton was sentenced to life in prison plus 54 years. At a post-conviction hearing, Cotton's lawyer presented Thompson-Cannino with a man Cotton had met in prison and believed might be the real culprit. His name was Bobby Poole. She said: "I have never seen him in my life. I have no idea who he is."

Cotton served 10 and a half years before DNA tests exonerated him. The tests matched Bobby Poole, who then pleaded guilty. Ronald and Jennifer wrote a book together, Picking Cotton, about what went wrong. They now travel the country together to lobby for improved identification practices. Mike Gauldin responded to this case by being the first police chief in his state to institute eyewitness best practices. North Carolina has since adopted best practices statewide.

The Cotton case fits a larger and troubling pattern among all the DNA cases I studied. In 57 percent of the DNA exoneration trials that included eyewitness testimony, the eyewitnesses had earlier been uncertain, a glaring sign that something was wrong right off the bat. Eyewitnesses identified fillers or other suspects, or no one at all, or they described being unsure. However, almost without exception, those eyewitnesses had become absolutely certain of what they had seen by the time of trial. One eyewitness said "This is the man or it is his twin brother." Another was "one hundred and twenty" percent sure.

Where did this false certainty come from? The trial records I looked at suggest that unsound and suggestive police identification procedures played a large and troubling role. Police used unnecessary show-ups, where they presented the eyewitness with just the defendant. Or stacked lineups to make the defendant stand out. Or offered suggestive remarks, telling the eyewitness whom to identify or to expect a suspect in a lineup. Or confirmed the witness's choice as the right one. Even well-intended, encouraging remarks, like "good job, you picked the guy," can have a dramatic effect on eyewitness memory, as psychologists have shown. Indeed, more than one-third of the cases I looked at involved multiple eyewitnesses, as many as three or four or five eyewitnesses who all somehow misidentified the same innocent person. Further, almost half of the eyewitness identifications were cross-racial. Psychologists have long shown how eyewitnesses have greater difficulty identifying persons of another race.

I argue in my new book, Convicting the Innocent, that well-recognized best practices, grounded in decades of psychological research, can reduce such misidentifications. Eyewitnesses should always be told the attacker might not be present in the lineup. Their initial confidence level should be documented (because, like in Ronald Cotton's case, by the time of trial it may change). The most crucial proposed reform is double-blind administration. The officer administering a photo or live lineup should not be aware who the suspect is, and the witness should be told the officer does not know. Such changes simply require updating the identification procedures and better documenting the results. Responding to DNA exonerations, police, prosecutors, and courts are starting to adopt some of those practices, but only piecemeal, and only in some states and some jurisdictions. Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson-Cannino are traveling the country and revisiting their painful experiences only because the stakes are so high: The same systemic failures will cause countless wrongful convictions in the future unless we make our criminal justice system more accurate.

Each year as many as 80,000 eyewitnesses make identifications in criminal investigations. We would like to think that those eyewitnesses are all getting it right, but cases like Ronald Cotton's suggest how they can get it wrong. The problem lies with the procedures used by police who administer the lineups. DNA cannot solve that problem. After all, DNA tests can be used to answer the question of guilt or innocence only in a tiny sliver of criminal cases. We will never know how many people have been wrongly convicted based on the mishandling of the fragile, malleable memory of an eyewitness. If simple, inexpensive improvements to criminal procedures can help us get it right, we should adopt them. It took, on average, 15 years to exonerate the first 250 people freed by DNA tests. Let's hope it takes far less time to learn the lessons those tragic cases can teach.

Brandon L. Garrett is a professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law who studies criminal procedure, civil rights, and wrongful convictions. His new book, Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, was published by Harvard University Press.

[PossumPie]

Eyewitness testimony should ONLY be used as a springboard to honing in on more accurate evidence. If I say that the guy who robbed me was a black male wearing a blue hoodie and red tennis shoes, and you find a guy matching that description, without my wallet, you can't arrest him. If he is carrying my credit cards and on a buying spree however, you have caught the crook. I HATE to see stories about innocent people sent to prison and then exonerated. While I know it happens, it undermines our justice system, which already lets way too many guilty people go on technicalities and lenient laws. Here in Pennsylvania we have a constant flood of people who after multiple arrests for Driving intoxicated, get let off on a technicality or are being let off with a slap on the wrist, end up killing innocent people. Just a few days ago a habitual drunk convicted multiple times and let off swerved into the path of an 18 year old girl and killed her. When I was in high school, there were trouble makers who always were in the middle of some petty crime. Caught multiple times breaking into lockers, molesting girls, etc. Then inevitably something would happen that they didn't do, and they would get blamed. They would play the martyr, but we all knew deep down that it sort of made up for the hundreds of things that they did and didn't get caught for. I know, not good legal thinking, but it is how I feel.
Eyewitness testimony should NEVER be relied on alone.

[snokkums]

hatchet.jpg

Oh, think I have a major league headache!!

[twinsrwe]

... Temperatures have been about 11 degrees Celsius (51 Fahrenheit, I think) every day. ...

I live in the southwestern part of Wisconsin, and when it gets to 51 degrees Fahrenheit, there are some people who think it is appropriate to wear shorts and T-shirts while they are out shopping!!!

[twinsrwe]

Now back on topic…

... I HATE to see stories about innocent people sent to prison and then exonerated. While I know it happens, it undermines our justice system, which already lets way too many guilty people go on technicalities and lenient laws. ...

I agree, Possum. The Leo Frank case is an excellent example!

[twinsrwe]

hatchet.jpg

Oh, think I have a major league headache!!

Welcome back, Snokkums! It's good to see you posting again.

[Curryong]

Yes, hello again Snokkums!
It's absolutely freezing, twinsrwe, and everyone is bundled up. Definitely no t-shirts or shorts!

[twinsrwe]

... It's absolutely freezing, twinsrwe, and everyone is bundled up. Definitely no t-shirts or shorts!

I totally agree; 51 degrees Fahrenheit is way too COLD to be running around in shorts and T-shirts. I never claimed these people are 'bright'. Furthermore, they don't seem to realize just how ridiculous they look!

[snokkums]

... Temperatures have been about 11 degrees Celsius (51 Fahrenheit, I think) every day. ...

I live in the southwestern part of Wisconsin, and when it gets to 51 degrees Fahrenheit, there are some people who think it is appropriate to wear shorts and T-shirts while they are out shopping!!!

Milwaukee for me!

[twinsrwe]

... Temperatures have been about 11 degrees Celsius (51 Fahrenheit, I think) every day. ...

I live in the southwestern part of Wisconsin, and when it gets to 51 degrees Fahrenheit, there are some people who think it is appropriate to wear shorts and T-shirts while they are out shopping!!!

Milwaukee for me!

That's right! You have mentioned this before. Do some of the people of Milwaukee do the same sort of crazy thing that I mentioned?

[Curryong]

With regard to the eye witness testimony of those around the Borden property on that Thursday, I think some were very anxious to help and came forward voluntarily, telling the police what they saw, the 'pale and staggering man, etc.'

I didn't get any sense that the police were pressing them in any way during the witness statements, though of course it's hard to be sure of that! Also, none of these people ever took part in an identification parade, and their testimony (given willingly for the most part) was not the main body of evidence against Lizzie.

Nevertheless, no-one was ever found, or came forward, to state that they saw any stranger on the Borden property that morning, whether registered unconsciously or not!

[PossumPie]

First, temperature endurance is certainly relative. It's funny when people from Florida move up to Pennsylvania, 65 degrees and we are all wearing shorts and t shirts, and they have jackets on. One summer we went up north to Maine. It was about 70 in the evenings and you could tell the 'southerners' b/c they had jackets on.

Regardless of the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, I have always found it interesting that so many people saw the comings and goings at the Borden's that day. We have eyewitness testimony (which WOULD be accurate b/c they knew the people they saw) of every known coming and going that day. We have some very rough estimates of time, and one or two exact times.
Mrs. Dr. Kelly testifies that she sees Andrew coming around from the side of the house to the front door at approximately 10:40. She was late for a dentist appointment which is why she noticed the time. She looks up at the City Hall clock. Bridget went upstairs, heard the City Hall clock strike 11:00 and then Lizzie called out. This is accurate eyewitness testimony. The many peripheral statements of folks seeing strangers sitting in carriages, suspiciously sneaking around the neighborhood, etc. are all FAR less reliable. They didn't know the people, and put no significance on their presence or the time of day when they noticed them. Despite the theories of strangers sneaking in and out in broad daylight, it seems almost certain that neighbors on all sides would have noticed them...