Witness Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

Thank you again, for your responses (I do appreciate thougthful responses for consideration).  As I said previously, I will review the studies provided, and provide some comments about them (this will take a few days).  I'm also fighting my first inclination for some of the posts, so I'm holding off saying too much for a day or so.

But in the meantime; here is a letter written to a blog where some similar discussions where going on.
http://randalrauser.com/2013/12/rd-miksa...testimony/


More examples in the article...

While not as critical (as policing /intelligence)  in my occupation working with machine controls, I do find myself relying on the observations of others, to help me find the cause of the issue. I also rely on my own observation of what I see and hear quite often as well.   So my own experience doesn't match with what some infer as to the reliability of testimony.

---

Bold emphasis my own.

False (more usually, mistaken) eyewitness testimony does often overrule scientific evidence in a courtroom setting.  It is one of the primary causes of false convictions, which are later overturned. If you really want me to (I'm trying to avoid copypasta) show you, there are numerous experiments that have been done that show even the most clear-cut cases of eyewitness testimony can be falsified and/or manipulated. Juries tend to believe eyewitness stories because of how the human brain works; the "courtroom setting" is exactly the problem, and is not evidence of the reliability of eyewitness testimony, only of the fact that humans rely on it far too heavily. 

If you are talking about the errors, involving picking someone out of a lineup.   Yes, I agree with those advancing for reform in the classic police line up for testimony regarding people the person is unfamiliar with.  They advocate viewing a single picture at a time, and doing it in a double blind manner, where neither the witness nor the officer present know if the suspect is even present in the pictures.  I think that we may even have to go further than that. If unsure they are going to lean towards a best fit, and yes this may even alter their memory,  associating that person with the testimony.  I do think it should be interesting however in some of the exonerations, as  science is finding that Chimeraism is more common then previously thought.   It is possible that in some of these cases, the witness testimony may be correct, and assumptions about the DNA testing may be the error.   You say that even the most clear cut cases may be falsified or in error.  This is true for the forensic evidence as well.   The only way to eliminate all errors is to remove humans from the equation, or just do away with the legal system all together.

I was reading today, about a errors in DNA evidence.  One man was arrested because the DNA evidence pointed to him.  He was later released, because he was fully confirmed to be in a hospital at the time and was excessively drunk. It turned out that the medic who took him to the hospital was also at the crime seen, and must have transferred the DNA.   Others included mistakes and contaminations made in the lab.  

Even in your "strong" example of the "I saw my friend kill my wife" testimony, there are a half-dozen reasons that immediately spring to mind which could be a reason the husband is giving false/misleading testimony about what he thinks he saw. (Especially given the emotional trauma of losing one's wife.) We know for a fact that many people have been wrongly executed, based on "good eyewitness testimony" and circumstantial evidence, specifically because scientific testing later proved them to be innocent. If you examine only one website, check this one out:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocenc...th-penalty

I'll cover your link with the others I am looking at.   As to the story from the email/blog I posted.  If you look back on it, I think you will find, that a group of people walked in on man killing his wife (husband killing spouse).  If you have not, I would encourage you to follow the link.  http://randalrauser.com/2013/12/rd-miksa...testimony/   He has a number of examples and arguments for witness testimony.  The first few, says he was personally involved in, and some he heard from colleagues.  Unfortunately he doesn't provide details or a way to look these up.  But if nothing else, I think they do serve as a good hypothetical example.