Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,421 Year: 6,678/9,624 Month: 18/238 Week: 18/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   reliability of eye-witness accounts
custard
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 97 (189650)
03-02-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by JonF
03-01-2005 9:09 AM


Re: What gorilla?
They showed a video tape of three people tossing around different colored balls. They ask you to count how many times a certain colored ball was tossed. At the end of the test they didn't ask so much about the number of tosses, but about the gorilla. What gorilla? I thought it was a trick, but a replay showed that after a few seconds of ball tossing a guy in a gorilla suit came out and stayed on camera for several seconds.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 03-01-2005 9:09 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2005 1:39 PM custard has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 97 (189652)
03-02-2005 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by custard
03-02-2005 1:26 PM


Re: What gorilla?
Yes but I consider this to be a poor example of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony - it's misdirection.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by custard, posted 03-02-2005 1:26 PM custard has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 97 (189658)
03-02-2005 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
02-27-2005 2:18 PM


schraf writes:
It used to be thought that memories were kind of like video tapes, but we now understand that all memories are reconstructions of events.
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.
Also, memory is very plastic and maleable and memories are often manipulated and greatly affected by our emotional state, personal prejudices and biases.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 02-27-2005 2:18 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 03-02-2005 2:10 PM custard has replied
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2005 2:15 PM custard has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9011
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 49 of 97 (189660)
03-02-2005 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by custard
03-02-2005 2:04 PM


old and new view of eye witnesses
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by custard, posted 03-02-2005 2:04 PM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by custard, posted 03-02-2005 10:27 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 97 (189662)
03-02-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by custard
03-02-2005 2:04 PM


I believe this statement is fundamentally incorrect. I don't think 'eye witness' testimony has ever been thought to be 100% reliable. Ever.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by custard, posted 03-02-2005 2:04 PM custard has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 51 of 97 (189704)
03-02-2005 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by coffee_addict
03-01-2005 1:59 AM


Re: trusting memory, not eyes
Yeah

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by coffee_addict, posted 03-01-2005 1:59 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 52 of 97 (189705)
03-02-2005 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by coffee_addict
03-01-2005 2:02 AM


Re: 100%
I don't need the Bible. All I need is my life

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by coffee_addict, posted 03-01-2005 2:02 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 53 of 97 (189707)
03-02-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Parasomnium
03-01-2005 5:10 AM


Re: 100%
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Parasomnium, posted 03-01-2005 5:10 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 54 of 97 (189709)
03-02-2005 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by pink sasquatch
03-01-2005 8:53 AM


Re: 99.44%
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.sorry
Remembering 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-01-2005 8:53 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 55 of 97 (189710)
03-02-2005 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by nator
03-01-2005 5:47 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 03-01-2005 5:47 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 03-03-2005 10:22 AM Trump won has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 56 of 97 (189712)
03-02-2005 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by nator
03-01-2005 9:01 PM


Re: 100%
How did you figure out that wasn't true, what you were seeing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 03-01-2005 9:01 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 03-03-2005 10:29 AM Trump won has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 57 of 97 (189713)
03-02-2005 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by nator
03-01-2005 9:06 PM


Re: 100%
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nator, posted 03-01-2005 9:06 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 03-03-2005 10:39 AM Trump won has replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 97 (189714)
03-02-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by NosyNed
03-02-2005 2:10 PM


Re: old and new view of eye witnesses
ned writes:
This whole paragraph seems to miss the point. This is talking about the reliability of a particular witness. That is not the point.
Ned, my point was this: witness testimony has ALWAYS been considered suspect and RARELY considered 100% accurate throughout history. I was countering this statement:
schraf writes:
It used to be thought that memories were kind of like video tapes, but we now understand that all memories are reconstructions of events.
Which you seem to agree with when you write this:
ned writes:
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 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.
ned writes:
If you are asking those questions then you don't understand the issue that is bein raised here.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 03-02-2005 2:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 03-03-2005 11:01 AM custard has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1753 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 59 of 97 (189718)
03-02-2005 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by purpledawn
02-28-2005 9:30 AM


Re: Eye-Witness
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by purpledawn, posted 02-28-2005 9:30 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by purpledawn, posted 03-03-2005 5:07 AM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 69 by DBlevins, posted 03-03-2005 5:26 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 60 of 97 (189737)
03-03-2005 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by 1.61803
03-02-2005 10:45 PM


Re: Eye-Witness
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by 1.61803, posted 03-02-2005 10:45 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024