Are Witnesses Reliable?

[ChrisPerridas]

Implications for Roswell, and others?




20 July 2012

New Jersey Court Issues Guidance for Juries About Reliability of Eyewitnesses

Almost a year after the New Jersey Supreme Court made a sweeping ruling aimed at resolving the “troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications,” it issued instructions on Thursday for judges to give jurors to help them better evaluate such evidence in criminal trials.

A judge now must tell jurors before deliberations begin that, for example, stress levels, distance or poor lighting can undercut an eyewitness’s ability to make an accurate identification.

Factors like the time that has elapsed between the commission of a crime and a witness’s identification of a suspect or the behavior of a police officer during a lineup can also influence a witness, the new instructions warn.

And in cases involving cross-racial identifications, judges were directed to tell jurors that “research has shown that people may have greater difficulty in accurately identifying members of a different race.”

“You should consider whether the fact that the witness and the defendant are not of the same race may have influenced the accuracy of the witness’s identification,” the instructions say.

The new instructions caution jurors that eyewitness testimony must be scrutinized carefully.

“Human memory is not foolproof,” the instructions say. “Research has revealed that human memory is not like a video recording that a witness need only replay to remember what happened. Memory is far more complex.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/ny...liability.html

[Martin]

Hi Chris,

I used to think they were, but in recent times we have seen so many people mistaking Chinese Lanterns as something else it's caused doubts to be raised for me. I believev Airline Pilots etc are good witnesses.

[Skeptical]

You may also want to check Kevin Randle's latest blog regarding the unreliability of memory:

A Different Perspective

S

[Carol Nistri]

I dont know what to say,except that some things really are burned into your memory,you dont forget that which is profound.

[ChrisPerridas]

There used to be an old saying that everyone knew where they were when JFK was shot - then the sad thing about the space shuttle blowing up, and now on 9/11.

However, I know there were some studies done - so I looked up a quick brief on this. There are whole books on this subject. I've been very concerned about my memory and paranoid of alzheimer's (probably for no reason other than fear itself) and so I have read a lot about memory. This short essay covers a lot of general ground with a few specifics.
_____

Flashbulb Memory
In the late 1970s, reports of flashbulb memory (Brown & Kulik, 1977) seemed to support the idea of adrenaline effects on memory. Flashbulb memories were supposed to be memories formed instantaneously and remembered forever, after shocking events. A classic example in the 1970s was, "Where were you when you heard about Kennedy being shot." For 1980s American students the question became, "Where were you when you heard about the space shuttle Challenger blowing up?" Most people could tell you exactly where they were when they heard about it. To the current generation of students, "Where were you when you heard about the twin towers being hit" would elicit similar, specific responses.

What is "flashbulb memory"?

This phenomenon has been known for many years. A psychologist (Colegrove) writing in 1899 described how middle-aged people remembered exactly what they were doing when they heard Abraham Lincoln was shot, 35 years earlier.

Neisser (1982) argued that these memories are often inaccurate or fabricated. He gave a personal example. For years he had a flashbulb memory of watching a baseball game the day before his 13th birthday. The game was interrupted by the announcement of the Pearl Harbor bombing, and he rushed upstairs to tell his mother. Neisser continues:

What point did Neisser make with his memory of the Pearl Harbor announcement?

This memory has been so clear for so long that I never confronted its inherent absurdity until last year: no one broadcasts baseball games in December! (It can't have been a football game either; professional football barely existed in 1941, and the college season ended by Thanksgiving.) Apparently flashbulbs can be just as wrong as other kinds of memories; they are not produced by a special quasi-photographic mechanism. (Neisser, 1982, p.45)

How does Neisser explain flashbulb memories?

Neisser proposed that flashbulb memories were really something like historical markers. When a significant historical event occurs, it becomes part of our life history. We think about it and its relationship to our lives. We know the world is changed from that moment onward. In the following years we often think of this landmark in our personal history. So the memories of such events linger, but that does not mean the memory is accurate.

Schmolck, Buffalo, and Squire (2000) studied flashbulb memories which American students had for the announcement of the verdict of the O. J. Simpson trial. They found that "the quality of the recollections after 32 months was strikingly different from the quality of recollections after 15 months" with many errors creeping into the memory accounts. Because they collected memory reports from students at two intervals, they were able to document changes in the memory reports of individuals.

For example, one student produced this report 15 months after the verdict:
"I was at the Commuter Lounge at Reville [College] and saw it on T.V. As 10:00 approached, more and more people came into the room. We kept having to turn up the volume, but it was kind of cool. Everyone was talking."

At 32 months post-verdict, the same student produced this recollection:
"I first heard about it while I was watching TV. At home in my living room. My sister and father were with me. Doing nothing in particular, eating and watching how the news station was covering different groups of viewers..."

This provides more evidence (if any is needed) that retrospective self-reports are unrealiable. It also shows that memory continues to change and transform between 1 and 3 years after an experience.

Marigold Linton (1982) argued that the distinctiveness of newsworthy events is what makes them memorable. Linton was the researcher described earlier in this chapter who wrote down two personal events every day for six years. She systematically tested her memory for these events. She found that the first time you do almost anything is memorable, compared to later occasions. For example, she retained a clear memory of submitting the "final draft" of a statistics textbook to her publishing company. But they asked for revisions. She was less successful in remembering the second time she submitted a "final draft." She had only a vague memory of the third and final submission of the book, which was then published.

If Linton is correct, flashbulb memories-to the extent they occur-are caused by unique, distinctive, first time events.

This may not contradict the adrenaline theory, because such novel events probably provoke adrenaline release. But Linton's analysis suggests that encoding effects are important. A first-time event is distinctive and therefore easier to retrieve.

[ChrisPerridas]

Skeptical, sorry. I guess I'm not reliable, since I posted my notes above before Is aw and read your post. sorry. Randle said exactly the same thing about memory, and far better, and gave a great Roswell example.

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by Carol Nistri

I dont know what to say,except that some things really are burned into your memory,you dont forget that which is profound.

Profound..? Did you mean to use another word?
: having intellectual depth and insight b : difficult to fathom or understand. 2. a : extending far below the surface

No..I guess that would apply to a ufo abduction or encounter.

[dr wu23]

I was going to post that piece by Randle but Skep did and I agree that witnesses are not very reliable and this has been pointed out many times over the years by law enforcement and other groups who use witnesses.

[Carol Nistri]

No,profound will do.

profound

[pruh-found] </SPAN>  Example Sentences Origin
.spl_unshd{position:relative;}.spl_unshd,.nu{posit ion:relative;}pro·found

   /prəˈfaʊnd/ Show Spelled [pruh-found] Show IPA adjective, pro·found·er, pro·found·est, noun
adjective 1. penetrating or entering deeply into subjects of thought or knowledge; having deep insight or understanding: a profound thinker.

2. originating in or penetrating to the depths of one's being; profound grief.

3. being or going far beneath what is superficial, external, or obvious: profound insight.

4. of deep meaning; of great and broadly inclusive significance: a profound book.

5. pervasive or intense; thorough; complete: a profound silence.

EXPAND 6. extending, situated, or originating far down, or far beneath the surface: the profound depths of the ocean.

7. low: a profound bow.

8. deep.

COLLAPSE

[Skeptical]

Carol - I think the evidence contradicts you. Now, it doesn't mean that all of us are prone to misremembering things. Some of us probably have very accurate memories. It just means that the nature of the event has no bearing on our overall ability to accurately recall it.

I think it is very interesting how some people remember some events while others do not. A friend of mine used to tell me about an occurrence in high school and he very clearly remembered me being there. I, on the other hand, had no conscious memory of the event then or now. The question is: which one of us is misremembering?

S