More On Eyewitnesses

The Santa Rosa Press- Democrat ran an op-ed today about problems with eyewitness identifications. It focuses mostly on police line- ups, courtroom identification and possible reforms. That's fine, but I think they miss the point I've brought up before about eyewitnesses often seeing just what they've conditioned themselves to see. I'm not sure if there's any way to reform that.

The Fallability of Eyewitnesses

If this account in the Sacramento Bee is factual, it sure brings out how fallible eyewitness testimony can be.

Five prison guards were fired after an investigation over the beating of a handcuffed inmate. Three witnesses testified they saw the prisoner on the ground being kicked and beaten. The problem is physical evidence- including a statement from the prisoner himself- doesn't corroborate the witness testimony.

What little physical injury there was to the inmate isn't consistent with a brutal beating. The inmate himself seems to have said he wasn't beaten. The guards have been re- hired. So why did the witnesses insist they saw a brutal beating?

I'm not sure what was going on in their minds but I might have wrote here before that two people can watch the same incident and come to different conclusions. They can literally see different things happening. This has to be one of the more extreme examples of that.

It's The Driver's Fault?

I'm wondering if I should add automobile drivers to my list of persecuted people. Yes, I know drivers are often at fault in vehicle vs. pedestrian accidents, but this one doesn't seem to be and it seemed right off the bat a number of people assume she was the wrongdoer.

It first struck me, when reading accounts of the kid run over by the high school in Mckinleyville, that everyone seemed to think it was her fault, except for the newspaper accounts. I was wondering why the Highway Patrol had her take a sobriety test right after the accident? After all, no mention that she'd been drinking or smelled of alcoholic beverages.

Do they give sobriety tests to all drivers after a vehicle vs. pedestrian accident? I was under the impression they only did that if they had reason to believe the driver might be under the influence.

And for some reason, a number of people seemed unable to accept that the kid would actually be doing something so stupid as laying in the street. Was I the only one that finds such behavior believable?

The latest little gem is the supposed eyewitness who saw the accident happen yet seems to have all the known facts wrong. I can't help but wonder if she simply saw what she wanted to see?

So much for eyewitnesses, yet we'll still probably see the kid's parents trying to sue the driver despite overwhelming evidence- at this point, anyway- that the fault for the accident lies mostly with the kid.

Eyewitnesses

The Lost Coast Outpost has some statements from witnesses in the shooting by police of Tommy McClain. One says she didn't see McClain in possession of a handgun. Another won't say exactly what was seen but suggests the police were justified in the shooting. Perhaps another one of those cases where people can watch the same thing happen but come to opposite conclusions?

Some of you that have followed this blog might remember this Sacramento Bee story I linked to last year about a case in High Desert Prison in Susanville, CA. At least two correctional officers were fired after allegations they were involved in severely beating a mentally ill inmate. 

Three female visitors testified along the lines of it being along the likes of what happened to Rodney King of L.A. Riots fame. Problem was, nobody else present saw the same thing, including the supposed victim. A judge restored the officers' jobs.

Then there's the case I read about in the Santa Rosa Press- Democrat earlier this year. A guy was arrested and spent seven months in jail for sexual acts with a young (10 or 11 years?) girl who was staying at his home. The victim herself testified it was he that did it. His lawyer finally managed to get a DNA test done. The DNA didn't match.

Detectives went back to the case and interviewed the guy's roommate who finally fessed up and admitted to having done it. This after the girl positively identified someone else.

It's rather scary when you think of how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be, and how much we often rely on it.