Interesting article on eyewitnesses

[egswanso]

Just thought I'd share an article with conclusions that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here based on the anecdotal evidence from UM...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-the-eyes-have-it

[Mastermind]

Great find. :)

I'll read it and get back to you on it.

[rhzunam]

UM and the Kari Lynn Nixon and Dede Rosenthal case really led me to believe that eyewitnesses are so off most of the time. Although the thing that also led me to that conclusion was a Dateline (or 20/20, I forget which) show about how Eyewitnesses screw up. I remember they had a class on the university and set up this fake robbery to the teacher in front of the class. They asked the whole class to give the eyewitnes. The lady teacher said something like " All I remember was this (something) he had" and everyone laughed. I don't remember what it was but lets say it was a bandana. He didn't have a bandana and I immediately knew she was BSing. But sure enough almost all the eyewitness described that he had the bandana when it was a planted lie.

[Mastermind]

UM and the Kari Lynn Nixon and Dede Rosenthal case really led me to believe that eyewitnesses are so off most of the time. Although the thing that also led me to that conclusion was a Dateline (or 20/20, I forget which) show about how Eyewitnesses screw up

Technicially an eyewitness claim should be back up by something else
1. Other witnesses claim to see the same thing
2. There is other physical evidence.
3. The article of clothing is unique and was actually found when searching the victim.
4. You have to consider the source of the sketch. Police officer eyewitness claims hold alot more water because police are much more trained to look for details.

It also should be kept in mind that eyewitness claims are used for leverage a lot againts a suspect.

The eyeball witness is a lead, but not an end all be all to the investigation. Like most leads they need to be bolstered by other evidence.


A perfect example of the perils of eyewitness claims is the Zodiac killer case.

Think about how much is put in stock on the two composite sketches of Z. Both sketches are radically different.

Yet a lot of investigators placed a lot on a suspect looking like one of the sketches and dismissing the other.

Leigh Arthur Allen looked a lot like the first composite sketch, but nothing like the second one. Richard Gaikowski looks exactly like the second sketch, but nothing like the first sketch.

Which one is right? Some people put more weight in the later sketch because police officers eyewitness accounts led to the sketch.

Hell, consider my avatar, do you guys think that Ted K looks like the chap on the left? Was that sketch accurate.