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

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

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)

I also seem to remember that at the time the 'recovered memories' were hotly contested by the psychiatric community which ultimately led to the the 'revelation' that they were bogus.No offense, but I don't understand your point. Are you saying because some people believed that recovered memories were legitimate, that everyone did?Come on now, some people TODAY still believe in using hypnosis to 'assist' memory recall - of course that is rarely allowed in court; and where it is, it is always under a great deal of scrutiny.This message has been edited by custard, 03-03-2005 11:53 AM