Read the Guide. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf
After reading it, discuss some aspect of it that struck you as particularly interesting, insightful, or surprising.
Next, what elements of psychology do you see as underpinnings of the various guidelines? Choose two and specifically detail how the science of psychology is the basis of the particular rule.
The area of the Eyewitness Evidence handbook that I found the most interesting and insightful was to do with the procedure for composing lineups. I had no idea that when they set up the lineup it only contained one person that is a suspect and the rest of the photos or people are fillers. This procedure makes complete logical sense, so I must have previously been mistaken as to how this works, probably from television or films. The idea that all photos or people should be shown, even if identification has occurred is interesting to me. I understand the importance in it, as there may be someone else in the lineup that closely resembles the chosen individual, and if so, this may prevent a hasty choice. I find it an easy task to complete the lineup, so am confused as to why any jurisdiction would have rules that override this practice that takes extra precaution in ensuring that correct identification is made.
The interview process can have a significant impact on solving a case. The interview can provide information in a form of evidence. Memory is part of our cognitive processes, which is something that psychology is strongly interested in. In section III: C: 6, the interviewing personnel “ask[s] the witness to mentally recreate the circumstances of the event”. This part of the procedure has a strong psychology influence. In an article by R. Edward Geiselman et al., titled “Enhancement of Eyewitness Memory with the Cognitive Interview”, research showed that by recreating the event mentally, in an environmental and personal context can aid in retrieving more information (Geiselman R.E., Fisher, R.P., MacKinnon, D.P., and Holland, H.L. 1986). Research also showed all details, even the ones that seem minute, should be shared; which directly related to Section III: C: 2; encourage the witness to report all details, even if they seem trivial. The most interesting thing about this article’s research is that it showed that telling of the event in a forward sequence is good but may cause the interviewee to tell the story how they think it must have happened (Geiselman, R.E. et al, 1986). If they are encouraged to tell the story a second time in a backwards sequence can help them examine their memory, and they may recall something significant in their attempt to work through it backwards (Geiselman, R.E. et al. 1986).
Geiselman R.E., Fisher, R.P., MacKinnon, D.P., and Holland, H.L. (1986). Enhancement of Eyewitness Memory with the Cognitive Interview. The American Journal of Psychology, 99, 385-401.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1422492
In the guidebooks section V: B: 4, it states, “instruct the witness that the person who committed the crime may or may not be in the set of photographs (also for live lineups) being presented”. In psychological studies it is shown that if the instructing officer implies that the witness has to choose someone or that a suspect is present in the lineup, the witness will not be entirely comfortable with their choice, but will feel inclined to choose anyway (Steblay, Nancy M. 1997). This could have major implications to the case, as they choose someone even though they are not sure. The psychological research in this area has helped create these guidelines to ensure the witness is comfortable and not being influenced by others social pressure.
Steblay, Nancy, M. (1997). Social Influence in Eyewitness Recall: A Meta-Analytic Review of Lineup Instruction Effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1394013
I found Eyewitness Evidence A Guide for Law Enforcement to be quite informative. I found that the field identification process was a little more complex than I would have thought. Through TV. and movie portrayals it always was shown to have someone in a car or walk bye a jail cell to identify someone. Well that is obviously not true, and there is a lot more involved, especially from a psychological stand point. “The use of a showup can provide investigative information at an early stage, but the inherent suggestiveness of a showup requires careful use of procedural safeguards.” Moreover, the showup needs to be planned very well and be left open, that the suspect may not be there.
The composition of a lineup can be very biased one way or another. The best line ups will have people of the same race (or close to), same sex, and little variation of heights, weights, hair length and color, etc.., but the line up should not be so close that the witness has to tough of a time trying to identify the suspect or anyone else for that matter. The problem occurs (and this was not brought out in the guide) is that of cross racial identification. “Known as the "own-race" effect or "own-race" bias, eyewitnesses experience the "cross-racial impairment" when attempting to identify individuals of another race. The "own-race effect" is "strongest when white witnesses attempt to recognize black subjects,"“ People are fairly homogenous, white people tend to feel more comfortable with white people, and black people tend to feel more comfortable around black people. It all comes from shared customs, environment, working together and social economic environment. So this being said, it makes sense why we have a difficult time cross identifying someone from a different race, we as people tend to be a product of our environment, although, we as a nation (very slowly still) are becoming more integrated in our culture and hopefully one day we will not have such a problem with cross identification.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/justice03.htm
Maintaining contact with a witness is an essential part to any investigation. “The witness may remember and provide additional information after the interview has concluded.” The only problem I contend with is that our cognitive memory changes over time. It is extremely important for the investigator to take good notes, and don’t lead the witness to conclusions. A webpage I found that summarizes the Eyewitness Guide gave this synopsis “…., compared the accuracy of witness identifications after 3 days (short retention period) and 5 months (long retention period). The study found no false identifications after 3 days but after 5 months, 35% of identifications were false.” If an eyewitness surprisingly just remembers something, more than likely it will not be the truth, but that of something they construed in their mind.
http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/eyewitness-memory.html
A witness can be a key part of any investigation and trial, but it is so easy to contaminate the memory by asking leading questions or allowing the media or even other witnesses interfere. One thing that struck out at me while reading about police line-ups was the fact that investigators are encouraged to create/cover up identifying tattoos and scars. I may be wrong, but if the witness clearly remembers a man with a tattoo a naked girl on his right forearm, shouldn't the line-up consist of men with similar tattoos (the same, in the case of the suspect/perpetrator)? I feel like that just makes it harder on the witness, who could be trying to identify the suspect in the line-up by the tattoo or scar. It could even make them question their memory of the perpetrator unless they are informed not to look for such identifying features.
Memory is never definite. I remember things that never happened or aren't true every day! For a witness, memory is everything, so it must be preserved at all costs. Dispatchers and preliminary officers need to ensure that they never ask leading questions ("Was his hair blonde?") and try to keep them open ended so that the witness can fill the information in only with his/her memory. In addition, witnesses should be kept separate so they can't contaminate each other's memories with debate and guessing.
Synced up with memory is suggestion. The power of suggestion is so incredible, that it can make a little boy believe that he got his finger trapped in a mousetrap when the event never occurred (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/suggestibility.html)! When organizing a mug book for a witness to examine, the person preparing it should organize the photos according to format (i.e. black and white, color, etc.) to ensure that one doesn't stand out more than the others. The same goes for a line-up (of people or photos): fillers should share characteristics that stood out to the witness at the time of the crime. With the proper precautions, a witness' memory can remain relatively intact and the investigation can go on with one less hitch.
Eyewitness memories have been proven to be not correct all the time. Errors in memory can occur and distort the memory.
Research about memory in psychological laboratories has shown several points that should be considered in order to collect trustworthy eyewitness evidence.
These findings were gathered together and used for a overall guideline regarding eyewitness evidence collection for the law enforcement.
The following rules are discussed: Initial Report of the Crime, Mug Books and Composites, Procedures for Interviewing the Witness, Field Identification Procedure, Composing Lineups and Procedures for Eyewitness Identification of Suspects.
What first came to my mind, was the similarity of an assessment situation. The guidelines postulate a standardized procedure for the questioning. This is also found in any psychological research or assessment situation. Especially, when reading about the 9-1-1 call, I had to make connections between the emergency call and the psychotherapeutical first interview or the clinical interview for an assessment, where the call taker can be seen as the therapist or the clinician.
While reading about the mug book and the lineups it was not very hard to link it with psychology. Section II, A, number 6 states “ Ensure that only one photo of each individual is in the mug book.” I had to think about the learning effect that can occur during research or repeated assessments.
The composite images reminded me of something that I have heard in a different class on that day, study-test procedures. During these procedures the participant is given a series of items, only half of them were presented originally during a learning period. The participant has to classify each item as 'new' or 'old'. If you think of the development and use of composite images (Section II, B) or the lineup, you can assemble the perpetrator/suspect as the old, learned item, which the witness has seen before and “learned” during the crime, and the fillers as the new, unknown items in the study-test procedure.
After reading the Eyewitness Evidence booklet, I was also thinking about memory researches and interference of old and new memories. The validity of an eyewitness testimony can decrease if he or she talks to other people about what he or she had seen. Personally, I think this is the most interesting part thinking about the eyewitness questionings. How memory can be inaccurate and past events can be mixed up with new experiences without even noticing about it.
To begin with, I didn't realize there were so many different types of line ups when it came to a witnesses identifying a potential suspect. I always just imagined it was what you saw on tv, 5 or 6 guys standing next to each other and a witness choosing one (which come to find out isn't how it's supposed to be done anyway). Identifying a suspect is incredibly psychological, because it has so much to do with the memory of the witness that it can be easily swayed. So the procedures they have for the line ups, i.e. showing one at a time, finding other pictures of people that don't stand out to the potential suspect, not telling them information about the suspect etc, makes a lot of sense. I really didn't know so much went into the entire process.
The interviewing process has a large psychological aspect to it as well, and the process makes a lot of sense to me. Since a witnesses memory can be fragile, it's understandable not to have the other witnesses converse with each other. If they start talking, accurate accounts can become more blurred to begin with. Also, making sure you ask extremely open ended questions would be important as well. They increase the accuracy of a statement when the witness is in a state of being easily swayed otherwise. It's very important for the police to keep in contact with the witness as well, to see if there's any new information, or drastic changes in the testimony of a given witness.
Overall, I don't think I really realized how fragile this entire process could be, and just how important it is to make sure the procedure is done right the first time. Inaccurate accounts could put some innocent people in jail if one isn't careful after all.
The things that stuck out the most to me were how specific the expectations are to every type of identification. The rules and expectations are very specific and clear to understand which takes away from the ambiguity from one’s own interpretation. Even the idea of adding or concealing tattoos to make identification more positive identification, shouldn’t be too surprising but it did stick out that this is a recommended practice.
One of the rules I think are most related to psychology are their expectations on line ups. This is because they state that they must not unduly stick out which may give a person the idea that this is who did it. I think the most important part is to ensure that the people in the line-ups are similar yet not so similar that people close to them would have a hard time identifying them. This is just unfair for everyone, victim and the person they may identify. Or even the ideals that if the description of the suspect is different than the picture than they should use photos of people with similar characteristics “that count”.
The other I believe is the show up identification. I believe the suggestive of just the policing suggesting you look at particular person right after an incident may imply that this person has something to do with the crime that just happened. I believe this is why psychology specifically plays a rule in this rule. The suggestion that occurs just from the urgency or the want for you to look at a line up would be enough to influence any person. This is the reasoning why the rules should be closely followed to eliminate any bias that may be present.
I found that the most interesting part of the Eyewitness Handbook as Section V. Procedures for Eyewitness Identification of Suspects. I found it very interesting to see what investigators are required to do when it comes to putting together lineups. When putting together lineups, investigators have to follow many guidelines to make sure that the suspect does not stand out. The investigators when using a photo lineup have to include a minimum of five fillers per identification procedure and when using a live lineup have to include a minimum of four fillers per identification procedure. I thought this was interesting that there needs to be at least a certain number of fillers. The fillers also need to “generally fit the witness’ description of the perpetrator”. I think this is smart because if all the people in the lineup looked different, the one that looks most like the suspect would be easy for the eyewitness to point out. By having them all look similar, it is less likely that the eyewitness will pick the wrong person, and they will have to be more sure of the suspect.
When it comes to police lineups, there can be biased when it comes to the police instructions. Iowa State University experimental social psychologist Gary Wells, PhD, a member of a 1999 U.S. Department of Justice panel that published the first-ever national guidelines on gathering eyewitness testimony, says Loftus's model suggests that crime investigators need to think about eyewitness evidence in the same way that they think about trace evidence. "Like trace evidence, eyewitness evidence can be contaminated, lost, destroyed or otherwise made to produce results that can lead to an incorrect reconstruction of the crime," he says. Investigators who employ a scientific model to collect, analyze and interpret eyewitness evidence could avoid mistakes.
In fact, Wells says that other evidence techniques, such as police lineups, are similar to scientific experiments. In lineups, the police already have a hypothesis, they provide instructions, collect responses and interpret the results. As such, the same factors that can bias the results of an experiment can bias an eyewitness's performance in picking suspects out of a lineup.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx
Memory also plays a huge factor in eyewitness testimony. When witnessing an incident, information about the event is entered into memory, however, research has shown that the accuracy of this initial information acquisition can be influenced by a number of factors.
Take the duration of the event being witnessed for instance. In a very simple experiment conducted by Clifford and Richards (1977), an individual is instructed to approach a number of police officers. They are told to engage in conversation for either 15 or 30 seconds. Thirty seconds after the conversation ends, the experimenter would ask the officer to recall details about the person they’ve just been speaking to using a 10-item checklist. The checklist contains items relating to the persons appearance such as hair color, facial hair etc. The results of the study showed that in the longer 30 second condition, police were significantly more accurate in their recall.
Unsurprisingly, research has consistently found that the longer the gap between witnessing an incident and recalling the incident, the less accurate the recollection of that incident becomes. There have been numerous experiments, usually related to a staged event, that support this contention. Malpass and Devine (1981), for instance, compared the accuracy of witness identifications after 3 days (short retention period) and 5 months (long retention period). The study found no false identifications after 3 days but after 5 months, 35% of identifications were false.
The final stage in the eyewitness memory process relates to the ability of the witness to access and retrieve information from memory. In a legal context, the retrieval of information is usually elicited through a process of questioning and it is for this reason that a great deal of research has investigated the impact of types of questioning on eyewitness memory. The most substantial body of research has concerned leading questions, which has consistently shown that even very subtle changes in the wording of a question can influence subsequent testimony.
http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/eyewitness-memory.html
I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture by Dr. Otto Maclin last semester on Eyewitness testimonies and the criminal system. Both the lecture and the packet were very informative. It is important to pay attention to the details of how to deal with an eyewitness. If one procedure is overlooked, done wrong, or unproperly documented, it can negatively effect the whole witness account and ultimately be determental to the investigation. Although I was already privy to the information, it is still interesting that the suspect may not be present when the witness is viewing complied mug shots or live and photo lineups. It puts that much more pressure on the eyewitness to insure that there recollection of the events of the crime and the perpetrator are accurate. Also, documentation is critical in recording eyewitness accounts. If the documentation is inaccurate or conflicting with other statements the guilty could walk free or the innocent could suffer in prison. It is also important to review and analyze the writing documentation to insure accuracy.
Many aspects of the Eyewitness Guide deal heavily with different aspects of the science of psychology. Avoiding lead questions inorder to avoid influencing the witnesses recollection of the events is one of those psychological aspects. If the investigator asks the witness, "Was the car red?" the witness will automatically picture the suspect speeding away in a red car, even if the car was orange. The power of suggestion is very persuasive in some situtaion. Lead questions can cause witnesses to describe events inaccurately. When recording witness testimony it is crutial to avoid lead questions.
Investigators are required to have the witness mentally recreate the circumstances of the events, inorder to dig into the psychological state of the witness. What were their feelings at the time, exploring the witnesses emotional state of mind during and after the crime, examining how there potential state of mind could effect their account of the events to determine accuracy. All these questions can be answered to better predict the accuracy of the witness statements. This examination will allow the the investigators to determine how reliable the witness really is and how much weight their testimony holds. If the witness was a basketcase during the time of the crime it is expected that their testimony would be less reliable than a witness who remained calm and collected under the pressure of the events.
I found that the most interesting part of the Eyewitness Handbook as Section V. Procedures for Eyewitness Identification of Suspects. I found it very interesting to see what investigators are required to do when it comes to putting together lineups. When putting together lineups, investigators have to follow many guidelines to make sure that the suspect does not stand out. The investigators when using a photo lineup have to include a minimum of five fillers per identification procedure and when using a live lineup have to include a minimum of four fillers per identification procedure. I thought this was interesting that there needs to be at least a certain number of fillers. The fillers also need to “generally fit the witness’ description of the perpetrator”. I think this is smart because if all the people in the lineup looked different, the one that looks most like the suspect would be easy for the eyewitness to point out. By having them all look similar, it is less likely that the eyewitness will pick the wrong person, and they will have to be more sure of the suspect.
When it comes to police lineups, there can be biased when it comes to the police instructions. Iowa State University experimental social psychologist Gary Wells, PhD, a member of a 1999 U.S. Department of Justice panel that published the first-ever national guidelines on gathering eyewitness testimony, says Loftus's model suggests that crime investigators need to think about eyewitness evidence in the same way that they think about trace evidence. "Like trace evidence, eyewitness evidence can be contaminated, lost, destroyed or otherwise made to produce results that can lead to an incorrect reconstruction of the crime," he says. Investigators who employ a scientific model to collect, analyze and interpret eyewitness evidence could avoid mistakes.
In fact, Wells says that other evidence techniques, such as police lineups, are similar to scientific experiments. In lineups, the police already have a hypothesis, they provide instructions, collect responses and interpret the results. As such, the same factors that can bias the results of an experiment can bias an eyewitness's performance in picking suspects out of a lineup.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx
Memory also plays a huge factor in eyewitness testimony. When witnessing an incident, information about the event is entered into memory, however, research has shown that the accuracy of this initial information acquisition can be influenced by a number of factors.
Take the duration of the event being witnessed for instance. In a very simple experiment conducted by Clifford and Richards (1977), an individual is instructed to approach a number of police officers. They are told to engage in conversation for either 15 or 30 seconds. Thirty seconds after the conversation ends, the experimenter would ask the officer to recall details about the person they’ve just been speaking to using a 10-item checklist. The checklist contains items relating to the persons appearance such as hair color, facial hair etc. The results of the study showed that in the longer 30 second condition, police were significantly more accurate in their recall.
Unsurprisingly, research has consistently found that the longer the gap between witnessing an incident and recalling the incident, the less accurate the recollection of that incident becomes. There have been numerous experiments, usually related to a staged event, that support this contention. Malpass and Devine (1981), for instance, compared the accuracy of witness identifications after 3 days (short retention period) and 5 months (long retention period). The study found no false identifications after 3 days but after 5 months, 35% of identifications were false.
The final stage in the eyewitness memory process relates to the ability of the witness to access and retrieve information from memory. In a legal context, the retrieval of information is usually elicited through a process of questioning and it is for this reason that a great deal of research has investigated the impact of types of questioning on eyewitness memory. The most substantial body of research has concerned leading questions, which has consistently shown that even very subtle changes in the wording of a question can influence subsequent testimony.
http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/eyewitness-memory.html
One thing that struck me as surprising is that when preparing mug books or mug shots how theyb may be used in some cases that a suspect has not been determined and other other reliable sources have been used. how the investigator has to compose the mug book or photos to were the photos are not suggestive, like making sure no picture stands out in any diffrent way then any other and also by making sure everyone in the line up shown are perps of the same crime, and only one picture per person in the line up, to ensure fairness(http://www.psychologicalscience.com).
Another thing is that the person investigating the crime should select an enviornment that minimizes distractions that would alter any mental note an eyewitness would have.
The instructions for the witness, the actual way about going about it there is nowonder that eyewitnesses are so messed up because the way the detective or interviewee interviews the eyewitness they could easily mislead them or lead them to believe that its someone that its actually not. like the leading question of like"did the person you saw have red on, and was heavy set ,and wore a beard, instead of what was whom you saw height, the color of their clothes, facial features or hair.
I thought that a part of the handbook that was interesting was the mug book. I thought it was interesting how they filled this book with pictures associated with crimes and only had a few suspects in the book and just other pictures of random people. It makes sense that they would be able to pick a person out. But it also provides the issue of not being able to identify anyone or wrongly accusing someone. The process of an eyewitness identification is a sensitive process.
Psychology plays a big part in this part of the investigation. When there is an eye witness to a crime and it happens to be a violent crime, there is a chance that witness may be in shock, scared, nervous etc. The traumatizing event could, very well, affect their memory. In the middle of a crime there may not be time to get a look at the person and they may think they saw something that they did not.
I think the interview has to have a psychological base. The interview has to be careful to ask the right questions in the right way. The hand book points that out a couple of times. It says don't ask suggestive or leading questions. If the interviewer slips up he/she could have a difference in facts. It is important to understand how the mind thinks so that the right questions are asked so an accurate answer is recieved.
After reading the Eyewitness Evidence handbook there were things that surprised me and that I found interesting. One thing that I found very surprising was the way that law enforcement used eye witnesses for looking at the images and lineups in order for the eye witnesses to provide a more accurate identification or no identification. I did not know that they sometimes used composite images and mug books (which are collections of photos of previously arrested people who have not yet been determined) to help get an investigation lead. I think that is very interesting because not only is it good for when other reliable sources have been exhausted but it is also an interesting and useful technique to use just so you can get the reliability of the eye witnesses.
Psychology plays a big part in an investigation. For example, if there are eye witnesses that were at a crime scene, then they of course have to use their memory when they are being interviewed so that they can tell whatever they saw and how they saw it. Memory is a part of psychology because you can only remember things for a certain amount of time and there are different kinds of memory. Some people may have been a witness to a crime scene and can remember everything that they saw five minutes after being interviewed but if they were to come in some days or weeks later, they may not be able to remember everything. Sometimes eye witnesses could even give out inaccurate information that could shift the case into somewhere completely different.
Reading the "Eye Witness Guide" was a very informative and interesting glimpse into the psychological perspective on eye witnesses and eye witness testimony.
The section that I found most interesting was the paragraphs that discussed the "Procedures for Interviewing the Witness by the Followup Investigator". I found the discussion of appropriate witness handling procedure particularly interesting. Although there is a specific provision that prohibits the officer from revealing any aspect of the case to the witness, the rest of the procedures in this section are designed to create a trusting and connected relationship with the witness. If an officer were to comply with the directions in this section, he/she would have created a unique opportunity for law enforcement officials to influence the outcome of the witness interview . By creating this type of relationship with someone who is likely scared, traumatized, etc. the police officer would very easily be able to influence the memories of the witness. Presenting themselves as a figure of safety and security after such an event would make even accidental influence a very real possibility. I find it interesting that, even with our ever increasing knowledge into the field of psychology, our society permits the use of behaviors and actions that could clearly have a psychological impact on the criminal justice system.
Two of the specific guidelines that I ntocied in this text that have a direct connection with psychological perspectives were:
1. "Ask open-ended questions" and "avoid leading questions". These procedures have been inserted in this text because of the knowledge that we now posses regarding the effects of different types of questions and how they can impact the answers we receive. Subtle changes in wording, inflection, etc. can influence a witness, even subconsciously, to provide an answer that they did not come up with themselves or testify to something that they did not actually see.
2. "Develop rapport with the witness". This guideline can best be attributed with the psychological impact that a police officer can have on a person. Someone who has recently been victimized or has witnessed something traumatic will quickly attach themselves to a figure that they perceive as safe and secure. Once this relationship has been established, the officer can greatly influence the subject. Even if the officer does not intend to skew what the witness is saying, studies show that issues can arise because the witness attempts to please the authority figure by answering what they think the law enforcement officer wants to hear
One thing that I found particularly interesting while reading this guide was the composition of the mug books. Everything with the mug book has to be uniform even the color of the background of the photo to make sure that nothing is suggested by these photo line ups. From the way this sounds people can be swayed to identify a particular person just by the background of a picture, that makes it seem like the memory isn’t a very strong tool. The other thing that I found to be really interesting is how easily a witness can be swayed from what they think is true or something they remember as being true but it never actually happened at all. I think all of us remember things that happened to us but when we tell people the story may come out a little different then we actually remember. With witnesses I feel like it would be so easy for them to forget evidence or report something that isn’t true. This is because there are so many opportunities for them to forget or be swayed from attention from the media putting ideas in their head to talking to other witnesses and sharing what they thought to be true.
Something that I feel would be psychological is interviewing any witnesses after the crime, you have to give the witness time to be emotionally ready as it stated but also you can’t wait too long after that they may forget important details about the crime. Also during the interviewing process, are you able to ask them the right questions to jog their memory about details of the crime, even the small details are important as they stated (Section 3, C2). Do they feel comfortable with you, and able to tell you everything that they remember without being scared that you may think they are lying or something to that effect? All of these things may play an important role in anything a witness may remember. The second thing that they stated multiple times throughout this guide is developing a rapport (Section 1, C1) with the witness so that if they feel the need to call you back and tell you something they forgot after the interview was over they may do so. If they didn’t feel comfortable around you the first time during an interview, they would be less likely to call you back and report more details that they remembered. It is important to make the witness feel safe around you after they may have witnessed a traumatizing event, then they are more likely to open up to you.
I found it particularly interesting and surprising that there are people who play the role as "fillers" when conducting a live lineup. I never considered that this would be a good idea, or that it happened at all. The purpose of having people stand as fillers is to make sure the person viewing the lineup chooses the actual perpetrator instead of being fooled by the several fillers who are placed strategically to look like what witnesses described. I think this is fairly clever, yet a confusing concept. I am wondering how many people actually view this "filler" concept as a trick, though. It could just be me. The whole discussion and procedures of conducting a lineup has led me to conclude that lineups do not seem like a reliable measure. There could be so many things wrong with a lineup. The witness will WANT to find someone, and may choose whoever fits their idea the best. I am curious as to how many people have been convicted after being recognized from a lineup.
Photo Lineup, Rule #4 "Include a minimum of five fillers (nonsuspects) per identification
procedure." encompasses psychological principles completely. These fillers chosen are NOT SUSPECTS, as stated, placed there simply to fool people and merely as a "test" for one's mind. If a witness chooses one of these non-suspect fillers, their account of the crime committed is likely dismissed. This is an interesting rule and I am not quite sure how I feel about it.
The interview process, in general, seems to be entirely systematic and psychological. Every rule listed is a part of psychology: the way you are sitting, the wording you use, the "rapport" you are expected to develop with the witness, etc. I have never thought about how interviewing is intensely organized and strategic. I feel, though, that if the witness knows the rules we have now been exposed to, they may feel inclined to act a certain way (which is why I suppose "rapport" should be developed between the interviewer and the witness).
The part of the handbook that I thought was most interesting was the section on lineups. I am from a small town so the only experience that I had with lineups was watching tv shows. All the tv shows that I watched had random officers in the station stand in the lineup with the perpetrator. Evidently this is not the case. There is a lot of attention and detail that goes into arranging lineups. Everybody in the lineup needs to have the same general characteristics as the perpetrator so the victim does not have anything to bias their judgment. So basically, if the woman who got robbed said the perpetrator had a moustache, everybody in the lineup would have a moustache. Reading this made me realize that being a police officer requires a strong background in psychology because police officers use it everyday whether they know it or not.
Memory can be a very tricky thing to understand. We have a short term memory and long term memory yet both of those can be “corrupted” by suggestion or panic. Cognitive psychologists find that studying memory is very difficult because of the numerous factors in place. This is basically the same situation with police officers. When they first arrive at the scene of a crime, they are responsible for taking the witnesses first statement. This statement is the first collection of what they saw and if done right, the most reliable. When asking witnesses or victims what happened it is very important to use open ended questions and avoid asking suggestive questions. Doing the first statement could be very critical to solving the case and having a background in cognitive psychology can be very useful in the law enforcement field.
Suggestion is also an aspect of this handbook that is addressed numerous times. Suggestion is the process by which one guides the thoughts, feelings, or behavior of another. As ridiculous as this may sound, it is very true and crucial to a police officers job. An example of suggestion and how it relates to law enforcement is the example of suggestive questions. If you ask the victim if the perpetrator drove off in a red van, somehow their mental processes make them believe that they saw a red van. Knowing how this process works can really help in getting accurate statements from victims and can prevent cops from leading down a dead end.
While reading Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement, two particular things actually stood out at me. First the mug books. I thought it was so neat and interesting that the photos had to be grouped in a specific format, such as black and white photos. It is suggested to group the photos by a specific crime, ensure that photos are reasonably contemporary while making sure that only one photo of each individual is in the mug book. I had no idea that these photos had to be as precise as this. The next aspect of this book that I thought was interesting was that people actually play the role as "fillers" when conducting a suspect lineup. In fact, there is only one actual real suspect throughout the whole lineup. These individuals will be viewed one at a time as well as in random order. The reason for having fillers is to ensure that the person can effectively point out their perpetrator. The guide also stated that it was important to tell the victim that their perpetrator may not look the same in the lineup as they once did while committing the crime. I think there could be a problem with this since people can have such skewed memory. In some cases I feel that the person conducting the lineup can be biased and may just be looking for someone to arrest, and therefore can possibly sway the victim's decision by suggesting that the actual suspect is a criminal.
I feel that the interviewing process and trying to get information from the witness can be very sensitive, and can be related to memory, thus psychology. A witnesses mind is so fragile that it is important to get the needed information as soon as possible. It is critical to not wait too long risking what the witness retains, or cannot retain as part of the memory of the crime. The guide says to ask open ended questions, such as "what can you tell me about the car?" and close with closed-ended questions such as "what color was the car?" While asking questions like this, it is important to avoid asking suggestive or leading questions like "was the car red?" This would be suggestive and could lead to the witness stating and believing that the car was red. Both witness memory, and questioning of the witness relates to psychology through how memory can be wrong, and the power of suggestion.
What I found most interesting from reading the handbook is the practice of using "mug books" to help investigators create a lead when they don't have any viable suspects. The way I understood this practice from the readings is that officers compile a "book" of photos of previously convicted criminals and then show this collection of photos to the witnesses in hopes that they will either recognize someone in the photos or find an individual that looked like who they saw. The purpose of this handbook, however, as described in the opening paragraphs, is to prescribe practices that are to help officers avoid tainting the eyewitnesses memory, i.e. asking leading questions or indicating to the witness who they think the perpetrator is. It would seem to me, however, that asking a witness to look at a group of unknown photos for a familiar face would be the epitome of a leading question. I can easily imagine a scenario where a witness would be eager to please law enforcement and without purposefully doing so might implicate an innocent individual. To me, the recommendation of this practice actively goes against the purported purpose of the pamphlet which is to encourage the most accurate witness evidence as is possible.
Two guidelines that seemed to me to contain psychological underpinnings were: 1. Asking open ended questions and 2. The mimicking or covering up physical aspects that were unique to the suspect. As to first guideline of asking open ended questions, we have learned in class over the last few sessions that it is very easy to taint memories and that we naturally do this in our memory storage processes even without the interference of outsiders trying to lead our memories in a certain direction. For instance, the quality of our memories are effected by simple memory loss due to the passage of time or our bodies might not even encode the events into our long term memory. With these natural memory disturbances always at play, it easy to see how prodding from an investigator could further taint or damage the accuracy of one's memories. In order to help to prevent the previously mentioned possibilities from occurring, officers are trained to ask open ended questions that won't subject the witnesses minds to images and events that they don't recall or that didn't actually occur.
The second guideline that seemed to me to contain significant psychological underpinnings was the practice of covering up or mimicking unique physical attributes of the subject in the lineup or show-up proceedings. A unique physical attribute such as a tattoo in an uncommon location or a particularly visible scar might sway the witness one way or another in identifying a potential suspect. As I described in the previous paragraph, the memory storage process is by no means an infallible one. For instance, it is quite possible that two individuals might have a similar tattoo on their upper arm. If police brought in an innocent suspect that shared a physical similarity, such as an upper arm tattoo, with the actual perpetrator, the witness might mistakenly identify the wrong individual. By either covering up these unique physical displays or by finding other individuals with similar ones, it requires the witness to accurately recall the specific image or scar on the suspect. If police did not follow this procedure it would be relatively easy for a witness to hone in on a particular attribute that might falsely identify an innocent individual.
While reading the handbook I found many things very interesting in each section. The first thing that I really noticed when I first started reading was that every single part and person at the crime scene is very important. Starting with the 911 cal because they are the first responder. They need to get every bit of information they can from the caller. They want the specifics of everything they see and hear. The first responder should ask open ended questions and not suggestive questions. Then you get the officer to come to the scene and they preserve and use as much of the information from the scene as they possibly can. You find the witness or witnesses and interview them about what went on and what happened. They now have the crime scene evidence and the witness statement, then this is when they have to start to piece the story together.
I just really never thought how much time and effort needs to go into each part of processing the scene and witnesses. I then found the mug part and line up part interesting also. Conducting a lineup involves so much more than I thought. They have these other people in the lineup called "fillers". These are people who kind of are similar to the real suspect but then also are different enough that the victim doesn't choose the wrong person in the lineup.
Psychology plays a huge role, two ways are with memory and this involves part of the interview process. The memory of the victim will be crazy at first so they need to calm down and then don't let anyone else talk to the victim because that could interfere with what the victim really saw. Once you start hearing something enough times and it fits in with the story you might actually think it really is part of the story. That is why you interview the witness right away and ask the open ended questions so they tell you the story. So the interview process needs to be very calm and it needs to be done right, by asking the right kind of questions and not leading them with the questions. For the victims memory to be accurate then the interview process needs to be done correctly.
An interesting aspect from the guidebook was the information relating to the “mug book.” I didn’t know how much preparation and organization went into preparing it. It was interesting that the pictures should be grouped by similarity of the type of picture, whether it’s black and white or color. Also, although I knew that the mug book preparer shouldn't ask leading questions, I didn’t know that they really aren’t supposed to speak to the witness while the witness is looking over the mug book. It is imperative to instruct them in detail beforehand, but refraining from any suggestive conversation is important also. The preparer should speak ambiguously of the photos, inform the witness that the perpetrator may or may not be in the mug book., and assure them that the investigation will continue whether or not the identify the suspect.
Two parts that relate to psychology are:
1. Power of Suggestion: The guidebook mentioned multiple times that the interviewer shouldn’t ask leading questions. Misinformation can undermine the eyewitness testimony so there has been a lot of research into how much and how often witness testimonies are affected by the way that they are interviewed. Our memories are formed from “real” memories and any part of that memory that is missing is filled in with our old memories, thoughts or beliefs. This can be compounded by an authority who leads the witness to believe a fact about the event. Usually eyewitnesses want to be helpful so if they can’t remember something, but the person interviewing them is asking leading questions, they may simply agree with the interviewer. I looked at some information about experiments done relating to eyewitness memory being affected by misinformation and researchers strongly believe that suggestive information greatly affects what the witness will report as their correct memory. http://groups.colgate.edu/cjs/student_papers/2002/JScheer.pdf
2. Witness Memory: The memory of the witness is being tested when they speak with the police so it’s important to record in detail the witness’ testimony and reactions. Obviously, the eyewitness should be interviewed as soon as possible after the event since memory decays or goes away over time. A person is more likely to remember something if they process the information, make a judgment about it or relate it to their own personal experiences. Unfortunately, these things can also confound memory confusion. If the eyewitness relates the experience to something in their past memories or makes a judgment about it, they may not correctly recall the details of the crime they witnessed. Memory can be contaminated just as easily as physical evidence can be. The reliability or correctness of memory can’t be judged by the confidence level of the witness either; simply because they are confident of what they saw doesn’t mean they correctly processed the event that occurred. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/law/1/4/726.pdf
The area of the book that i felt or thought was insightful was the instucting a witness section section 2. These instuctions are here specifically for the department and whomever investigates the crime. If you follow these set of rules there is know way that an investigation should have any mishaps or any problem when everything is done exactly by the book.
Now as far as the actual eyewitness the memory plays a big role into bringing the perp to justice, ironically has some flaws. People, victims have consistently pointed out and identified the wrong person and not only once has this happened we are talking about 372 cases in which 74% have been wrongfully convicted.
There should be just as much if not more effort when trying to convct someone to not convict them, if there is a slight bit of doubt so these wrongful convictions. I believe that if their is no physical evidence or anything remotely tying the perp to the crime there should be an extra effort to find out why not, if for some reason they should be charged or accused.
Leading up to the stage in which the eyewitness memory process relates to the ability of the witness to access and retrieve information from memory. In a legal context, the retrieval of information is usually elicited through a process of questioning and it is for this reason that a great deal of research has investigated the impact of types of questioning on eyewitness memory.
The most substantial body of research has concerned leading questions, which has consistently shown that even very subtle changes in the wording of a question can influence subsequent testimony.
Just imagine if i were someone of authority, police detective for example if i was to mention anything, anything at all off of what the victim thought she saw i would have contaminated the whole memory of what the victim actually saw initially.http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/eyewitness-memory.html
Thats why it is important not to ask any leading question with color of clothing, item of weapon used, facial features, identifying marks scares or tattoos.
One thing that was not as much surprising to me, but was particularly interesting, was in the obtaining information from the witness(es) chapter. It complies exactly with the case we talk about in class with the casino robbery in South Dakota, and the way the investigation was handled. Particularly speaking, bullet #3 hit exactly on what we discuss in class. It mentions to avoid leading questions such as “was the car red?” Instead, open-ended and supplemental questions should be asked so that the witness is the one describing the event, not the officer offering details. Instead, questions such as “What can you tell me about the car?” and “What color was the car” are better asked questions. They don’t imply certain contaminants to a witness’ testimony/memory.
Also, as we have discussed in class, eyewitness testimony can be a vital role in criminal cases. As mentioned in class, over 273 people have been exonerated through DNA evidence. A majority of these have been because of eyewitness misidentification. I found an interesting article from the National Institute of Justice. It mentions that sometimes, eyewitness evidence may be the only evidence available in a case. Therefore, the contamination of eyewitness evidence is crippling to cases.
Another thing this same website mentions is the psychology of lineups. It gives variables that can affect the outcomes of a police lineup. I never would have thought of these variables, but they all make good sense. For example, the physical characteristics of fillers make a difference. The people who do not resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator will cause a suspect to stand out. Secondly, the use of weapons can alter one’s perception of a perpetrator. The use of a weapon or force can draw visual attention away from the face or description of a perpetrator.
Psychology plays a role in both police lineups and eyewitness testimonies. Here is the link to the site:
http://www.nij.gov/journals/258/police-lineups.html
The first thing I found particularly interesting was the section on, "Mug Books." Mug Books are a collection of photos of previously arrested people. The article stated that Mug Books may be used in cases where a suspect has not yet been determined and all other options have been exhausted. I found this section very interesting, because of the nonsuggestive way a Mug Book needs to be handled. A Mug Book is a way of hoping for a witness to point out a suspect, but the investigator has to organzie a Mug Book in such a way whereas it won't be suggestive to the witness. Fine details such as grouping photos by format, specific crimes, and physical characteristics are all steps the investigator takes in an attempt to not make one photo stand out. The way the Mug Book is compiled is key to its effectiveness, and whether or not it will be admissible in court as well. I had never heard of Mug Books before, and to hear about the fine details that are involved in compiling one was very suprising and interesting to me.
The other section that was very intersting to me was Part C, "Conducting the Interview." I found this part very interesting, because this part seems very crucial in solving a crime, and also very delicate on how it can be tainted. This section listed off twelve procedures the investigator should follow when conducting an interview with a witness. Before I read this section, I always assumed that interviews were pretty straight forward in how they were conducted. Although it may still seem that way, there are a lot of little things the investigator needs to say the right way so that he/she can get a truthful answer, not one mislead or tainted by the way they worded the question. For example, this section said to avoid leading questions, as an example they used, "Was the car red?" Instead, the investigator should as what color the car was, so that they do not mislead the witness, but rather they go off of their own memory of the event. One procedure also said to caution the witness to not guess. Although this seems like common sense, I personally think this would be a very hard thing to do. When you are an investigator, you want answers, and I think it would be extremely hard to not push for something to go off of, but rather wait for the witness to recall what they actually remeber. I found this section so enlightening, because it discussed tiny details of the interview, which need to be handled delicately in order to recieve accurate results they can go off of.
One specific part that psychology plays in, "The Eyewitness Guide," that I noticed right away was avoiding leading questions. I just discussed this in the previous paragraph, but I think this is a vital part psychology plays in recalling accurate memory from the witness. Also, having witness not talk to each other about the event. If the witness memory becomes tainted due to leading questions, where they begin to think that that must be the way it was, or color it was, or whatever, it leads to false results. Similarly with talking to other witnesses. For example, Dr. MacLin has talked to us a few times about the casino robbery trial. In this case, a casino was robbed and on the 911 call, the lady said she thought the man to be big and black. However, later after talking to her boss and watching the security tapes, then they began to think it was a specific person, when in reality, they had no way of truley identifing who it was off of what they had seen. Memory loss happens naturally by either passage of time, which makes it even more susceptible to being lead astray from what the witness might actually recall. By allowing the witness to go off of their own memory of the event and avoiding questions that may lead them to think something different is the only way to truly sustain the memory as accurately as possible.
The other part that I thought dealt quite a bit with psychology was that of, "fillers." Fillers are those who the police get to show up either in line-ups of photos for the witness. The fillers have similar traits and resemble the suspect in signficant features. This section stated that a minimum of five fillers is to be used per identification procedure, or four for live line-ups. As an investigator, you want the fillers to have similar significant traits as the suspect, but to not resemble he/she so much that the witness would not be able to determine the suspect from the fillers. Scars and tattoos are something that would need to be similar between the suspect and the filler. I believe this section had a lot to do with psychology, because of the recall of memory needed by the witness to identify a suspect. In a heightend sense, your mind takes things in, but it is hard to recall due to the adernaline in your body at the time. However, after calming down and thinking about it, without any misleadings, your mind can recall these memories, or at least parts of them. Now, if a witness said that ther perpetrator had a specific tattoo, scar, or other noticable physical attribute, in line-up or in photos, the witness would see one suspect and four or five fillers with these similar traits. This would then force the witness to recall more specific information about the perpetrator's attributes by physically looking at the filler's and suspect's similar significant traits. However, if the investigator fails to properly follow the procedures listed for line-ups, either photo or live, it can effect the chance for positively identifiying the correct suspect.
Lindsey Fails
I would just like to start off by saying that I did not realize how much information one would need to know for eyewitness evidence. When reading a book or just simply watching the television, it doesn’t seem like there is much needed for eyewitness evidence. We are mostly tuned into the crime and we want to know who did it but we forget that a crucial part of the investigation is finding those who might have either witnessed it by seeing it or by hearing it. Like the last guide, I was taken back on how much information is broken down to make sure that the evidence is as clear and less contaminated by others as possible. Overall, it was surprising to read about all of the different ideas and studies were explained throughout this guide and I look forward to seeing any revisions that may be made in the near future.
One element of psychology that stuck out a lot to me was when the guide discussed validity and accuracy of eyewitness evidence as police, prosecutors, and other criminal justice professionals work with the witness to identify suspects. This is one of the goals and objectives that were identified. The reason this grabbed my attention is because I had just learned about validity in my abnormal psychology class. Validity refers to the degree to which a study accurately affects reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. There are different types of validity and I feel that this is a very good goal to reach towards. However, because the eyewitness is presented to many different types of professionals and people, this could be hard to accomplish completely. There is also evidence that states that the jurors overestimate the validity of eyewitness testimony because they are unaware of all the factors that can affect the eyewitness’ accuracy. Hopefully there will be more studies done that can make validity more realistic rather than just being a goal.
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/relval/pop2b.cfm
The second element of psychology that caught my attention in this guide was when it discussed investigator’s unintentional cues, such as, body language, tone of voice, etc. This could negatively impact the reliability of eyewitness evidence. Although this didn’t surprise me too much after I thought about it, but I then began to think, what doesn’t an eyewitness fear at that moment? I know that if I just witnessed something tragic, shocking, or just out of this world talking to someone with a gun and handcuffs wouldn’t exactly scream “relax.” When it comes to communication, ninety-three percent of it is body language, while only seven percent of communication consists of words themselves. The guide goes on to explain how an eyewitness should be interviewed. Ask open-ended questions and avoid leading questions. The officer should encourage the eyewitness to contact investigators if they have any more information. Continuing throughout the guide I also found where it was listed that “a comfortable witness provides more information.” This comes around full circle from when I mentioned the investigator’s unintentional cues. There are important steps that each professional should follow when meeting with an eyewitness because this could make or break a case. Body language alone, such as facial expressions, posture, eye movements, or gestures could contaminate the eyewitness’ memory and make them change the way they think because of the professionals’ body language, which we don’t want. Throughout the guide, I also noticed the word “encourage” listed many times. By encouraging the eyewitness, it is more likely that investigators will receive more valid information than say being intimidating and putting ideas in an eyewitness’ head that are not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_language
These are just a few of the many things I found throughout the Eyewitness Evidence guide. There was a lot of information based on the science of psychology and how important it is to reach toward the goal of validity. There will be more studies done and hopefully the criminal justice system will benefit from it in more ways than one.
Through out this entire guide, it seems like every procedure involves "tip-toeing" around the witness. I understand that it's called a traumatic experience for a reason but it really makes me wonder if we ever even catch the right person at all. Anything from a too negative sounding voice to one picture in the "mug book" being a little better quality then the rest can change the entire outcome of an investigation. I guess I maybe feel like if it's this difficult to get a true witness report, how is anyone ever sure that they conducted the procedure right? I'm still not sure about how all evidence works in a trial and the significance of each piece but I feel like there is just no hope for anyone if there is so much room for error in these procedures.
One part in almost every procedure that has a big part to do with psychology is only asking open ended questions. This whole idea was brought up in what I believe is called "talk therapy," and if it really works, the idea is that you will start talking about what is in your unconscious. This makes sense to ask the questions open ended because trying to remember things after the initial shock of it all can be really difficult but since you witnessed it, the information is still in your brain somewhere and the investigators are just hoping to try and find it.
Another part that was in almost every procedure is developing rapport with the witness. It is important in therapy that the psychologist develops rapport with their client because it is important for the client to feel unthreatened and like an equal. It keeps them from feeling like they are being talked down to or told what to do. This relationship helps them feel more comfortable with opening up because they know you are really listening and understand them. This is helpful thing to do with witnesses as well because they have already experienced something traumatic so they just want to feel safe. You would thing their guard would probably be up pretty high if they, for example, were attacked by a male and then sitting in a small room after the fact being questioned by some macho male detective.
The part that I found interesting is the mug book and composite section. I just found it interesting when they find themselves at a dead end looking for suspects they use a mug book of criminals to see if any of the pictures look like the perpetrator. I also thought it was interesting how they organized the photos according to how similar the pictures were, what type of photo it was and so on.
One element of psychology that takes place is not asking leading questions so they don't alter witness memory, such as asking was the car red? When in fact the car may have been blue. They do this to make sure they don't alter the witnesses memory. If they ask leading questions the witness would just agree with whatever the detective was asking you, or think thats what the real facts are. They also don't want to disclose any information about the case, so it once again doesn't affect the witnesses memory.
Another element of psychology is when the investigator develops a rapport with the witness to keep them calm and help them remember everything they seen, because they tend to be able to collect more information of the event witnessed if the witness is in a calm state. The investigators try to squeeze every little detail of your recollection of the witnessed events.
When reading the guidebook, one thing I found interesting was the section on Mug books. I didn’t realize how much preparation went into making a mug book. The principle of the mug book is “ non-suggestive composition of a mug book may enable the witness to provide a lead in a case in which no suspect has been determined and other reliable sources have been exhausted”.
After the introduction to mug books, the guide gave a list of “guidelines” to follow when making one. The first guideline focused on making sure you group the photos by format. This step makes perfect sense because you can’t have one photo be black and white and then have one that’s color. This guideline focuses on the mind because instinctively we would look to the color automatically because it is what we are used to in modern times. I believe that the victim would be more likely to choose the color picture than the black and white one. The second guideline was to choose photos that have similar characteristics as the suspect. It would make no sense to show a picture of the suspect with a moustache when the victim remembers nothing about a moustache. This guideline also deals with memory contamination because the victim says nothing about a moustache yet the police say he does. The third guideline talked about grouping the photos by crimes. This would make identifying them easier because if the victim was raped then they can go right to section dealing with rapes and show pictures of the perpetrators. The fourth one is positive identifying information exists for all individuals portrayed. The fifth guideline deals with photos that are reasonably contemporary. The sixth guideline deals with having only one photo of each individual in the mug book, this makes sense because why would you the same photo of the perpetrator in the book more than once. The mug book is only for objectivity to help investigators in court. The photo should never be the only piece of evidence used in court.
After reading the Eyewitness Evidence Guide I found out that on of the most interesting parts was the section about preparing mug books. The reason I found this interesting was because I didn't know that there was so much planning into just putting the book together that would help to not skew the witnesses memory.
One part that I also found surprising was the lineup of suspects. I thought that there were maybe one or two people that stepped in to be fake suspects, I never thought that there were up to four fillers and only one real suspect that law was investigating. With this and the mug book information it was very insightful to how complicated, but logical the law is when they are doing investigations.
Some underpinnings of psychology in this guide I found were, again, the mug book, and secondly obtaining information from the witness.
I chose the mug book because it can contaminate someone's memory if there are pictures bigger, colored, different race, gender, and having only one picture in the book at a time all have to do with psychology. You really don't need to look the reasons for this up because it's pretty logical when you think about it. If a pictures bigger it will stick out and be more likely to "jump" at the person looking through the mug book. If there's one black guy on the page of all caucasians then it will definitely stick out. All of these things have to do with leading the witness on, which is what you want to avoid.
The reason I thought of obtaining information from the witness as psychological is similar to the mug book and not wanting to contaminate the witnesses memory and ruining your evidence. The difference between this and the mug book is you have to do it with speed to help the person, but also watch your phrasing of questions. It seems like it would be a very stressful job to do.
The eye witness guide was very interesting to read as well as informative.Like others have stated before i thought that line ups were the way they are portrayed on television. When investigators create a lineup they use perpetrators who are convicted or where involved with similar crimes. It is also important to the type of mug book made, with using the same type of photo's i.e black in white or other forms. It was very important to explain that the procedure in documenting the type and outcome make the information gained more reliable.
The initial interview with the witness is key to gaining accurate information. The earlier the investigator talks to the witness the less time the witness has to be persuaded by what others have said.The handbook also said that it is vital to maintain contact with the witness in case he or she remembers anything down the road in the investigation.
The eye witness guide give good insight into all the work that it takes to compose lineups, create mug books, interviews with witnesses and make the final investigation. The eye witness is an integral part to the investigation
The instructing the eyewitness I think is quite appealing as it creates a model to help the person acquiring the testimony, to do it the best way. As the eyewitness is very vulnerable and ample to anything that is thrown at them. Creating a process that will help the eyewitness describe what they see, without showing a bias at all. Making the account the most suitable for a case or trial and pushing for an unbiased resolution.
Memory is a main idea behind what eyewitness sees. As it helps the person recollect what happened in the event that partook. Memory is also easily changed and the reason it is so important is that it is a key component of the development of the way people react to certain situations as well. When people remember things suddenly by, other events that happen around them it is called recollection which is a key thing during testimony as the atmosphere around them will be a key influence on their recollection.
One thing I didn't realize before reading this guide was that the eyewitnesses cannot talk to eachother and should be questioned separately. I figured that having them together would be better, since they could jog eachothers' memories.
I also didn't know that you should always start an interview with an open ended question and then end with specific questions. I didn't think that it mattered one way or another.
One question I have is, where do the people conducting the lineup find the fillers? They have to be similar looking to the suspect, so doesn't that make it pretty challenging? This makes me realize that I have never put much thought into what it takes to create a lineup.
The area of this handbook that was most interesting to me was the section about preparing mug books and composite sketches. I was unaware that in instances where there were no suspects who had been determined and they had tried everything else they could. Mug books contain pictures of previously convicted people and they use this resource to maybe determine a lead in the case. They also discussed the possibility of developing a composite sketch of the perpetrator and in the first step of doing this they say the sketch artist needs to “assess the ability of the witness to provide a description of the perpetrator”. I feel like this could be hard to determine because I feel like if I had to provide the information myself I wouldn’t be able to do so very well. I have a horrible time remembering what people look like, especially the details they might need for a composite sketch. I also think that some people may be too emotional and it can somehow alter their memory.
In Section II – Mug Books and Composites under subset A, the guide offers a suggestion of putting together a mug book to help the witness provide a lead in the case where there are no suspects and all other ideas have not worked. In these mug books they put nonsuggestive pictures in a book for witnesses to look at of people who have previous records. The guide emphasizes the importance of making sure that the pictures do not stand out from one another. I think psychology is the basis of this particular rule because the police want to solve the case, and when they have no suspects they use retroactive interference. Using this technique allows these new memories (the images) to hurt the recovery of old memories or completely replace any memories they may have eventually of the incident. I feel like they use this technique when they are running out of options. I also think that this is a really bad idea because any chance of remembering a specific feature or important physical aspect of the suspect will probably be completely lost. However, this could also work in favor of helping the witness to remember something important about the perpetrator as well. If they see a particular feature that is really defining on one of these known criminals, maybe it will help them to remember more. For these reasons, psychology is very important to this guideline.
In Section III, subset C, #6, when the interviewer is talking to the witness for the first time, they ask the witness to mentally recreate the circumstances of the event. I think psychology is the basis of this rule because it is asking the witness to use recall memory of the event. This kind of memory involves remembering a fact, event or object that is not currently present. In order to help this process, the guide suggests asking open-ended questions and to avoid leading questions. Open-ended questions help because they allow the witness to fill in their own blanks instead of providing blanks that may be leading for them. When the witness is recreating the circumstances of the event, they are asked to remember everything from that event: feelings, smells, any important distinguishing features about the environment or the perpetrator, etc. In order to do this, we need to us hierarchal interference. This is used when a “specific question is linked to a class or subset of information about which certain facts are known”. Using these questions and techniques can hopefully trigger some memories for the witness and this is what makes psychology so important to this guideline.
http://www.human-memory.net/processes_recall.html
The most interesting aspect of the eyewitness guide to me all the guidelines that go into lineups and the identification of suspects by witnesses. Investigators are supposed to find at least 5 other non-suspects and try to find some people who actually resemble the description of the perpetrator. While doing this, investigators still have to make sure all "fillers" as they are called do not resemble the suspect enough that someone who is close to subject wouldn't recognize him. I didn't realize how many guidelines there were to to the different types of lineups. I learned that there are four types of lineups including sequential photo and live lineups as well as simultaneous photo and live lineups.
Many of these guidelines have a psychological basis. The two guidelines I believe carry significant psychological basis are "Ask open ended questions" and "Instruct the witness that individuals depicted in lineup photos may not appear exactly as they did on the date ...".
1) "Ask open ended questions" appears in the first section of the book within the 911 call. The dispatched is supposed to ask open ended questions about what happened in the incident. This calls into question the witness's memory and recollection of the incident. Witness recollection is one of the most important parts of an investigation and it if they witnessed a brutal crime, it could put them into shock and they may not be able to remember the incident very well.
2) "Instruct the witness that individuals depicted in lineup photos may not appear exactly as they did on the date ..." is in the identification of suspects by witnesses in lineups. This guideline tells the investigator to instruct the witness that the suspect will most likely have different clothes on, different facial hair, or hair in general than he did during the incident. This guideline also involves the witness trying to remember what the suspect looks like even if they might have been in shock from the incident. Sometimes it's not very hard to realize who the suspect is, but I'm sure in a lot of lineups there can be much confusion.
In eyewitness guide is very interesting, the coolest part to me was learning about the ways they make a mug shot book. How grouping the photos together by type of photo, crime, color, everything. Different things like never putting one person in the book more than once was also interesting. From a psychology stand point it was evident when talking about getting more information out of a witness, things like the room type and how to go about questioning the witness all show that a lot of psychology is used and it isn't all just mental its involving environmental as well.
The most interesting part of the reading for me was the mug book. I didn't know that they could actually make a book of people to show the people. I always thought that they had to show the suspects in person and then they would be pointed out behind a two way mirror.
Memory seems to play a large part in the process. When interviewing a witness there is a set way that they should be interviewed and asked question to best elict their memories. When this is done correctly, the information is most likely more reliable and accurate.It's important for the witness to give every aspect and detail that they can recall because talking about various incidents can trigger different memories.
Another part that stood out to me was the psychology of lineups. I always thought they just brought people in at random to stand, but it's more complex than that. They include people called "fillers" in the lineup that have similar features to the subject. This could play with a person's mind a lot if they do not directly recall what the person looked like, but it can also be a good thing so that people are not falsely convicted.
A witness to a crime have been an integral part to the judicial process since the beginning of our court system. Before technology created new and more precise ways to gather evidence, the eye witness was the most important evidence in a crime. An eyewitness can give you detail to the crime when it happened instead of putting the pieces of a puzzle together during the investigation.
The “Eyewitness Evidence” is a guide for law enforcement to teach them procedure on how to acquire accurate and reliable information that the eyewitness may have seen. The part of the guide that I found intriguing was the line up procedure and how there are different line up depending on what type of information the investigator needs to acquire.
From a psychological standpoint, there are many factors in an eyewitness report that could askew the information or how to obtain the information from the person without tampering with the memories. Research in memory have helped law enforcement when it comes to the eyewitness.
After reading the Eyewitness Guide, the part that was most interesting to me was about the mug books. The investigator who puts together the mug book must put a lot of time and effort into it. The mug book has to be detail-oriented and organized so as to not have any photos stick out. They also organize it with photos of people who have similar physical characteristics. It was also interesting to find that the guide was very adamant that investigators brief and instruct the witnesses thoroughly before they view the mug book. I guess I did not realize how big of a deal it was to do this.
One element of psychology that was apparent in the guide was about witness memory. We know that witnesses can be very impressionable and easily swayed through suggestiveness. The guide tells of some interviewing techniques to facilitate witness memory and get as much accurate information from them as you can. In addition, when the 911 dispatcher asks the witness questions about the crime they are to not use leading questions.
A second element of psychology that was apparent in the guide was confirmation bias. Investigators may already have an idea on who a suspect or perpetrator is in a crime, which may cause them to ask the witness leading questions to prove they are right even if they are not. The investigators may even expose information about the suspect or perpetrator to the witness while they are questioning them or doing identification procedures. This may then lead the witness to think a certain way or remember details about the crime incorrectly.
The first thing that interested me in reading this was about how it made a difference how the line up was presented. You always see in the movies a line up of guys holding numbers all at once, and this states that it produces more reliable evidence when the photographs or line ups are shown one at a time rather than all at once. This has a lot to do with the Psychology of how this is done. This was found by social science researchers.
The idea of doing “blind” investigators doing the questioning to make sure they were holding out biases and specific tones and language to the eyewitness. This is a lot like doing a double blind study, so the researcher doesn’t know who is getting what. This is a lot like Psychology in the aspect even as counselors, we may sometimes portray our own biases and opinions onto clients, unknowingly through body language and voice tone.
I found it interesting how many times the “Guide” mentioned it was a “guide” and not a procedure that had to be implemented.
I was also interested in the procedure of gathering info from the witnesses, which I also thinks relates to Psych. One of the first things that the investigators should do is to separate the witnesses from eachother. It is amazing how fast someone can change their mind about what they heard or saw because someone else said they heard or saw that. This would be difficult to do (separate them) if it was a violent crime or scary crime that two people who were close saw together. They may feel discomfort in separating.
I have to add that being a witness in a crime would be very scary. They would have to feel a bit overwhelmed with the questioning going over the mug books and having one on ones with investigators.
The first thing that interested me in reading this was about how it made a difference how the line up was presented. You always see in the movies a line up of guys holding numbers all at once, and this states that it produces more reliable evidence when the photographs or line ups are shown one at a time rather than all at once. This has a lot to do with the Psychology of how this is done. This was found by social science researchers.
The idea of doing “blind” investigators doing the questioning to make sure they were holding out biases and specific tones and language to the eyewitness. This is a lot like doing a double blind study, so the researcher doesn’t know who is getting what. This is a lot like Psychology in the aspect even as counselors, we may sometimes portray our own biases and opinions onto clients, unknowingly through body language and voice tone.
I found it interesting how many times the “Guide” mentioned it was a “guide” and not a procedure that had to be implemented.
I was also interested in the procedure of gathering info from the witnesses, which I also thinks relates to Psych. One of the first things that the investigators should do is to separate the witnesses from eachother. It is amazing how fast someone can change their mind about what they heard or saw because someone else said they heard or saw that. This would be difficult to do (separate them) if it was a violent crime or scary crime that two people who were close saw together. They may feel discomfort in separating.
I have to add that being a witness in a crime would be very scary. They would have to feel a bit overwhelmed with the questioning going over the mug books and having one on ones with investigators.
The first thing I noticed about The Guide is how it proposes the ways in which it was different from earlier efforts. The strangest was the first way that was listed, or social science research. I didn’t understand why social science would play into eye witness evidence, but as they explained it the purpose was to be able to make better revisions and adjustments. Later on in The Guide they mention the idea of future considerations, which shows that they understand that these ideas may not always be the best. This can and most likely will be rewritten upon the trials The Guide will be put through. The example they used were how lineups or photos helped with eyewitness recollection if they were shown one at a time, instead of all at the same time. Also the cues from investigators can and have had an impact on eyewitness accounts. By allowing for these social science changes The Guide can be revised and perfected to be used almost as a how to in the future.
One element of psychology that sticks out would be cognition with the lineups and eyewitness accounts. They must think back to the situation and be able to recreate or even reenact the scenes. They must take their side of what happened in that situation and help the investigators draw conclusions or spark more questions. The eyewitness must be able to recall everything about that incident, which comes from the cognitive standpoint of psychology. They really need to recall the person they believed to be at the scene. The lineup has the person they suspect and a bunch of random other people. If they happen to recognize for some reason the wrong person, like one from the filler, they must cognitively decide that person was not at the scene and is just a familiar face.
A second element that comes to mind is behavioral psychology. This is especially true in section one and section three. As the first responder, investigator, or follow up investigator, it is important to act the way you need to act. For instance if you are the first responder you can’t just run up to the eyewitness and cuff them. You need to reassure them and make them feel comfortable to talk. Also it’s important to pay attention to the behavior of the eyewitness being questioned. Are they calm, angry, fidgeting, or a mute? The way the act can determine whether they know something they want to share or don’t want to share. Behavior is a key in figuring out what you need to know as an investigator to solve the crime.
The most interesting thing to be in this hand book and what seems to be the one that has stood out for most students is Section V. Procedures for Eyewitness Identification of Suspects. I did not realize the amount of guidelines that investigators have to take when doing line-ups. It is important that the investigators have fillers alongside the suspect whether it is a physical line up or a photo one. By making the fillers look like the suspect makes the witness has to work harder and be more specific when picking out the perpetrator. This is smart, because then they can be more precise instead of the witness choosing a suspect based on it was the closest to the right thing.
The first guideline that I thought related to psychology was to ask open ended questions. Investigators need the truth from the witness in order to get their job done. Asking a question that is not open ended could lead the witness into subconsciously saying things that may or may not have happened. This brings psychology into play by making the investigators read into the different personality types and adapt to each witness individually in order to get the truth.
The second guideline I thought was very psychological was just the interviewing of the witness in general. After a person witnesses a tragic event they are filled with a jumble of emotions and are not always in the best mental state. Investigators must ask questions quickly so the witness doesn’t lose memory, so they must be able to respond to the witness and ask the right questions to try and get them to remember.
The portion of the guide that was the most interesting to me was the portion on the mug books and composites. It is overwhelming how much time and effort goes into making the books and composites. I have always assumed they just round up some people that they thought could all be suspects and asked witnesses if they remembered seeing any of them at the scene. After reading the guide, I found out this is not the case at all; there can only be one potential suspect per lineup. I also wasn’t aware of how they got the pictures to compile into a mug book, I assumed it could just be anyone that resembled the suspect, and I didn’t know they used pictures of people who are already in the system. Each lineup must also be put together in a thought out manner as to not lead a witness to pick a certain person based on how they look (i.e. shouldn’t make a lineup with only one person who looks like the bad guy, and all the rest look like clean cut business men, this is misleading.)
Unfortunately, I am a sucker for shows such as Cold Case Files, Law and Order and CSI; after reading this guide I can see just how dramatized and fake the shows really are. The officers/detectives/CSI in these shows drill people for answers, sometimes make the witnesses uncomfortable and ask leading questions. Obviously, this is just TV and controversy/drama makes for good television but as we can see, they are doing it all wrong. As an investigator, I think it would be very hard to keep all the questions open ended and try not to ask any questions that can lead the witness to say something that didn’t actually happen. When you already have information about an investigation, it is hard to not put that onto a witness and see what they have to say about it. We all know that it is there is a lot going on in the head of the witness of the crime, but I think there is just as much going on in the investigators head; as an investigator I think sometimes it is hard to not let your emotions get the best of you.
I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that a person can be sent to jail with the only evidence being eyewitness testimonies. I know the mind and brain are very powerful things and we as humans can hold a lot of information in them, but we can also forget a lot of information too. In almost every section of the book it has the same things repeated over and over again. Not letting witnesses talk to other witnesses or watch media reports on the crime, not asking leading questions to the witnesses and always making the witnesses comfortable and away from distracting things when being interviewed. All three of these statements are extremely hard to do, yet they seem to be the most important ones (hence, having them repeated in the book three or four times.) All three of these concepts have to do with psychology. It is in our nature to want to talk to others and get feedback and also tell others what we know. It is also almost impossible to not listen to the media, it is everywhere!!
This guide is extremely detailed and precise and I still am taken aback by how many steps and procedures there are for eyewitnesses. I always knew eyewitnesses were important, I just didn’t realize how important they really were!
The portion of the guide that was the most interesting to me was the portion on the mug books and composites. It is overwhelming how much time and effort goes into making the books and composites. I have always assumed they just round up some people that they thought could all be suspects and asked witnesses if they remembered seeing any of them at the scene. After reading the guide, I found out this is not the case at all; there can only be one potential suspect per lineup. I also wasn’t aware of how they got the pictures to compile into a mug book, I assumed it could just be anyone that resembled the suspect, and I didn’t know they used pictures of people who are already in the system. Each lineup must also be put together in a thought out manner as to not lead a witness to pick a certain person based on how they look (i.e. shouldn’t make a lineup with only one person who looks like the bad guy, and all the rest look like clean cut business men, this is misleading.)
Unfortunately, I am a sucker for shows such as Cold Case Files, Law and Order and CSI; after reading this guide I can see just how dramatized and fake the shows really are. The officers/detectives/CSI in these shows drill people for answers, sometimes make the witnesses uncomfortable and ask leading questions. Obviously, this is just TV and controversy/drama makes for good television but as we can see, they are doing it all wrong. As an investigator, I think it would be very hard to keep all the questions open ended and try not to ask any questions that can lead the witness to say something that didn’t actually happen. When you already have information about an investigation, it is hard to not put that onto a witness and see what they have to say about it. We all know that it is there is a lot going on in the head of the witness of the crime, but I think there is just as much going on in the investigators head; as an investigator I think sometimes it is hard to not let your emotions get the best of you.
I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that a person can be sent to jail with the only evidence being eyewitness testimonies. I know the mind and brain are very powerful things and we as humans can hold a lot of information in them, but we can also forget a lot of information too. In almost every section of the book it has the same things repeated over and over again. Not letting witnesses talk to other witnesses or watch media reports on the crime, not asking leading questions to the witnesses and always making the witnesses comfortable and away from distracting things when being interviewed. All three of these statements are extremely hard to do, yet they seem to be the most important ones (hence, having them repeated in the book three or four times.) All three of these concepts have to do with psychology. It is in our nature to want to talk to others and get feedback and also tell others what we know. It is also almost impossible to not listen to the media, it is everywhere!!
This guide is extremely detailed and precise and I still am taken aback by how many steps and procedures there are for eyewitnesses. I always knew eyewitnesses were important, I just didn’t realize how important they really were!
The portion of the guide that was the most interesting to me was the portion on the mug books and composites. It is overwhelming how much time and effort goes into making the books and composites. I have always assumed they just round up some people that they thought could all be suspects and asked witnesses if they remembered seeing any of them at the scene. After reading the guide, I found out this is not the case at all; there can only be one potential suspect per lineup. I also wasn’t aware of how they got the pictures to compile into a mug book, I assumed it could just be anyone that resembled the suspect, and I didn’t know they used pictures of people who are already in the system. Each lineup must also be put together in a thought out manner as to not lead a witness to pick a certain person based on how they look (i.e. shouldn’t make a lineup with only one person who looks like the bad guy, and all the rest look like clean cut business men, this is misleading.)
Unfortunately, I am a sucker for shows such as Cold Case Files, Law and Order and CSI; after reading this guide I can see just how dramatized and fake the shows really are. The officers/detectives/CSI in these shows drill people for answers, sometimes make the witnesses uncomfortable and ask leading questions. Obviously, this is just TV and controversy/drama makes for good television but as we can see, they are doing it all wrong. As an investigator, I think it would be very hard to keep all the questions open ended and try not to ask any questions that can lead the witness to say something that didn’t actually happen. When you already have information about an investigation, it is hard to not put that onto a witness and see what they have to say about it. We all know that it is there is a lot going on in the head of the witness of the crime, but I think there is just as much going on in the investigators head; as an investigator I think sometimes it is hard to not let your emotions get the best of you.
I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that a person can be sent to jail with the only evidence being eyewitness testimonies. I know the mind and brain are very powerful things and we as humans can hold a lot of information in them, but we can also forget a lot of information too. In almost every section of the book it has the same things repeated over and over again. Not letting witnesses talk to other witnesses or watch media reports on the crime, not asking leading questions to the witnesses and always making the witnesses comfortable and away from distracting things when being interviewed. All three of these statements are extremely hard to do, yet they seem to be the most important ones (hence, having them repeated in the book three or four times.) All three of these concepts have to do with psychology. It is in our nature to want to talk to others and get feedback and also tell others what we know. It is also almost impossible to not listen to the media, it is everywhere!!
This guide is extremely detailed and precise and I still am taken aback by how many steps and procedures there are for eyewitnesses. I always knew eyewitnesses were important, I just didn’t realize how important they really were!