Unmissable TV programmes about eye-witness evidence

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
126,099
Location
South East, UK
I caught up with a series of 3 TV programmes called "Eyewitness" last night that have been broadcast on BBC 2 and BBC 4. If you can access the programmes watch them!

The programmes followed 10 people as they were exposed to different crimes (the first was an apparent murder in a pub, the 10 folk did not at the time know the fight was staged) and then followed them as if they had witnessed an actual crime, so the police turn up and they are treated as if a real crime had been committed.

It was utterly fascinating to see how unreliable eye-witness testimony can be and how bad we are at identifying people. It was equally fascinating to see how the police have learnt about how human memory works and how to deal with the many limitations of eyewitness accounts yet still extract useful and accurate information. (Apparently the UK police lead the world in the use of techniques such as "cognitive interviewing" see: http://www.open2.net/eyewitness/becky_milne.html for more detail.)

The 2 follow-on programmes look at another staged crime and also examines some key cases in which police interviews and techniques either were successful or failed and what has been learnt from those cases.

It really helps to understand how people can be sincerely utterly convinced that their testimony is accurate yet them be utterly wrong, and how their recall can be so easily contaminated.
 
Last edited:
I saw it, but it turns out it was totally different to what I thought I saw.
 
For (I assume) UK viewers, it is available here. You have four days from the date of this posting to watch eps 1.
 
Last edited:

What I found particularly interesting was the officer's disparagement of Eddy's evidence based on his age and presumed attitudes (~42 min). There seemed to be nothing to base this on, other than Dean = dead => victim => not assailant.
The voiceover also describes Eddy as getting it "badly wrong" (41:35) for describing Dean as the assailant. But it is obvious (18:52), that Dean is the initial assailant and through the part of the fight most visible to Eddy, Dean was the aggressor, the non-HVJ guy basically trying to separate the two others, Dean assaulting him, pushing him down and getting on top of him. I think this is a case of "blaming the witness" either for poor observation, memory or reporting, when it's more a case of poor interpretation by the police. And that difference might be the difference between a murder charge and a plea of self-defence.
 
Last edited:
I've just watched the first one, but I was a little frustrated by what seems to be the norm for documentaries these days - explaining everything very slowly and sometimes more than once. And that's coupled with lots of camerawork, etc. which doesn't contribute to the meaning that's to be conveyed - so, for example, rather than having a clear shot of the crime in progress, we get lots of dramatic close-ups.

Still, it was completely worth it for Mick (Nick?) being one of their star witnesses then, when interviewed, spending 2 hours describing the carpet.
 
The repetition thing is so that the programmes can be more easily sold to commercial broadcasters that will want to insert adverts. I wish the BBC didn't do it.
 
The unreliability of eyewitnesses is apparently much more recognized by the psychological sciences than it is by the criminal justice system.
It's still the case that eyewitnesses are still often the gold standard for law enforcement when experiments that are familiar to any college psychology student demonstrate the problems....
 
The unreliability of eyewitnesses is apparently much more recognized by the psychological sciences than it is by the criminal justice system.
It's still the case that eyewitnesses are still often the gold standard for law enforcement when experiments that are familiar to any college psychology student demonstrate the problems....

It would seem that is no longer the case for UK police forces.
 
Eye-witnesses in court are as realiable as anecdotal evidence about ghosts, ufos and miraculous healings.

Would be strange to be a skeptical judge. Not many would end up convicted I guess.
 
I have not seen the programme so cannot comment on it. But I maintain that some eyewitness testimony is very reliable, even though some is not.
 
Eye-witnesses in court are as realiable as anecdotal evidence about ghosts, ufos and miraculous healings.

The availible evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

Would be strange to be a skeptical judge. Not many would end up convicted I guess.

A skeptical judge would probably end up convicting near 100%. They would be sceptical of beyond reasonable doubt see.
 
I've now seen episode 2 and I thought it better than the first episode, as it was more focussed and did a better job of presenting the facts of what happened - even directly comparing the facts with the testimony at times. The crime itself, however, I thought was not as effective. It being the second time it had happened meant that the witnesses would all have been somewhat clued in to the fact that it was make-believe, as some of them in fact said.

Just as a shallow aside, I think I've fallen for Swathe (sp?). She's lovely.
 
Thanks, I'll try to watch this. I know myself how spectacularly bad I am at tasks like this. I remember telling a technician to go find the rabbit's body in the freezer, I'd labelled it up and put it there myself, and the bag was yellow.

When he found it, the bag was green. With my handwriting on the label.

What was the man wearing who delivered the blood sample yesterday morning? I have no clue. I may have spoken to him for ten minutes taking all the details down, but could I pick him out from an identification parade the next day? Almost certainly not.

I think I'm unusually bad, but I suspect I'm far from unique. And I suspect that some people who are just as bad as I am have less self-awareness.

Rolfe.
 
Anybody remember the "eyewitness" story near the beginning of the Jean Charles de Menezes case? I'm not talking about the people who merely mistook one of the pursuing armed response team for the suspect. I'm talking about the people who claimed to have seen the actual shooting.

I found a post elsewhere that goes into this in some detail.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4495389

To the best of my recollection this post is accurate (it's my visual memory that's bad, not the rest of it!), and the writer seems to have done his research. In this case there were enough people around, and some CCTV for some of it, to get (in the end) an accurate picture of what actually happened. However, if there had been fewer witnesses and one of these fantasy-merchants had gained traction with the legal process, where would we be?

The number of people who described the white de Menezes as dark-skinned or Asian is startling. Also the heavy jacket - which was transferred from those who mistook the pursuer in his flak jacket for the suspect, back at the escalator, but made its way into the statements about the man who was actually shot.

After that lot, my scepticism level on eyewitness evidence went up several orders of magnitude.

Rolfe.

ETA: That post seems to be heading towards some sort of CT reading of the discrepancies. As far as I can make out, it was a lot simpler than that. The eyewitnesses fabulated or confabulated details, often drawing on what they thought they should have seen, and embellished them with more details they actually got from hearing the accounts of other eyewitnesses on TV and radio. The police then based the official statements on the press reports of these mistaken eyewitnesses, rather than the debriefing of their own officers - thus giving spurious credence to the basic mistakes.
 
Last edited:
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and every officer I know has been trained to realize that. However, people can be trained to be better witnesses and can improve through practice (concentrating on specific details, etc.).

That is why, contrary to what's often presented on TV, circumstantial cases are often stronger.
 

Back
Top Bottom