eyewitness testimony vs. science

[_karl61]

I was watching 12 angry (white) men last night in a legal class at school. The actors were going back and forth about eye witness testimony. I thought about witness's to the Book of Mormon. Did they see what they said they saw and did they give other testimony later on in life.

I then was thinking about the Lawyers who are getting people out of prison through DNA. Clearly, the witnesses in their case were mistaken as science demonstrated they were wrong. I would be intersted in your thoughts.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

[_The Nehor]

Has anyone scoured the Sacred Grove for God's DNA yet?

[_barrelomonkeys]

I've been helping (I assist an attorney that takes pro bono cases) a man with his petition to Innocence Project to review his case.

I trust science over eye witness testimony ANY day.

I trust it over my own!

Unfortunately for what you're talking about there is no DNA, so it's a moot point don't you think?

[_Dakotah]

"I trust science over eye witness testimony ANY day."

I don't. Especially the 'science' that goes out to prove something rather than investigating and seeing where it leads.

Look at all the 'scientists' trying to 'prove' the Book of Mormon lands are where they get a free vacation in the sun and warmth. Look at all those who start with the conclusion they want and then set out to 'prove' it.

The science of discovery and proof is not what most of these pseudo-scientists are after. They have no faith in the scientific method.

As for eyewitness testimony, it can be reliable yet unprovable by science in its current state. This is especially so in matters of spirit, inspiration and feelings. Here we don't yet have the science to do more than a witch doctor can do.

[_barrelomonkeys]

"I trust science over eye witness testimony ANY day."

I don't. Especially the 'science' that goes out to prove something rather than investigating and seeing where it leads.

Look at all the 'scientists' trying to 'prove' the Book of Mormon lands are where they get a free vacation in the sun and warmth. Look at all those who start with the conclusion they want and then set out to 'prove' it.

The science of discovery and proof is not what most of these pseudo-scientists are after. They have no faith in the scientific method.

As for eyewitness testimony, it can be reliable yet unprovable by science in its current state. This is especially so in matters of spirit, inspiration and feelings. Here we don't yet have the science to do more than a witch doctor can do.

Huh?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html


Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. You do know this don't you?

So when will eye witness testimony be provable by science in its current state? As far as I was aware it has been proven unreliable repeatedly.

Actually. Never mind. I have NO idea what you are talking about.

I have to be honest. Sometimes what I read on this board is so foreign to me, so ridiculous, so absent any thought, or current knowledge I can barely grasp it. It's not beyond me... it's something else.

What is disturbing to me is that the posters are adults. These adults are on the internet. There is information. A vast knowledge of information at their fingertips and yet still apparently don't know how to research.

Dakotah, I challenge you to search for eye witness testimony. Come back report your findings as it relates to a court of law.

You can give me a challenge and I'll do the same. I look forward to learning something new.

Up for it?

[_barrelomonkeys]

Then it dawns on me that no one ever follows links. It's not about truth or accuracy. It's about teams and winning. It is so frustrating.


Here is the relevant part of the link (google and you'll find much more, as well as possibly CLICKING on the Innocence Project link):

HOW RELIABLE IS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY?: A Decision By New York State's Highest Court Reveals Unsettling Truths About Juries
By MICHAEL C. DORF
----
Wednesday, May. 16, 2001



The Unreliability of Eyewitness Identifications



The conventional wisdom, particularly among non-lawyers, is that circumstantial evidence is generally less reliable than eyewitness testimony. People sometimes say that a case is "only circumstantial" to mean that the evidence is weak. A strong case, according to this view, includes the testimony of an eyewitness.

In fact, contrary to popular opinion, circumstantial evidence is often extremely reliable. Blood of the victim that makes a DNA match with blood found on the defendant's clothing, credit card records that place the defendant at the scene of the crime, and ballistics analysis that shows a bullet removed from the victim to have been fired from the defendant's gun are all forms of circumstantial evidence. Yet, in the absence of a credible allegation of police tampering, such evidence is usually highly reliable and informative.

At the same time, numerous psychological studies have shown that human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time. The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percent — a frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony.

These studies show further that the ability to identify a stranger is diminished by stress (and what crime situation is not intensely stressful?), that cross-racial identifications are especially unreliable, and that contrary to what one might think, those witnesses who claim to be "certain" of their identifications are no better at it than everyone else, just more confident.

[_rcrocket]

It is pretty easy to find some internet authority saying the circumstantial evidence is of greater value than eyewitness evidence. But, the law, which includes jury instructions and appellate authority, draws no distinctions between those two classes. The law which juries usually follows provides that there may be weak and strong eyewitness testimony and weak and strong circumstantial.

An eyewitness who is related to a victim, and only had a fleeting view of an accident, is going to be mistrusted. An eyewitness who spent lots of time looking at something, and thinking about it while he was looking at it, and made contemporaneous notes about it, and told people about it contemporaneously, is going to be of high quality.

Similarly, an example of circumstantial evidence is that there is only a half of one percent chance that a given vehicle on the road would be a Chevy Nova. A Chevy Nova was seen at a crime, and Joe Donkey is known to drive a Chevy Nova. The "percentage of probability" evidence is totally unreliable and would never be admitted. Eyewitness testimony that a Chevy Nova was seen at the crime and that Joe Donkey drove such a car would be admissible.

Another example of circumstantial evidence is that a Mary Jones is known to have asthma, and that when she visits a house she insists that all the windows be shut completely. When the murder occurred, all the windows were completely shut, thus, the conclusion could be drawn that Mary Jones did it. Yet, for obvious reasons, this kind of evidence would never be admitted, either, as too speculative.

There is high quality circumstantial evidence, but usually this is a rarity. This includes DNA evidence and fingerprints. Before DNA, blood type at the crime scene was circumstantial, but it was considered unreliable except for rare blood types. But, in the main, most juries and judges I've dealt with tend to believe eyewitness testimony over circumstantial.

The eyewitness testimony to the plates is generally considered to be of high quality and there was some time spent with each witness to make sure they got it right. The testimony fits all the indicia of high quality -- the number of witnesses and the time spent on the view. I am familiar with the supposed impeaching evidence. In the case of David Whitmer, he saw and read impeaching evidence -- witnesses who claimed he recanted. He denounced such claims. In the case of Martin Harris, I am unaware that he was ever presented any evidence of the third-party claim of "spiritual eyes" so that he could denounce it. There is one story of questionable provenance of Oliver Cowdrey denouncing a claim that he had recanted; otherwise, there is no evidence of claims of Oliver's recantation.

That's pretty significant.



rcrocket

[_barrelomonkeys]

It is pretty easy to find some internet authority saying the circumstantial evidence is of greater value than eyewitness evidence. But, the law, which includes jury instructions and appellate authority, draws no distinctions between those two classes. The law which juries usually follows provides that there may be weak and strong eyewitness testimony and weak and strong circumstantial.

An eyewitness who is related to a victim, and only had a fleeting view of an accident, is going to be mistrusted. An eyewitness who spent lots of time looking at something, and thinking about it while he was looking at it, and made contemporaneous notes about it, and told people about it contemporaneously, is going to be of high quality.

Similarly, an example of circumstantial evidence is that there is only a half of one percent chance that a given vehicle on the road would be a Chevy Nova. A Chevy Nova was seen at a crime, and Joe Donkey is known to drive a Chevy Nova. The "percentage of probability" evidence is totally unreliable and would never be admitted. Eyewitness testimony that a Chevy Nova was seen at the crime and that Joe Donkey drove such a car would be admissible.

Another example of circumstantial evidence is that a Mary Jones is known to have asthma, and that when she visits a house she insists that all the windows be shut completely. When the murder occurred, all the windows were completely shut, thus, the conclusion could be drawn that Mary Jones did it. Yet, for obvious reasons, this kind of evidence would never be admitted, either, as too speculative.

There is high quality circumstantial evidence, but usually this is a rarity. This includes DNA evidence and fingerprints. Before DNA, blood type at the crime scene was circumstantial, but it was considered unreliable except for rare blood types. But, in the main, most juries and judges I've dealt with tend to believe eyewitness testimony over circumstantial.

The eyewitness testimony to the plates is generally considered to be of high quality and there was some time spent with each witness to make sure they got it right. The testimony fits all the indicia of high quality -- the number of witnesses and the time spent on the view. I am familiar with the supposed impeaching evidence. In the case of David Whitmer, he saw and read impeaching evidence -- witnesses who claimed he recanted. He denounced such claims. In the case of Martin Harris, I am unaware that he was ever presented any evidence of the third-party claim of "spiritual eyes" so that he could denounce it. There is one story of questionable provenance of Oliver Cowdrey denouncing a claim that he had recanted; otherwise, there is no evidence of claims of Oliver's recantation.

That's pretty significant.



rcrocket

Hi rcrocket.

You are absolutely correct. It is indeed very easy to find an internet authority that says that "circumstantial evidence is of greater value than eyewitness evidence".

I believe the discussion was concerning eye witness testimony vs. scientific evidence. Was it not? I was responding directly to Dakotah. My comments related to Dakotah asserting that eyewitness testimony is more reliable than scientific evidence. I understand that there are degrees to each of these, and yet with all things being equal would personally trust science over witness memory. Do you agree with Dakotah?

I confess that often I am mystified what any of these conversations are about. I have limited knowledge on the Book of Mormon and rather doubt there is any verifiable way to test the eyewitnesses other than to take them at their word.

Surely there is no scientific evidence in whatever is being discussed here.


Thanks for the lesson. :)

[_rcrocket]

You are absolutely correct. It is indeed very easy to find an internet authority that says that "circumstantial evidence is of greater value than eyewitness evidence".

I think I should have said: "It is easy to find internet authority supporting any particular position."

There have been scientific statistical studies measuring jury reaction to direct versus circumstantial evidence. The typical juror favors direct evidence and disfavors circumstantial. It is a natural thing. Most jurisdictions have jury instructions to combat that natural tendency. See http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f7500/7520.htm.

But that doesn't mean that the law favors circumstantial over direct. So as far has the human condition is concerned, the typical human favors direct eyewitness testimony.

There were 11 people who swore that they saw the gold plates, the foundation for the Book of Mormon. There has been direct testimony to support the existence of the plates. There has been circumstantial to support the existence of the plates (plates like them in other places). There has been no direct testimony to refute the existence of the plates. (Nobody has said that the witnesses recanted.) There has been no refutational circumstantial evidence.

[_barrelomonkeys]

You are absolutely correct. It is indeed very easy to find an internet authority that says that "circumstantial evidence is of greater value than eyewitness evidence".

I think I should have said: "It is easy to find internet authority supporting any particular position."

There have been scientific statistical studies measuring jury reaction to direct versus circumstantial evidence. The typical juror favors direct evidence and disfavors circumstantial. It is a natural thing. Most jurisdictions have jury instructions to combat that natural tendency. See http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f7500/7520.htm.

But that doesn't mean that the law favors circumstantial over direct. So as far has the human condition is concerned, the typical human favors direct eyewitness testimony.

There were 11 people who swore that they saw the gold plates, the foundation for the Book of Mormon. There has been direct testimony to support the existence of the plates. There has been circumstantial to support the existence of the plates (plates like them in other places). There has been no direct testimony to refute the existence of the plates. (Nobody has said that the witnesses recanted.) There has been no refutational circumstantial evidence.

Hi rcrocket,

I love to have these conversations and then I'm lost when they're wound about the witnesses, Book of Mormon, etc... I have no qualms with the witnesses. I do not have an opinion on their testimony. Pro or con.

Perhaps I misunderstood Dakotah as he was making comments and relating them to his religious views. I merely was replying to his assertion that he trusts eyewitness testimony over scientific evidence. I was assuming that scientific evidence in this instance was DNA, since that was in the original post.

Now this may be a common phenomenon, yet I would assert that if there is strong circumstantial evidence (DNA was mentioned in the original post) that this should preempt any eyewitness testimony.

Of course this is a moot point as there is no DNA evidence and the witnesses should be taken at their word unless there is any evidence presented to the contrary.