Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Memory and how it works

I am saying that in the future, the evidence of the unreliability of memory
will be used much more often in trials because there is now very firm
evidence that memories can be easily changed and or falsified. In
particular lineups and presenting more than 1 photo at a time are more prone
to produce false identifications. As a result if this is done with a
witness, there will be experts testifying as to the unreliability of such
practices.

Actually I have a cynical view of the courts because I know that some of the
experts are only expert on paper and each side often brings in opposing
experts. And yes I know the Appellate Courts are very reluctant to overturn
verdicts even when there is firm evidence that the conviction was false.
There is now some evidence that that TX executed an innocent person, and
that the person did not have good defense. The state currently pays an
amount for the time spent in prison when wrongly convicted, but it hardly
compensates. There have been some recent long term prisoners exonerated
because the Houston crime labs falsified and otherwise completely mishandled
evidence.

I have seen how police can just get people convicted of misdemeanors without
any evidence whatsoever, and the cost of fighting the case is not worth the
effort. The person is thrown into jail and serves the time before any
conviction. I know of such cases personally. And in the cases that I
witnessed they kept the person for a full 24 hours to insure that the jail
would get reimbursement from the state. They did this by all kinds of
stratagems such as being unable to transfer records from one office to
another even though the offices had windows facing each other in the same
building.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Sorry, but the fact is that Appellate Courts in the US continue to affirm
such convictions, usually by claiming that there is convincing supporting
evidence. As a Asssistant Public-Defender I went through the hassle in at
least one such case which got 3 (out of the necessary 4 votes) to be heard
in the U. S. Supreme Court. I can find the citations if anyone is really
interested.
Moral: John seems to have an unrealistically romantic view of the
US criminal justice system.

"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley




On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, John Clement wrote:

No, they bring in a PhD cognitive scientist. And they will get exactly
what
is in this article as testimony from an expert. In the future any
prosecutor who uses the wrong method of identifying suspects such as
lineups
or showing more than 1 photo at a time will have experts breathing down
their necks.

Actually many traditional methods of identifying suspects have not been
scientifically proven. How reliable are fingerprints, or ballistics?
Lineups are actually not very reliable.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Not with this article, before any self-repecting judge who would
sustain
a hearsay objection to such testimony.
Regards,
Jack

"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley




On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Bernard Cleyet wrote:

This is "in the news". Defense attorneys now can contest eye witness
testimony scientifically.

bc

This is old:

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

IIRC, this is the subject of a current (or very recent) article in
the NYer.




_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l