Eyewitness Testimony III

Question 1

Arthur Greer - the murder of sharon grayson

Answer 1

• murder in WA
• case centered around three main cases of circumstantial evidence
• no forensic evidence
• no known cause of death
• new evidence found via innocence project - pipes had been laid down

Question 2

identification evidence

Answer 2

witnesses should only make an identification if they are certain the suspect is in the lineup - however, they often feel pressured and make identifications even if they are not 100% sure

Question 3

foil

Answer 3

filler people in an identification parade

Question 4

research in this area

Answer 4

• consistent with an eyewitness identification paradigm
  
  • participants view a live recorded mock crime
  • participants do a filler task for a period of time

Question 5

expectations (lineup)

Answer 5

when a witness is invited to do a line up the invitation alone is enough to believe the police have identified the perpetrator

Question 6

instruction bias

Answer 6

when the witness is lead to believe the suspect is definitely in the lineup they are more likely to ID someone without being certain

Question 7

investigator bias

Answer 7

when the investigator leads the witness to identify the suspect (e.g. body language etc)

Question 8

foil bias

Answer 8

when one suspect stands out from a lineup - foils are insufficient and do not match the description

Question 9

clothing bias

Answer 9

when the person of interest is wearing clothing that is the same or similar to that worn by the perpetrator

Question 10

presentation bias

Answer 10

when all members of the lineup are presented simultaneously

Question 11

four rules to help lineups be fair

Answer 11

1. who conducts the lineup?
   
   • the person conducting the lineup shouldn’t know what member of the lineup is a person of interest
   • otherwise, the person of interest may accidentally behave in a manner that lets the witness know who the suspect is
2. instructions on viewing
   
   • witnesses should not feel pressured to make an identification
   • witnesses should not be told that the suspect is 100% in the line up e.g. “the suspect may or may not be in the lineup”
3. structure of the lineup
   
   • person of interest should not stand out on the basis of witness description
4. obtaining confidence statements
   
   • witnesses should provide confidence ratings prior to receiving feedback concerning whether they identified the person of interest
   • more confidence at the time of identification =more accurate

Question 12

biased instructions

Answer 12

participants are more likely to wrongly identify when lineup instructions are biased

Question 13

blank lineups

Answer 13

• suspect is not in the lineup at all

- witnesses who make identifications from the blank lineup are more likely to make a false identification

Question 14

sequential lineups

Answer 14

• person conducting the lineup doesn’t know which member is the person of interest
• all members are presented once - for a certain period of time
• witnesses make a choice about each member of the lineup
• decisions cant be changed
• absolute and relative judgement
  
  • sequential lineups are absolute judgement

Question 15

Steblay (2001)

Answer 15

• meta-analysis of 23 studies
• concluded that sequential line ups are better than a simultaneous lineup
• simultaneous lineups increase the number of accurate identifications when the suspect is present but increase the number of false identifications when the perpetrator is absent
• research comes from the same labs, same people conducting them, same materials, which means research is less accurate - no variety

Question 16

an argument for simultaneous lineups?

Answer 16

more likely to pick someone

Question 17

an argument for sequential lineups?

Answer 17

more likely to reject when unsure

Question 18

estimator variables

Answer 18

to do with the witness

Question 19

system variables

Answer 19

to do with the system - courts