Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You can't help yourself can you?

It was a serious point.

Instead of expressing frustration at repeatedly not receiving what you consider to be a satisfactory response, why don't you take your own advice?

[A P Tomlinson]

It was a serious point.

Instead of expressing frustration at repeatedly not receiving what you consider to be a satisfactory response, why don't you take your own advice?

Still at it...
If I ignore you 8 times, will you throw a tantrum?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Still at it...
If I ignore you 8 times, will you throw a tantrum?

It is difficult to think of a better example of throwing a tantrum than your #6676 in the thread John Richardson.

For some reason, you were unable to ignore me that time.

This is not a matter of one poster ignoring another.

Several of those eight posts were made in response to posts from Scott Nelson to me.

Eight times he chose not to reply.

Objecting to such conduct does not amount to throwing a tantrum, as you well know.

If one poster refutes an argument put forward by another, then he is entitled to a response.

[A P Tomlinson]

It is difficult to think of a better example of throwing a tantrum than your #6676 in the thread John Richardson.

For some reason, you were unable to ignore me that time.

This is not a matter of one poster ignoring another.

Several of those eight posts were made in response to posts from Scott Nelson to me.

Eight times he chose not to reply.

Objecting to such conduct does not amount to throwing a tantrum, as you well know.

If one poster refutes an argument put forward by another, then he is entitled to a response.

I'm moving on...

[Fiver]

I reckon it's an eye-opener that 47% of people in that test situation erroneously recollected the main event in the test.

That would be an eye-opener if it's what the study said. But your misunderstanding the article doesn't change the facts.

[JeffHamm]

Many of the studies on the reliability of eyewitness testimony focus on their accuracy with regards to identifying a suspect. With regards to the JtR case, that doesn't crop up all that often - perhaps the Seaside Home identification being the most often discussed. However, we do have various witnesses identifying victims and there is a good argument that similar issues apply.

There are many influences on human memory, which some of the literature mentioned in this thread point to. Memory is malleable, and a witness's memory for events can be influenced by how questions are asked (generally influencing their confidence), and whether or not they've discussed things with other witnesses, have read details in the press, and so forth.

All of these influences are, of course, things we have to be aware of when evaluating the information we have available to us. Sadly, the initial police interviews with witnesses are lost to us, so we do not know what questions were asked, how those questions were asked, what a witnesses initial response was, or how confident they expressed themselves, and so forth.

On the other hand, it is also important to recognize that many of the experimental studies into things like the "misinformation effect", are trying to find what sort of things contaminate witness testimony, they are not investigations into how frequent these things actually occur in "the wild". For example, let's say it was found that the use of leading questions resulted in 80% of witnesses modifying their statements to conform with the apparent "expectation" of the investigators (where the "expectation" is a false detail of a particular nature), while a control group showed a baseline of something like 5% (so 5% of the control group also reported that false detail without "prompting"). That shows how leading questions contaminate a witness's memory.

That doesn't mean 80% of the witnesses we are dealing with have been contaminated! We would need to know what questions were asked by the police. If we had those interviews and found that the police did not asked any leading questions, then the above finding doesn't apply. In short, in order for us to move from "we must be cautious about eye-witness reliability" to "look at these numbers", we would have to be able to examine the interviews and responses directly to see if the influences the experimental studies are examining might apply. We cannot do that, so all we can do is recognize that eye-witnesses can make mistakes, but we all know that.

I had a bit of time to do a brief search to see what is out there in the literature with regards to eye-witness reliability, but not from the perspective of what contaminates it, but from the perspective of when it is more reliable, and when. This article is a fairly simple to read overview of how eye-witness reliability need not be as awful as one might think. One bit of it I hope to find the time to follow up was the relationship between "suspect identification" (or for our purposes victim identification) and the witnesses initial level of confidence.

From the article:
"An initial eyewitness identification made with low confidence indicates that even though memory was not contaminated, the ID is untrustworthy (that is, by indicating low confidence, the eyewitness is effectively saying, “There’s a good chance that I’m making an error”). In contrast, a high-confidence ID is highly accurate, a surprising fact that has only recently come to be appreciated by experimental psychologists."

Sadly, I'm not sure we have any records of the initial confidence expressed by most witnesses. We do have Long stating she was sure the woman she saw was Annie, but we do not know if that was the confidence she expressed at the time she identified Annie at the morgue. If she initially expressed a low confidence, but the police reacted in a way that indicated that was indeed the victim, then her confidence as it comes to us could be inflated. But if she was sure at the time of the identification, then we would have much more reason to put stock in her identification of Annie. Which is it? We don't know, so we can't (well shouldn't) claim either but rather consider both possibilities.

Basically, the lack of a relationship between a witness's statements of confidence and the accuracy of their information applies to their court testimony, after there has been time for various contaminations to have occurred, but when one examines the initial statements, before such contaminations occur, high confident statements do tend to be much more reliable. I'm planning on tracking down that research and having a look at it to see how well those studies were done, but it is an interesting wrinkle. We do have some information about the initial statement a witness gave to the police, Richardson's contact with Chandler, where he expressed very high confidence that there was no body present at 4:50ish. His initial confidence, therefore, would mean we should actually view that as far more reliable than had we only access to his inquest statements.

Returning to Long's confidence, however, we cannot evaluate because there is no record of her confidence at the time she identified Annie. Once she left the morgue, there was time for her to have received feedback (even if just by reading the reactions of the police) that she "picked the right woman". If she initially said "I think that could be her", then we would place her as less reliable (not necessarily wrong of course, but we would just view her identification with more caution; she's not necessarily right either). Sadly, if at the morgue she expressed her confidence as "I am sure that is the woman I saw", then that would place her identification in the "high confidence group." I'm basing that on the fact that studies looking at initial actual witness identification statements (real cases) where they code confidence as "high" or "low", places someone in the high confidence group if they say "I am sure" ... For a high confident initial identification, 95% were correct, and almost all of the false identifications came from low-confident identifications. It was a small study, however, so those rates are probably not stable estimates of the true reliability, but it does point to higher reliability is associated with higher initial statements of confidence. Much of the literature on this relationship is based upon later statements of confidence, which are subject to various forms of contamination. Again, I want to make it clear I'm not saying Long was initially "sure", I don't know because it wasn't recorded (or we don't have it), but then we don't know if the witnesses were subject to any of the "contamination influences" being discussed here either.

Anyway, there's some interesting literature out there that, when I have the time, I intend to look into. Much of it will be unusable by us due to the fact we don't have those initial interviews, but that applies to the literature being discussed here as well.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Oh, just to be clear, in my above post where I have:

"For example, let's say it was found that the use of leading questions resulted in 80% of witnesses modifying their statements to conform with the apparent "expectation" of the investigators (where the "expectation" is a false detail of a particular nature), while a control group showed a baseline of something like 5% (so 5% of the control group also reported that false detail without "prompting"). That shows how leading questions contaminate a witness's memory."

I just made those numbers up to illustrate my point, they do not come from an actual study on "leading questions", etc. I should have made that explicitly clear in my original post. Sorry if it came across as if I was citing actual numbers.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Many of the studies on the reliability of eyewitness testimony focus on their accuracy with regards to identifying a suspect.

Your opening line, which you use as the basis for your post, is misleading.

There are a wealth of studies that to do not involve identifying a suspect.

Much of it will be unusable by us due to the fact we don't have those initial interviews.

And so is the closing line.

It appears to be a crude attempt to dispose of the findings of hundreds of studies, with no explanation of any substance.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I don't want to see any Victorian science or study, just to understand how you and all the science you keep presenting as hard evidence show that Albert is mistaken.

Another fallacious argument.

I have repeatedly stated that there is room to doubt Albert's recollection of the event. In the post to which you've replied, I stated that the extent of this doubt is open to debate. Nowhere have I claimed 'Albert is mistaken'. He may have been; he might not have been. The discussion is more around to what extent can Albert be doubted, given that nobody has the means to prove that Albert's recollection was accurate in its entirety or otherwise.

Do try to respond to posts put before you, rather than cynically manipulate the posts to which you are responding.

At any given moment the instant prior to something unexpected happening, every coherent human being who has ever lived has had "other things..." on their mind.
It's the default state for the human brain.
It's no more of a distraction than whistling a tune, or checking your pockets for keys. At the moment something you don't expect happens, even if it has happened before, you subconsciously - then consciously, even if only momentarily, take note of it. It's the change between the two states that causes you to observe and remember.

This is you theorising based on absolutely nothing other than the thoughts in your mind. It adds nothing.

caused him to suddenly invent a memory. Which it seems like is the case you are arguing.

Incorrect.

This is what hundreds of studies undertaken by qualified people have concluded. I am merely putting forward their articles and conclusions.

In effect, you're not disagreeing with me, you're attempting to claim the hundreds of studies undertaken by qualified people are invalid.

They are telling you that actually, witnesses do 'invent a memory'. Hundreds of studies have been undertaken to prove that point.

None of the links or quotes show any reason to doubt him and the best argument that has been put forward is that, "he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event. There is a case to suggest that the event would not have been fully encoded in Albert's mind and information he received after the event, filled the gaps."

They do, you're choosing to suggest otherwise.

The studies clearly show that one of the ways in which the misinformation effect occurs is because the event was not significant to the witness and so the event was never fully encoded into the witness' memory.

The studies tell us that from there, witnesses fill in the gaps as a result of the information they hear after the event, information from various sources, information gleaned from people or newspapers with no intention to deceive.

Albert's event was innocuous, he tells us he had other things on his mind.

The studies suggest that Albert is a candidate for the misinformation effect on this reason alone, but there are other reasons which I'll come to.

Without offering WHY or how that "case" is to be made.

I have just given you "how and why", as I did in the last post to which you replied. What are you talking about? What "how and why" are you expecting?

There was very little time between the event and his recollection, so time was not a factor, the way it is for witnesses who give their stories weeks and months after the event.
No one fed him misinformation to push him toward am initial false statement. (If there was, show it)
He gave his statement to the inquiry free from prejudicial lines of inquiry from the coroner/jury.
There is no traumatic event to cloud his judgement or over stimulate his memory. (He did not "witness a crime" and try to cram too many facets of the event into his head at once.)
He was not distracted by any external noise, activity or other stimuli at the time of the event.
He was familiar with the environment and would be very capable of determing the location and type of sounds that occured, (speach and an object hitting the fence)
He was not mentally incapacitated.
As far as we know he was not hearing impaired. (I'm sure it would have been a point made at the inquest if he had been)
If anything after going through all this process, I now consider him to be one of the most reliable witnesses we have.

You're demonstrating that you do not understand the 'misinformation effect', yet again.

None of those conditions need to be in place. At this point, you need to read the articles so that when you post, it is an informed post. You're putting forward arguments to suggest the 'misinformation effect' did not apply to Albert when in fact you have a sub-standard grasp of the 'misinformation effect'.

[JeffHamm]

Your opening line, which you use as the basis for your post, is misleading.

There are a wealth of studies that to do not involve identifying a suspect.

Indeed, there are a wealth of studies that do not involve identifying a suspect.

How does that make the claim that many have to do with identifying a suspect at all misleading?

Moreover, the bulk of my post talks about witness statements, with only a few references to suspect identification in particular (such as the example of confidence with regards to the Seaside home) but also I refer to other details, like victim identification (as per Long), and also relate those findings to details concerning non-identification statements (like Richardson's initial statement indicating his confidence there was no body when he visited). As such, your suggestion that "the basis" of my post is somehow focused solely on identification is erroneous.

And so is the closing line.

It appears to be a crude attempt to dispose of the findings of hundreds of studies, with no explanation of any substance.

Appearances can be deceptive.

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

Another fallacious argument.

I have repeatedly stated that there is room to doubt Albert's recollection of the event. In the post to which you've replied, I stated that the extent of this doubt is open to debate. Nowhere have I claimed 'Albert is mistaken'. He may have been; he might not have been. The discussion is more around to what extent can Albert be doubted, given that nobody has the means to prove that Albert's recollection was accurate in its entirety or otherwise.

Do try to respond to posts put before you, rather than cynically manipulate the posts to which you are responding.



This is you theorising based on absolutely nothing other than the thoughts in your mind. It adds nothing.



Incorrect.

This is what hundreds of studies undertaken by qualified people have concluded. I am merely putting forward their articles and conclusions.

In effect, you're not disagreeing with me, you're attempting to claim the hundreds of studies undertaken by qualified people are invalid.

They are telling you that actually, witnesses do 'invent a memory'. Hundreds of studies have been undertaken to prove that point.



They do, you're choosing to suggest otherwise.

The studies clearly show that one of the ways in which the misinformation effect occurs is because the event was not significant to the witness and so the event was never fully encoded into the witness' memory.

The studies tell us that from there, witnesses fill in the gaps as a result of the information they hear after the event, information from various sources, information gleaned from people or newspapers with no intention to deceive.

Albert's event was innocuous, he tells us he had other things on his mind.

The studies suggest that Albert is a candidate for the misinformation effect on this reason alone, but there are other reasons which I'll come to.



I have just given you "how and why", as I did in the last post to which you replied. What are you talking about? What "how and why" are you expecting?



You're demonstrating that you do not understand the 'misinformation effect', yet again.

None of those conditions need to be in place. At this point, you need to read the articles so that when you post, it is an informed post. You're putting forward arguments to suggest the 'misinformation effect' did not apply to Albert when in fact you have a sub-standard grasp of the 'misinformation effect'.

You earlier directed me to go back to the OP, and look at the reliability of Albert Caodsch as a witness.
I've done that.
You have cited reports and studies that you claim cast doubt on him and invited us to take a look and consider them as your evidence.
I've done that.
I've read the links, I've even watched the little videos.
You are not doing that. You seem to be trying to initiate a game of "My Source is better than your Source"
Rather than proposing, establishing, and defending an actual position and theory, and I'm still not clear on what that even IS, you seem intent on rubishing peoples' understanding of the links you post and defending the work done by the studies, as if I am attacking them.

I gave you a list of reasons I consider Cadosch reliable. You have simply ignored them and are defending the Misinformation Effect. So are we talking about your favourite pet psychology, or the reliability of Albert Cadosch? If you are going to swing between one and the other at your discretion, I'm out. I'm happy to stick to one topic and debate it. But you still haven't used any of the information to support a case for Cadosch as unreliable.

YOU picked HIM. so let's go.

If you want to have a debate about whether the "Misinformation Effect" is valild, great. Say so.
It IS.
Where it can be shown to have had an impact on a witness. Shown through establishing how some of the numerous factors your sources cite apply to the particular witness.
Nothing you have said, or rather... linked has come even close to applying to Cadosch.
That's me done on The Misinformation Effect, I'm afraid.
Let's get back to that OP and discuss what you wanted.

When you come to some specific arguments that explain the reasons you believe that any of those reports, studies and psychological events have an impact on HIM, then we can get back to discussing what you said you wanted to.
If that OP was just an excuse to push a psyhcologiocal study on people in order to dismiss incovenient witnesses on a whim, then I'm sure Stow, Holmgren and a few others would be happy to jump on board. But just say so, and we can all move on.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Moreover, the bulk of my post talks about witness statements, with only a few references to suspect identification.

Not at all.

This is outright chasing your own tail.

You typed eleven paragraphs. In those eleven paragraphs, you mentioned identifying a suspect or an individual five times. On the other hand, you mentioned witness recollection of an event that did not involve a suspect or a victim only once.

Read it yourself, your own post, 156.

Appearances can be deceptive.

In the event you go along with the 'perception is reality' school of thought, then I suppose you could think that.

Personally, I've never believed that, and I'd say style means nothing and substance means everything.

'We do not have the actual interviews' doesn't mean anything, and nor does 'appearances can be deceptive'.

By applying those sentiments, you would have nothing to discuss because for the large part we do not have the original anything, and of course you could apply 'appearances can be deceptive' to pretty much anything.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I gave you a list of reasons I consider Cadosch reliable. You have simply ignored them and are defending the Misinformation Effect.

You did give reasons.

I didn't ignore them.

I explained why the 'misinformation effect' goes far beyond your understanding of that concept.

You began by claiming it was: 'being deliberately misled by figures of authority'. I explained to you that this demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the subject. Where's the problem? That's a fair exchange: your words and then the reality pointed out to you.

So are we talking about your favourite pet psychology

Is there such a thing as a 'pet psychology'?

This sounds very much like you're struggling to put a decent argument together and so you're falling back on nonsense.

Let's get back to that OP and discuss what you wanted. Nothing you have said, or rather... linked has come even close to applying to Cadosch.

Fine. This is what I posted.

There are various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect, such as: leading questions and even very subtle changes in the words that make up the questions, the eye-witness didn't take much notice of what was going on around him/her and so the event was never fully encoded into the memory and information gleaned after the event filled the gaps, information gleaned after an event is more recent in the memory and so it's easier to retrieve, discussing the event with other people after the event, reading newspapers, information heard at an inquest. 'Just a few of many factors that can effect the process of encoding, storing and recollecting an event.

This is very relevant to Albert in that by his own admission, he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event. There is a case to suggest that the event would not have been fully encoded in Albert's mind and information he received after the event, filled the gaps. Albert, of course, was subject to various forms of information from various sources, after the event.

Is there anything in the above that is demonstrably false?

[rjpalmer]

That's what 'appeal to authority fallacy' means: appealing to someone whose opinion is no more qualified than yours or mine.

I'm sorry, but no; it has nothing to do with the qualifications of the authority.

An 'appeal to authority' is when an argument is made on the basis of "X said so" rather than on the merits of logic and evidence. The 'authority' could be entirely qualified.

For instance, we might be arguing a point of theoretical physics. Saying "well, Einstein believed it!" is an appeal to authority. In a serious debate or investigation, it's not good enough that Einstein said it. We also need to examine and analyze Einstein's reasons for having believed it.

It's an acknowledgement that authorities can be wrong, and we need to adhere to evidence and logic.

[GBinOz]

This is what I posted.

There are various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect, such as: leading questions and even very subtle changes in the words that make up the questions, the eye-witness didn't take much notice of what was going on around him/her and so the event was never fully encoded into the memory and information gleaned after the event filled the gaps, information gleaned after an event is more recent in the memory and so it's easier to retrieve, discussing the event with other people after the event, reading newspapers, information heard at an inquest. 'Just a few of many factors that can effect the process of encoding, storing and recollecting an event.

This is very relevant to Albert in that by his own admission, he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event. There is a case to suggest that the event would not have been fully encoded in Albert's mind and information he received after the event, filled the gaps. Albert, of course, was subject to various forms of information from various sources, after the event.

Is there anything in the above that is demonstrably false?

Excellent, and relevant, summary FM.

Cheers, George