Watching a special on The Discovery Channel, I was again reminded of the fantastic importance of dna matching.

Ronald Cotton was accused of 2 separate rapes.
Identified by two separate victims, as the culprit thru eyewitness testimony.
Found guilty by 2 jurys, in 2 separate trials.
Served 11 years of 2 life sentences in prison.

Not only was he found innocent 11 years later by dna results, but the real culprit was found from the dna database and confessed to both crimes.

Over 90 such happenings have occured, since dna has been used, to clear convicted, innocent, people.

Eyewitness accounts are loosing much of their credibility. Especially where cross-race is a factor.

I found more info on the above case, if you do not remember when it happened in 1984 at......

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/

If you want to know how reliable eyewitness testimony is, look at the descriptions given of the perpetrator of a crime by different eyewitnesses to the same event. The police often interview witnesses and are left with signifigant disagreement as to what happened, or what the perpetrator looked like. Typically the criminal was either 5'6'' tall or maybe he was 6'2". He was wearing blue jeans or khaki colored pants. His shirt was blue or red.
The truth is that when something happens of a threatening nature, humans don't make memories of very much. Even worse, we fill in the gaps of our memory with other memories or what we expected to see. Even worse, we are completely unaware that we do this. We think we remember everything perfectly.

What's so outrageous is how frequently the prosecutors steadfastly refuse to revisit these cases when dna evidence is found retroactively. They're not really that interested in finding the correct person, just in putting someone in jail.

OTOH, locally a prisoner demanded dna screening, claiming he was wrongly convicted. The prosecutor relented, and the dna proved he did it. Oops.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
OTOH, locally a prisoner demanded dna screening, claiming he was wrongly convicted. The prosecutor relented, and the dna proved he did it. Oops.

Maybe this should be in Dunkirk's stupidest man alive thread! :D

True Imagineer, Something I noticed when I was in law enforcement was that when I investigated a scene that involved a gun, I would get various descriptions of the culprit, but everyone completely described the gun.
Thats where the attention was.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
True Imagineer, Something I noticed when I was in law enforcement was that when I investigated a scene that involved a gun, I would get various descriptions of the culprit, but everyone completely described the gun.
Thats where the attention was.

Someone once told me to look at their face and then their shoes because they could easily change their coat/top but not their shoes... was that right???

Originally posted by ~Sal~
Someone once told me to look at their face and then their shoes because they could easily change their coat/top but not their shoes... was that right???
-------------------------------------------------------

Makes sense to me.
But, even facial features can be altered with fake facial hair, etc.

To be honest Cree, of the crimes solved, probably 90% or better, is because someone ran their mouth and got turned in.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
-------------------------------------------------------

Makes sense to me.
But, even facial features can be altered with fake facial hair, etc.

To be honest Cree, of the crimes solved, probably 90% or better, is because someone ran their mouth and got turned in.

I think they meant in terms of being able to apprehend the suspect while they were fleeing... and ummmm... it's Sal here... but if you were going to confuse me with someone Cree is good...:D and a whole lot younger...

Witnesses are also highly suceptable to suggestions as to what to fill in their memory with. There was some study where they insinuated a dog in a scene and pretty much everyone now remembers a dog that was never there. This is why "recovered memories" in psychiatry are so fucked.

On the Cross Race thingie. Scientists have found that people more easily recognize races they grew up around. It has something to do with you forming facial recognition when you are small. This is also why "subliminal descrimination" is a problem. People who are not consciously racist may be so because they cannot recognize those of another race easily. If you can't easily distinguish one person from another its harder to trust them. Of course this goes away with exposure and/or recognition of it.

Hey gorilla... I forgot about an illustration on perception that was shown on tv one night and you were the star... (sort of)

They put a group of people in front of an elevator. They were going to bounce a basket ball and pass it around. You had to count the number of bounces. And note anything unusual.

I was pretty sure I got the count right. Then they showed the tape again. I was wrong but close. Then they showed the tape in slow motion. They had a guy in a gorilla suit walk right past and I missed it. I thought it was a setup at first, that they had lied. But no, indeed one was concentrating so hard on watching and counting that one missed the obvious. Apparently something like 95% would miss the gorilla pass.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Witnesses are also highly suceptable to suggestions as to what to fill in their memory with. There was some study where they insinuated a dog in a scene and pretty much everyone now remembers a dog that was never there. This is why "recovered memories" in psychiatry are so fucked.

I agree that recovered memories should be regarded with caution. A subject can easily be influenced to remember something that didn't happen. It is also true that genuine repressed memories exist. Whenever possible corroborating evidence should be sought. I would be very reluctant to convict someone based only on recovered memories.

Everyone knows that the butler did it.

Originally posted by mad dog
Everyone knows that the butler did it.
Nuh uh! It was Colonel Mustard, in the conservatory, with the candlestick.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
Hey gorilla... I forgot about an illustration on perception that was shown on tv one night and you were the star... (sort of)

They put a group of people in front of an elevator. They were going to bounce a basket ball and pass it around. You had to count the number of bounces. And note anything unusual.

I was pretty sure I got the count right. Then they showed the tape again. I was wrong but close. Then they showed the tape in slow motion. They had a guy in a gorilla suit walk right past and I missed it. I thought it was a setup at first, that they had lied. But no, indeed one was concentrating so hard on watching and counting that one missed the obvious. Apparently something like 95% would miss the gorilla pass.

I think this is what the magician uses to form an illusion. they can get an entire audiance so engrossed on an object as to not see what is happening right in front of them. I think it's called miss direction

Originally posted by Ralph Saxton
I think this is what the magician uses to form an illusion. they can get an entire audiance so engrossed on an object as to not see what is happening right in front of them. I think it's called miss direction

Yes I think it is called misdirection. The facinating part is how we swear that we have seen something precisely, we would bet our life on it only to discover we are wrong.

Do not know any details at this point, but heard on the news that an inmate was released after 19 years in prison. Found innocent of rape after DNA cleared him.

Damn, 19 years of his life....gone.