reliability of eye-witness accounts

An off-shoot from another thread began thusly: Schrafinator: Actually, the reason eyewitness accounts are now known to be generally ureliable is through our increasing understanding of how the brain deals with memory.It used to be thought that memories were kind of like video tapes, but we now understand that all memories are reconstructions of events. Also, memory is very plastic and maleable and memories are often manipulated and greatly affected by our emotional state, personal prejudices and biases.It is not through any "degeneration" that we don't put as much stock in eyewitness accounts as we used to, but because science has increased our understanding.Let me ask you this;Do you accept the use of DNA evidence in crime investigations and criminal trials?If so, if the DNA of someone identified by a witness, or many witnesses, as being the perpetrator of a crime does not match the DNA gathered at the crime scene, would you ignore the DNA evidence in favor of the witness accounts?There have been many cases of people being exonerated by DNA evidence even though the witnesses are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that they correctly identified their rapist or mugger.Coffee House?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Lawers love eywitnesses who tell a story the lawyer likes. For whatever reasons, juries and even judges tend to believe eyewitnesses. Of course, the law is about winning and truth, when it appears, is an accidental by-product. THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS REPORTS: THE EFFECT OF ACCURATE AND INACCURATE INFORMATION ON MEMORY AND BIAS is interesting, as is Gary Wells' home page.

Hey Schraf,A couple of us had a half-decent discussion on eye-witness accounts in the thread Evidence and testimonial: A fundamental split.Charles posted some studies that demonstrated how easily eye-witness accounts can become skewed.Definitely an important topic; I think many non-scientists operate under the misunderstanding that scientists act sort of like eye-witnesses to their own conclusions, rather than communicating with data (hence arguments from authority rather than evidence).

quote:

---

It is not through any "degeneration" that we don't put as much stock in eyewitness accounts as we used to, but because science has increased our understanding.

---

Unfortunately since the various authors in the Bible weren't necessarily the eye-witnesses, and the information was relayed to them, the stories lose credibility as more time passes. Especially since we know more about how the memory works.Here is an example of immediate relay of an eye-witness account:
I personally witnessed a girl jump off a bridge. I immediately called 911. When the police came to the bridge after picking her up downstream, I told them what I saw. A news reporter was also there.Now my mother, my daughter, and I were the only people to see the girl jump. No one else was on the bridge.I told the police, with the reporter listening, that she jumped and showed them where she jumped from.Later that night on the evening news they reported that witnesses saw the girl walking along the bridge and saw her fall into the river. A reporter (not the one that was listening in while I was talking) walked along the bridge for the camera so the audience could visualize. The morning paper also reported that witnesses saw the girl fall into the river after walking along the edge.I checked with the police and we were the only three witnesses. Now the jumper may have told them another story, but they should not have attributed their info to witnesses.I have had stories written about me or my family in newspapers several times and they usually mess up the facts or didn't understand what was said.Even this simple straight forward eye-witness account didn't make it to print accurately.

---

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

One of my husband's fellow graduate students (she has since begun her post Doctorate stint) used to teach a section on memory and eye-witness accounts in her Cognition and Perception undergraduate course.One day, she had Jim come into her class in the middle of a lecture, tell her something, hand her something, and then leave.She then had the students answer several basic questions about what they saw, such as what he did, a basic physical description, what he was wearing, etc.It was amazing how inaccurate many of them were. One even had him wearing glasses, which he has never worn.Has anyone here ever read anything by Elizabeth Loftus? She's the researcher who did some great work on implanting false memories in people. She caught a lot of heat with the "recovered memory of childhood abuse" proponents for making the mere suggestion that some of these memories of abuse could be false.abe:I just thought of an excellent example of a false memory in a person.A while ago I was working at the shop and a woman came in asking where a certain product was. I told her that I was sorry, but that we didn't carry that particular product at the moment. She disagreed with me and told me that she bought it right here about a month ago and she even told me exactly where in the store and on which shelf it was displayed on. I moved on in the conversation and apologized that we didn't have it today, of course, not wanting to argue with her.I have worked in that store for nearly seven years, and have been assigned to that particular section for the last 4 years, and we have never had that product in the store to the best of my memory. Since I actually am involved in the purchasing of product for that section in these last 4 years and I have been stocking the shelves and creating displays in that section for those 4 years, and I conferred with all of the other people who purchase product for my entire department, I was quite confident that we didn't have it in the store at the last month.This woman had created a false memory, right down to inventing a memory of exactly which shelf the product was displayed in the shop.Furthermore, she was 100% SURE that her memory was accurate, even though she knew she was talking to the people who actually work there every day, for years, order the product, and stock it on the shelves, while she hadn't been in there for over a month.Fascinating, but tricky to deal with from a customer service standpoint.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-28-2005 08:14 AM

I read that thread, it was short but good, and definitely related to this one.

quote:

---

Fascinating, but tricky to deal with from a customer service standpoint.

---

My daughter has dealt with that at the Deli. An elderly man wanted a certain type of cheese that he had bought there a few days before. Unfortunately they don't sell that type of cheese and hadn't for the last few years.Unfortunately as we age the memory is worse. I've even gone into a fast food place and order a sandwich that is not on their menu. I had attached the sandwich I wanted to the wrong fast food place. I was certain they had sold it before.While I was eating a different sandwich I mumbled about how awful it was they didn't carry the same sandwich as my spot up north. About halfway through my meal it finally dawned on me that I was in the wrong establishment for that sandwich. Even I am plagued by a false memory now and then. So it does make one wonder about the veracity of the quotes in the Bible considering the length of time that elapsed before they were put to paper.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 02-28-2005 09:33 AM

---

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

It’s another ‘I saw a program sometime ago’ post so apologies for that right up front.There was this program (could have been a Dr Robert Winston program, not sure) that was looking at memory and perception.They did a test. The test was they took a bunch of people from diverse backgrounds and took them on a walk in the hills all day. At one point in the day they wandered past a bunch of people in uniforms with guns and stuff all acting furtive and guarding something. The subjects didn’t know anything about this event being part of the trip and when they got back to base they were quizzed on what they saw.The amount of confusion as to what had been seen be each witness was astounding, from number of people seen, what they were holding, how they were dressed, what they were doing and so on. It is clear from this that human memory is a very subjective and confused process.In short anything that takes the majority of its credibility from eye witness reports only must always be taken with a pinch of salt.This message has been edited by ohnhai, 28 February 2005 14:41 AM

Found this thread finally. Here's the answer I started over at the Islam vs. Christianity thread. Of course not. The point was only that many witnesses are better than one, for that very reason, that one witness may not be reliable. A number of witnesses rarely all agree with each other on all points, but from the multiple testimonies you can construct a better likelihood of the reality than with one. This is also why we have twelve jurors in a criminal case, the more the better for the sake of justice.Besides being wrong, witnesses may lie, and it's also possible for multiple witnesses to lie, as they did in the trial of Jesus Christ. But in that case DNA couldn't prove whether he claimed he was going to destroy and raise the temple or not, now could it? In other words, some cases can't be decided by any means OTHER than witnesses. Again, such unreliability is implied in the Biblical requirement of two or more. But in this case you're talking about what are usually single-witness situations that need corroborating evidence in any case.IN other words, DNA evidence changes nothing about the Biblical rule. It's a great tool that wasn't available to previous generations, but it doesn't change the fact that three witnesses are better than one in a situation where all you have is witness evidence. DNA may disqualify some witnesses and agree with others in any case -- witnesses are not ALWAYS wrong after all.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-28-2005 09:42 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 02-28-2005 09:43 AM

quote:

---

The point was only that many witnesses are better than one, for that very reason, that one witness may not be reliable.

---

This is true.

quote:

---

A number of witnesses rarely all agree with each other on all points, but from the multiple testimonies you can construct a better likelihood of the reality than with one.

---

This is also true, but the point is that witness testimony has been demonstrated to be very unreliable, even though people generally consider it extremely compelling and convincing.Also, multiple witness reports are only more reliable than single reports inasmuch as each witness does not talk to each other, the interviewer does not ask them leading or biased questions, etc.Many dozens of independent witnesses gave consistent testimony of the "monkey man" in India, and the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland, but there's not a shred of evidence to suggest that either is real.

quote:

---

This is also why we have twelve jurors in a criminal case, the more the better for the sake of justice.

---

Well, yes and no.The idea behind multiple jurors is that a group of people is more likely to have different viewpoints and think about evidence in disparate ways.Of course, groupthink is as much an issue with juries as it is with any other group.The other issue is that juries are meant to evaluate evidence, which is not at all the same as repeating testimony of something they saw or heard.

quote:

---

Besides being wrong, witnesses may lie, and it's also possible for multiple witnesses to lie, as they did in the trial of Jesus Christ.

---

Yes, they did lie in that story, and in real trials it is certainly possible for all the participants to lie....which means that you have contradicted your original point; that multiple witnesses should be taken as reliable evidence of an event.

quote:

---

But in that case DNA couldn't prove whether he claimed he was going to destroy and raise the temple or not, now could it? In other words, some cases can't be decided by any means OTHER than witnesses.

---

Look, either you are talking about Bible stories, OR you are talking about our modern criminal justice system.In our modern times, unless there is good physical, forensic evidence, people suspected of crimes are often not prosecuted due to insufficient evidence.

quote:

---

Again, such unreliability is implied in the Biblical requirement of two or more.

---

...except it assumes that witnesses are reliable at all (they are demonstrated to be very unreliable), and makes no mention of physical evidence being more reliable, or important at all.

quote:

---

But in this case you're talking about what are usually single-witness situations that need corroborating evidence in any case.

---

All cases involving any number of witnesses need corroborating physical or forensic evidence if they are to not be on shaky grounds.

quote:

---

IN other words, DNA evidence changes nothing about the Biblical rule. It's a great tool that wasn't available to previous generations, but it doesn't change the fact that three witnesses are better than one in a situation where all you have is witness evidence. DNA may disqualify some witnesses and agree with others in any case -- witnesses are not ALWAYS wrong after all.

---

But if ALL you have is witness evidence, it is unlikely that you really have a good grasp of what happened, and I certainly wouldn't want to make a decision about someone's future based upon only that.

quote:

---

Also, multiple witness reports are only more reliable than single reports inasmuch as each witness does not talk to each other, the interviewer does not ask them leading or biased questions, etc.

---

Of course. Or the kind of situation when only Palestinians witness to the actions of the Israelis or vice versa.

quote:

---

Many dozens of independent witnesses gave consistent testimony of the "monkey man" in India, and the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland, but there's not a shred of evidence to suggest that either is real.

---

DNA is certainly not going to help in those cases either.

quote:

---

Besides being wrong, witnesses may lie, and it's also possible for multiple witnesses to lie, as they did in the trial of Jesus Christ.

​

Yes, they did lie in that story, and in real trials it is certainly possible for all the participants to lie.

​

...which means that you have contradicted your original point; that multiple witnesses should be taken as reliable evidence of an event.

---

No, what I said was that multiple witnesses are better than one witness, and that this was the standard given in the Bible, and that has remained true despite everything you've said. Nobody said it was foolproof, certainly not I as I have volunteered the examples where a whole bevy of witnesses may lie. You have misattributed the idea of total reliability to me.

quote:

---

But in that case DNA couldn't prove whether he claimed he was going to destroy and raise the temple or not, now could it? In other words, some cases can't be decided by any means OTHER than witnesses.

​

Look, either you are talking about Bible stories, OR you are talking about our modern criminal justice system.

---

Any testimony about what another person said can't be decided by any means OTHER than witnesses (except surveillance equipment of course but I hope we haven't reached the point where every word everyone says is caught on tape), and certainly such situations exist in our modern criminal justice system as well as in Biblical times.

quote:

---

In our modern times, unless there is good physical, forensic evidence, people suspected of crimes are often not prosecuted due to insufficient evidence.

---

Yes, this is kind of what I was getting at about our degenerated times where witnesses are either less trustworthy or less trusted and the wisdom it takes to determine trustworthiness seems to be in shorter supply, but that's just my own private musing.

quote:

---

There have been many cases of people being exonerated by DNA evidence even though the witnesses are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that they correctly identified their rapist or mugger.
-----
Again, such unreliability is implied in the Biblical requirement of two or more.
-----
...except it assumes that witnesses are reliable at all (they are demonstrated to be very unreliable), and makes no mention of physical evidence being more reliable, or important at all.

---

Yes it does assume that witnesses CAN be reliable, and to assume the opposite, that they are always UNreliable, which seems to be the current position, or at least your position, is awfully cynical and strange too. If nobody is to be trusted at all, civilization might as well give up.

quote:

---

IN other words, DNA evidence changes nothing about the Biblical rule. It's a great tool that wasn't available to previous generations, but it doesn't change the fact that three witnesses are better than one in a situation where all you have is witness evidence. DNA may disqualify some witnesses and agree with others in any case -- witnesses are not ALWAYS wrong after all.

​

----------
But if ALL you have is witness evidence, it is unlikely that you really have a good grasp of what happened, and I certainly wouldn't want to make a decision about someone's future based upon only that.

---

I would venture the guess that if this had always been the attitude, no legal system could ever have arisen in the entire world until modern forensics came about, as witnesses have always been the mainstay of law.

Actually, most of that sort of testimony is not admissable in the US court system, when it qualifies as "hearsay". I don't think it is a matter of "trust", as in ethical trust; but rather a matter of reliability. Many studies have shown that peoples testimony can easily be manipulated.That is, they do not know that they are giving false testimony, because they themselves are convinced by their own false memories.In one study, people were given a series of bizarre tasks to do, none of which involved kissing or a frog. The next day the same people were asked a series of questions, including "what was it like kissing the frog?" Fifteen-percent of people described details of "kissing the frog" even though they had never done so...In a separate study, people were asked to list the characters they had seen on a visit to Disneyland. If they had previously been exposed to a fake Disney advertisement with Bugs Bunny on it, they would describe an interaction with Bugs Bunny, even though Bugs is not owned by Disney and has never set foot inside of Disneyland.One-third of people "remembered" interaction with Bugs Bunny that did not occur.From this study: You state that the justice system as we know it could not have arose without eye-witness testimony. You are likely quite correct; though you must also realize that countless people have been sent to prison or their deaths based on incorrect testimony, whether delivered innocently or with malice.The view that eye-witness testimony is unreliable is not untrustworthy, cynical, or strange - it is simply the truth.

quote:

---

Yes, this is kind of what I was getting at about our degenerated times where witnesses are either less trustworthy or less trusted and the wisdom it takes to determine trustworthiness seems to be in shorter supply, but that's just my own private musing.

---

No, the point is that eyewitness testimony is always less reliable and likely always has been.This is because of the way the human brain deals with memory. Like I said, memory does not work as a video tape, but as a reconstruction which is highly suceptable to suggestion and manipulation and error.If we put much more emphasis upon forensic and physical evidence and much less upon eyewitness accounts is a sign that we are moving towards a more just and rational way of investigating crimes.

quote:

---

Yes it does assume that witnesses CAN be reliable, and to assume the opposite, that they are always UNreliable, which seems to be the current position, or at least your position, is awfully cynical and strange too. If nobody is to be trusted at all, civilization might as well give up.

---

It's not about being "trustworthy" in the sense of being honest.Most people do report what they saw or heard in a completely truthful way.It's about the nature of memory.Memory is "good enough" to be useful in daily life, but it is demonstrated to be very unreliable in reconstructing specific events accurately, especially when confusion or heightened emotions or personal biases are at play.

quote:

---

I would venture the guess that if this had always been the attitude, no legal system could ever have arisen in the entire world until modern forensics came about, as witnesses have always been the mainstay of law.

---

Obviously this is not the case.Physical evidence has always been believed.If a witness sees Nigel carrying a goat with Omar's brand on it, and then the goat is found in Nigel's herd with an alteration to it's brand that is fresh, this represents lots of physical evidence which corroborates the eyewitness account.The point is, isn't it great that we live in these enlightened times where we have a greater understanding of how memory works, so we are able to take it into account, and recognize our own falability?This way, we are less likely to wrongly accuse, imprison, or worse?

quote:

---

No, the point is that eyewitness testimony is always less reliable and likely always has been.

​

This is because of the way the human brain deals with memory. Like I said, memory does not work as a video tape, but as a reconstruction which is highly suceptable to suggestion and manipulation and error.

​

If we put much more emphasis upon forensic and physical evidence and much less upon eyewitness accounts is a sign that we are moving towards a more just and rational way of investigating crimes.

---

Maybe, or it could mean that we are degenerating morally overall so that witness integrity is actually less reliable than it used to be and it's a good thing we have sophisticated forensics. Not something that could be proved but something I suspect may be the case. One of those private musings again.

quote:

---

Yes it does assume that witnesses CAN be reliable, and to assume the opposite, that they are always UNreliable, which seems to be the current position, or at least your position, is awfully cynical and strange too. If nobody is to be trusted at all, civilization might as well give up.

​

-------
It's not about being "trustworthy" in the sense of being honest.

​

Most people do report what they saw or heard in a completely truthful way.

​

It's about the nature of memory.

​

Memory is "good enough" to be useful in daily life, but it is demonstrated to be very unreliable in reconstructing specific events accurately, especially when confusion or heightened emotions or personal biases are at play.

---

This is where personal integrity plays a big part though. If people's judgments of what they witnessed are as easily swayed as some of these studies show, I think that is about integrity more than anything natural about memory. I think people today have less solid standards of honesty so that emotions and biases and external influences more easily compromise their view of things. Now don't totalize what I'm saying here. This is another personal musing on a possible trend, just something I think may be the case that would be just about impossible to prove.

quote:

---

I would venture the guess that if this had always been the attitude, no legal system could ever have arisen in the entire world until modern forensics came about, as witnesses have always been the mainstay of law.

​

Obviously this is not the case.

​

Physical evidence has always been believed.

​

If a witness sees Nigel carrying a goat with Omar's brand on it, and then the goat is found in Nigel's herd with an alteration to it's brand that is fresh, this represents lots of physical evidence which corroborates the eyewitness account.

---

Of course physical evidence has a part when it's available, but it isn't always. Would you be less like to cavil and object if I hadn't said "mainstay" (which is not synonymous with "only kind of evidence" by the way), but something vaguer like "an important part of" the law? "Mainstay" doesn't rule out other kinds of evidence.

quote:

---

The point is, isn't it great that we live in these enlightened times where we have a greater understanding of how memory works, so we are able to take it into account, and recognize our own falability?

---

Sure, but the Biblical standard DOES take into account human fallibility, that's the whole point of requiring more than one witness. You have been challenging this very simple obvious statement but that simple obvious statement still stands.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-28-2005 14:09 AM