reliability of eye-witness accounts

Yes but I consider this to be a poor example of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony - it's misdirection. That's tantamount to asking audience members of a magic show 'where did the pigeon come from?'If wonder how many people would have reported the gorilla if they were instructed to simply 'watch the tape and tell us what happens.'This message has been edited by custard, 03-02-2005 13:27 AM

It's the fact that we can be misdirected that makes eyewitness testimony so unreliable. We are, after all, most likely to be looking at the wrong thing or paying attention to the wrong area when the event in question happens.So I think it's a better example than you allow. The mind is not a video tape; that's what allows misdirection to occur in the first place.

I believe this statement is fundamentally incorrect. I don't think 'eye witness' testimony has ever been thought to be 100% reliable. Ever.Except in politically driven kangaroo courts, I think it is very rare that eye witness testimony has ever been given 100% credibility.Witness testimony is almost always evaluated to determine the degree of its reliability. That is why juries,judges, and historians both past and present, question things like the reputation of the witness, his motive, his proximity to the event, how long ago the even occurred, the likelihood that the event could have occurred as described, etc. Yes, and this concept has been well known since Adam accused Eve of making him eat the apple.The idea that eye witnesses could be wrong, lying, or not 100% credible is not new at all. A cursory look at transcripts of US trials to the commentaries Roman historians make that pretty clear. The bible itself provides numerous examples of false or inaccurate 'eye witness' testimony.This message has been edited by custard, 03-02-2005 14:05 AM

This whole paragraph seems to miss the point. This is talking about the reliability of a particular witness. That is not the point.The point is that all eye witness testimony is suspect. It doesn't matter the reputation of the witness, the motive, his proximately, how long or anything else about the witness. If you are asking those questions then you don't understand the issue that is bein raised here. We have only in the last decade or two had the information necessary to realize how easily a memory may be twisted or created.

I think perhaps you may be misunderstanding Schraf. It seems to me that she didn't say that eyewitness testimony was always considered perfectly truthful and accurate, but rather, there was the presumption that even if an eyewitness turned out to be lying, they did still have an accurate memory of what they did see, even if they chose to testify a lie, instead.The idea that someone could honestly, actually remember events that did not happen is, I think, rather new. Though the idea that one might not remember what one saw is not. In other words what is new is the idea that an eyewitness could give honest testimony that didn't actually happen. The idea that memory "failures" might be additive as well as subtractive in a completely healthy sober adult is what is new, I think.Or maybe it's not. I'm not familiar with the history of legal argumentation.

Yeah

I don't need the Bible. All I need is my life

I think what is important is the perception you maintain, not the accuracy or even sometimes the reality of the perceptin you've come to have

When I was saying "what you see", I was meanig your perception. Sometimes I can't articulate how I'm thinking or why I would resppond to object.sorryRemembering something correctly to a person does not have to agree with reality.From what I just said, no not really.I don't think I directly stated your question in answer form. Well that wasn't my intention, we can't be on the same way of thought.

---

-one word to describe me, spectacular yes

Well thats not what I really meant but since I asked that question exactly how you answered it it's my fault.I kind of meant any typeof miraculous happenings or in some way you doubted what you believe because of a memory you had which you were doubting.

How did you figure out that wasn't true, what you were seeing?

To the law no but to the girl I hope yes. What if she didn't get a good glance at the attacker. There are many variables you would have to know toreally answer that question.

Ned, my point was this: witness testimony has ALWAYS been considered suspect and RARELY considered 100% accurate throughout history. I was countering this statement: Which you seem to agree with when you write this: I absolutely disagree. While we may have made strides in this field of study, do you honestly believe that until only ten or twenty years ago eye witness testimony was considered to be as reliable as a 'video tape?' I don't think so; and, as I suggested, a cursory look at court transcripts or historical texts will give you quite a different impression. Well, I read the OP and responded to what I thought was a fundamental error in the initial assumption.I'm not sure what it is about this that YOU don't understand. I think YOU don't understand my understanding of the OP. Understand?(OK, now I'm confused)

Running around the house late for work, cursing and flipping couch coushins, cursing, rummaging through draws, through the hamper, all the while my keys were sitting right in plain view on the coffee table, right where I put them the night before. Memory? what memory. LOL.

I can relate! When that happens to me, in my mind I can picture what I'm looking for in many different places except, of course, the actual place where it is!

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.