The Unreliability of Eyewitnesses : Four Change Stories in Martin Case
Read Time:2 Minute, 44 Second
According to the Orlando Sentinel, four key witnesses have changed their stories about what they saw the night George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla. Tuesday. The fact is eyewitness evidence is unreliable and often changes as often as the weather. People agonize for months over what they saw or thought they saw, and as a result begin to question themselves, and when they do the result is what you see here. This is called interpretation. The state clearly has their work cut out for them, because the defense is guaranteed to vigorously cross examine those witnesses who changed their minds to favor the state.
The process of interpretation occurs at the very formation of memory—thus introducing distortion from the beginning. Furthermore, witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event. This is why a fish story, which grows with each retelling, can eventually lead the teller to believe it.
The report comes after state prosecutors released about half the evidence they have in their second-degree murder case against Zimmerman.
The witnesses, known publicly only by numbers, first talked to Sanford police and later to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and state prosecutors.
Among the changes, according to the Sentinel:
Witness 2: A young woman from the Retreat at Twin Lakes community, where Martin, 17, was shot Feb. 26, first told investigators she saw two men running and a fist fight. She later said she only saw one person running and couldn’t distinguish much because she had removed her contact lenses.
Witness 12: A young mother in the townhome community first said she saw two men on the ground but wasn’t sure who was on top; she later said Zimmerman was on top because she recognized his size based on news reports.
Witness 13: A male neighbor first said Zimmerman, with a bloodied head, told him he had to shoot Martin because “he was beating up on me,” and to please call Zimmerman’s wife. He later went into detail and described Zimmerman’s tone right after the shooting as casual, like the shooting was “nothing.”
Witness 6: A male neighbor, whose story change was initially reported Friday, first told police Martin was on top of Zimmerman and throwing down punches mixed martial arts style. He also first said Zimmerman was calling for help. The man later said he wasn’t sure who was yelling for help, and that Martin may have merely pinned Zimmerman to the ground. He was still sure, however, that Martin was on top.
What do you think about the latest changes to the state’s case against George Zimmerman? Are they enough to change your mind about Zimmerman, or Martin?
Thanks to MSNBC for parts of this story.
Follow MadMike’sAmerica on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to visit our HOME PAGE.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
There are so many things that can and do go wrong with eyewitness identification that it would seem that the courts would restrict its use. When you look at the tests which have been run nationwide by the guru’s in the field like Elizabeth Loftus it is amazing. One issue is dependent upon view of the witness and, as Mike pointed out, perception. Were they able to see what they said they saw and was what they said they saw real or interpreted. Another, is the adrenaline effect as noted by Dr. James White where sounds are louder, lights brighter, assailants larger and more threatening. Another is spatial focus. Spatial focus was what all was the witness trying to take in at the time the incident occurred. Lighting is another issue. And, last but not least, post event contamination, which often has more to to with incorrect witness identification than anything other than inter racial identification. After an event has occurred the witness may hear other pieces of information from other witness, the news media, the police, neighbors, that get intertwined with the original information and comes out as fact. The longer the time period between the time of event and the time of report the more distorted the testimony will be. However, in most states the courts will not allow experts testify about these limitations.
We went through training at a bank where I worked, and one of the topics was eyewitness testimony. We all watched a video of a robbery, and at the end, were asked to write down a description of the robber. Understand, it was less than 5 minutes from the end of the video to the written description. Other than his skin color and the fact that he was male, not ONE detail matched any of the others. Some thought he had a mustache, some thought he was tall, short, wearing khakis, jeans, boots, sneakers. It was a disaster. We laughed at the time, but after reading this article, it’s not funny at all.
When I taught at the academies we had similar exercises, often real life scenarios, and out of a class of 25 recruits perhaps 10% got the description right with the others being all over the map. From time to time black guys were described as white guys and vice versa. Totally unreliable testimony but in some cases that’s about all you have and you have to roll with it.