Scientific Study into Eyewitness Reliability (2019)

[erobitha]

A very interesting study (don't know if this was shared already) examining the reliability of eyewitness accounts and how much accuracy can be given to such accounts. Many deabtes in this part of the forum come back to just how reliable are eyewitnesses? Well, there may now be a scientific % you can put on it.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles....00703/full#h4



Whilst only one study admittedly, it does open the can of worms of witness testimony. Unfortunately we cannot apply this science retrospectively to the eyewitness reports from JTR's time as it tends to show accuracy depends on how quickly the witness recalls certain detail with confidence. As we do not have audio recordings or were not present, we will never know just how certain details of eyewitnesses reports were recalled quickly and confidently and which took "ums" and "ehs" and "i think". In an ideal world we could potentially rate the reliability of each witnesses testimony based HOW they responded with details, rather than WHAT the details the were. More weight can be given to certain details over others for example. If they confidentally and quickly replied "he had a brown moustache and I think eh..his jacket was eh...black". We know the moustache detail is most likely true and given that a higher reliability rating.

Obviously eyewitness reports can be subject contamination just like forensice evidence. Leading questions by officers, media reporting, racial prejudice / bias etc etc so many other factors also play a part too in details being recalled.

On what we do know about the eye witnesses around the C5 murders, how many of them can we say are reliable truly?

[Wyatt Earp]

We can't have complete confidence in any of the eyewitness descriptions. I reviewed a number of eyewitness memory studies last year for one of my posts on the Bury website. It's a complicated subject, and there are studies which seem to conflict with each other.

I concluded that Israel Schwartz is likely to have provided the most accurate description in the case, as his experience would have contained a strong emotional component. That's assuming, of course, that Stride was a Ripper victim.

You can read my post here:

http://williambury.org/blog6/2018/11...itness-memory/

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I can't find it but there was a study conducted in Holland using witnesses who had given statements to an actual crime and comparing it to a recent recollection made ( I think) about 7 years later. What people 'remembered like yesterday' was often quite different to their original statements. Like Wyatt points out there's plenty of stuff on the subject, particularly interesting is the confidence of the witness and wether it validates or discredits the identification.

Certainly though, when relying on memoirs and interviews conducted years later, it's worth thinking about the fallibility of memory. The relationship between repitition and confidence helps explain why there seems to be so many family tales from the East End of top hatted Rippers.

JeffHamm territory, cognition and memory.

[GUT]

There is a reason that in many jurisdictions judges are reared to giv ire’s a warning about the unreliability of eyewitness identification.

[Michael W Richards]

We can't have complete confidence in any of the eyewitness descriptions. I reviewed a number of eyewitness memory studies last year for one of my posts on the Bury website. It's a complicated subject, and there are studies which seem to conflict with each other.

I concluded that Israel Schwartz is likely to have provided the most accurate description in the case, as his experience would have contained a strong emotional component. That's assuming, of course, that Stride was a Ripper victim.

You can read my post here:

http://williambury.org/blog6/2018/11...itness-memory/

I would say that George Hutchinson provided the best overall description, accuracy however is a moot point though isn't it? We cant know for sure. I do think this is relevant discussion when assessing many of the witness statements, for my money in particular Lawendes sighting.

[Wyatt Earp]

I would say that George Hutchinson provided the best overall description, accuracy however is a moot point though isn't it? We cant know for sure. I do think this is relevant discussion when assessing many of the witness statements, for my money in particular Lawendes sighting.

The most detailed eyewitness description isn't necessarily the best description if it's riddled with embellishments or other inaccuracies, and it obviously isn't the best description if it is wholly made up. In any event, I haven't argued that Schwartz provided the best description, I've argued that we have a reasonable basis for privileging his description above the other eyewitness descriptions. Schwartz could still have been wrong, confused, lying, etc.

We all know or should know that eyewitness descriptions need to be approached with caution, and that it's important to avoid relying on them. That said, if you're a detective and a man tells you that he saw another man assaulting a woman at a location where that woman was shortly afterward found dead, and that witness later identifies the woman's body at the mortuary, then you're obviously going to be interested in hearing what he has to say about the man he saw assaulting her. That's something you will want to take into account. And if you have a reasonable basis for privileging his description above the other eyewitness descriptions, that's something you will want to take into account, too.

[Abby Normal]

The most detailed eyewitness description isn't necessarily the best description if it's riddled with embellishments or other inaccuracies, and it obviously isn't the best description if it is wholly made up. In any event, I haven't argued that Schwartz provided the best description, I've argued that we have a reasonable basis for privileging his description above the other eyewitness descriptions. Schwartz could still have been wrong, confused, lying, etc.

We all know or should know that eyewitness descriptions need to be approached with caution, and that it's important to avoid relying on them. That said, if you're a detective and a man tells you that he saw another man assaulting a woman at a location where that woman was shortly afterward found dead, and that witness later identifies the woman's body at the mortuary, then you're obviously going to be interested in hearing what he has to say about the man he saw assaulting her. That's something you will want to take into account. And if you have a reasonable basis for privileging his description above the other eyewitness descriptions, that's something you will want to take into account, too.

hi wyatt
totally agree with this post and your previous. I would also posit that IS sighting is corraborated by the other witnesses of the double event of the man wearing a peaked cap. also long described a man with a peaked cap with the chapman murder.

so I go with the witnesses who saw peaked cap man the night of the double event, Long, and possibly cox. And I agree with you on IS statement bearing special weight as there was strong emotional content in his sighting-he was scared the whole event obviously made an impression on him.