1. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 Dec '13 18:05
    It has been claimed often times in this forum that Eyewitness testimony is reliable
    and 'used by the courts'...

    To those people who have and do claim this...

    I suggest you read this story. And then dare you to continue claiming eyewitness
    testimony is reliable. Even for mundane ordinary claims, let alone supernatural ones.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/12/the_exoneration_of_kash_register_and_the_problem_of_false_eyewitness_testimony.html
  2. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35525
    17 Dec '13 20:001 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    It has been claimed often times in this forum that Eyewitness testimony is reliable
    and 'used by the courts'...

    To those people who have and do claim this...

    I suggest you read this story. And then dare you to continue claiming eyewitness
    testimony is reliable. Even for mundane ordinary claims, let alone supernatural ones.

    http://www.slate.c ...[text shortened]... ence/2013/12/the_exoneration_of_kash_register_and_the_problem_of_false_eyewitness_testimony.html
    The false testimony of these two witnesses could have been uncovered as false had the prosecutor turned over crucial evidence. Under law, the prosecutor is required to do so. The prosecutor shares blame in taking away 34 years of this man's life. Maybe he should share a cell with the scumbag 'eyewitness' for the next 34 years.
  3. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 Dec '13 20:22
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    The false testimony of these two witnesses could have been uncovered as false had the prosecutor turned over crucial evidence. Under law, the prosecutor is required to do so. The prosecutor shares blame in taking away 34 years of this man's life. Maybe he should share a cell with the scumbag 'eyewitness' for the next 34 years.
    There are a catalogue of things that went wrong in this case.

    That is one. The idiotic [and likely racist] jury being another.

    The point being, eyewitnesses are a really lousy form of evidence.
    And come nowhere close to the kind of trustworthiness and veracity
    needed to establish an extraordinary claim even when the eyewitness
    is still around to be questioned.
  4. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    17 Dec '13 20:49
    There are also the many cases of "false memory". Someone can swear on
    their life something happened and it can be pure nonsense. False memories
    are common with children who have Attachment Disorder.

    Then there is the suggestablity of witnesses. I can't remember (lol) the
    specifics, but a theatre of students were shown a film of a car crash and
    afterwards had to answer a number of questions about what they had seen.
    Save one, all the questions were the same; half the viewers got "At
    what speed was the red car going when it smashed into the white car?"
    The other half had the same question with the word "bumped"
    replacing "smashed". You can guess the responses!!

    ALSO
    shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Sins_of_Memory
Back to Top