
The complicated confidence of eyewitness memory - pavornyoh
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/i-think-this-is-the-guy-the-complicated-confidence-of-eyewitness-memory/
======
jimrandomh
This article discusses research which shows that eyewitness' confidence in an
identification when they first make it is reasonably predictive of whether the
identified suspect is guilty, but confidence later at trial is not.

Given how structured the pick-person-from-lineup ritual is, it would be
trivially easy to record a witness' reactions and level of initial confidence.
If the US criminal justice system cared at all about truth, it would be doing
this and would have been doing it decades ago.

But they don't care. This is one more facet of an extensive pattern of
corruption, including dropping the number of trials-per-arrest to near zero
and faking an entire field of forensic science
([http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/fbi_s_flawed_forensics_expert_testimony_hair_analysis_bite_marks_fingerprints.html)).

------
rrauenza
I had this happen firsthand - witnessed two cars racing on the street, one hit
a light pole, the other ran off.

I even knew at the time that eye witness testimony could be unreliable. I
tried to keep in mind the description of the other car as I waited for the
officer - and accidentally overheard another witness describe the car. I
immediately could no longer discern whether the color in my mind was the real
color or a newly formed memory.

It was super frustrating ... And frightening.

~~~
jamestnz
You've reminded me of a quote from the great Christopher Nolan film, Memento:

 _Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the color of a car. And
memories can be distorted. They 're just an interpretation, they're not a
record, and they're irrelevant if you have the facts._

------
pseingatl
Unless this information gets before the judge and/or jury; it is useless. A
defense attorney bringing up any one of the studies mentioned here would be
sanctioned by the judge. Even if the studies show that 75% of the time,
eyewitness identification is wrong; you might be dealing with the 25% of the
time when the identification is correct. That is for the trier of fact. It is
unfortunate--no, tragic--because eyewitness misidentification is commonplace.

~~~
savanaly
Did you get the 75% number from the article? Because what the article in fact
said was that 72% of cases _that are subsequently overturned by DNA evidence_
involve mistaken eyewitness identification, which is very different than 75%
of all eyewitness identifications.

~~~
larrik
I interpreted the 75% as a hypothetical.

------
jlgaddis
Reminds me of something I heard once. I don't remember who said it and I'm
paraphrasing but...

> _" In the scientific community, eyewitness testimony is the least credible
> evidence there is; in the legal community, it is the most credible."_

~~~
teraflop
Pretty sure that was Neil deGrasse Tyson, from a talk about UFOs and other
paranormal phenomena.

~~~
jlgaddis
I've watched a number of his talks on those subjects so you're probably right.

