How reliable are eyewitnesses?

[jschurchin]

On September 11th there were 10's of thousands of eyewitnesses to the crime and it's aftermath. There were also video, audio and still photographic recordings made of the events.

In a proper investigation the eyewitness testimony would be given it's proper weighting, which is, not very reliable. Ask any detective, attorney or crime scene investigator which they would rather have, a video/picture or eyewitness. To a person they would ask for the former over the later, for they know the unreliability of eyewitnesses.

As armchair investigators we must use the same techniques if we intend on finding some semblance of truth. If you intend on using eyewitnesses you must use them ALL for they are telling the truth about the events as they PERCEIVED them. Or you can use the video/audio, photographic evidence, although this is better evidence it is open to debate.

To pick and chose from either group is not a proper investigation.

[Grateful for Hope]

1. This is, FINALLY, something up my alley

I am a social science kind of person (advanced degree in psych research), and, what you are saying is quite correct.

[Sinti]

2. I agree with you, eyewitnesses are generally not that reliable

Particularly in a traumatic situation. Things get fuzzy when you fear for your life. Not everyone perceives the world with the same amount of clarity, and people are extremely open to auto suggestion. If the guy next to them says he saw X, they are much more likely to also say they saw X, even if they truly think they saw Y. Additionally, if they saw a blue car speed by, and someone says to them, hey, did you see that green car speed by, they are likely to say yes, and assume their eyes were lying, and that's at the very moment of impact, if you will. The farther from the moment it gets, the more unclear the memory gets for most folks.

The best you can do with eyewitnesses is take all the accounts and come up with a kind of composite. Audio, video, and physical evidence For The Win. :)

[Jazz2006]

3. Absolutely agreed.

Eyewitness testimony can be completely and utterly wrong, even though it may well be the truth as the putative witness perceived it.

As an attorney, and one who has long been involved with investigating cases of wrongful convictions, I can add that unreliable eyewitness testimony has been responsible for so many wrongful convictions that juries here are now instructed on the frailty of eyewitness identification, for instance.

And I agree that, as armchair investigators in this forum, we do not have the ability to cross-examine the witnesses to ascertain whether, in fact, any of them are actually lying, and so the entire body of eyewitness evidence should be acknowledged and not cherry-picked.

One additional point I'd add: when numerous people witness the same event, I expect to get many variations in the individual reports of what they witnessed. Especially when the event is traumatic and when other people are talking about it, commenting on it, etc., as Sinti pointed out, many other factors come into play.

It would HIGHLY suspicious to me if all of the witnesses to an unexpected event reported seeing the same thing in the same way.

[jschurchin]

4. I could not agree more with this statement.

"It would HIGHLY suspicious to me if all of the witnesses to an unexpected event reported seeing the same thing in the same way."

Something that is very frustrating, for me, is when people use eyewitness quotes describing damage such, huge, gigantic, massive, raging, inferno etc. I am sure there are similar eyewitnesses that use very different words to describe the same event that are not so speculative, especially with the video/photographic evidence thats available.

[Grateful for Hope]

6. Yes, but there is always SOME element of truth

in each eye-witness account, and, there is always some commonality that permits the experts to piece together what really happened in any traumatic event.

Otherwise, we would really never know what happened in any event that has trauma attached.

Let's be real.

Geesh.

[Jazz2006]

17. What are you on about?

Of course there is an element of truth to every eyewitness statement, assuming the eyewitness actually witnessed the event in question.

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

So what's with your "let's be real" and "Geesh"?

Sheesh.

[Grateful for Hope]

20. Huh?

What are you on about?

Not sure what you meant by this?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

34. No, that's not true.

You're forgetting that some people lie, and that some are delusional.
For those reasons, there are plenty of cases of eyewitness testimony being absolute and total bullshit.

[Grateful for Hope]

35. Yes, you are correct

I should have inckluded these qualifiers (truthful and non-delusional) in my post. Thamk you for pointing this out.

[Grateful for Hope]

5. Impressive...

[Grateful for Hope]

7. Jazz..you are an amazement

According to what you have told us:

You have been a pilot, you are now an attorney, your SO was a first-hand worker doing clean-up in the WTC. You also have been here for, what, six weeks? And, you already have better than 1000 posts (posting day and night?). And, most of those posts are in the Lounge.

I am usually a very respectful person of other posters, but, this forum, to me, is very serious. And, I can't help but wonder about you.

Sorry, but I can't take you seriously.

And, don't bother rebutting...it would not mean anything to me.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

10. Exactly, Miranda n/t

[Jazz2006]

16. Awww, what a cute tag team you two make...

Both utterly wrong, of course, but the tagteam efforts are oh so cute.

[Grateful for Hope]

19. See what I mean?

You are not as smart as you think you are.

[Jazz2006]

23. Actually, yes, I am.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

24. "tinhatters"

personal attack...this is what you are best at, Jazz.

[Jazz2006]

25. How can "tinhatters" be considered a personal attack....

when DU so graciously provides a smiley for it?

:tinfoilhat:

[Grateful for Hope]

26. Come on, Jazz

this is a stretch, and you know it. You know what? The truth always does surface.

Have a good night (or day, depends on where you are).

[Jazz2006]

27. You should be more careful about the PMs you send, Hope....

You sent one to me that was intended for miranda.

Want me to post it?

[Grateful for Hope]

28. Sure, go ahead n/t

[Jazz2006]

29. Nah, it's not my style to post something that comes into my

possession inadvertently for the sole purpose of making someone look silly when it was obviously an error on their part.

[mirandapriestly]

39. "tinhatters" sounds like

something trailer park people would say. In fact....

[Jazz2006]

14. No, you're wrong, Hope2006

I've never been a pilot and have never claimed to be.

I spent several years in the mid 80s working for a private air charter company and travelled the world with the flight crew. I spent hundreds of hours in the cockpit, and flew large aircraft a few times, as a result. As I said explicitly in the thread about "flying large aircraft without training", I've never had formal training. Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

I am a lawyer, work at a large national firm, one of the most respected in the country.

My beau is a fire captain and a member of HUSAR who went to the WTC site after the fact to assist.

I care not a whit if you don't take me seriously, but all of the above is absolutely true.

I feel sorry for you if your world view is so narrow and your personal experience is so bereft of depth and breadth that you cannot comprehend how one can both fly an airplane and be a lawyer, and also happen to be in love with a firefighter.

[Grateful for Hope]

18. Sorry Jazz...but you have not convinced me

and, your statements: "world view is so narrow and personal experience so bereft, etc. " personify the way you have been since you came to this forum...fill in the blanks as I don't have to.

"Patronizing", anyone?

[Jazz2006]

22. I'm not trying to "convince" you of anything.

I am exactly who and what I say I am.

The fact that you can't wrap your mind around that is not my problem.

It is not at all patronizing to point out your narrow world view which is apparent from the fact that you cannot seem to grasp that someone can fly an airplane without formal training and also be a lawyer.

It is not at all patronizing to point out your narrow world view particularly when you suggest that I am lying about my bona fides based only upon that very obvious narrow world view, while I have done nothing but speak the truth.

[catnhatnh]

8. Additionally the numbers are vastly inflated.....

ie: tens of thousands.....although there are millions in nyc,I doubt that more than a hundred or so saw the first strike....most working New Yorkers were not staring up at the 80th floor-they were walking to work....after the strike tens of thousands were watching-the tower that had been struck, again a small percentage of those who were looking up might have seen for several seconds at most the second plane approach.....Most "eyewitnesses" viewed the aftermath of strikes and never the strikes themselves-though for some,their minds have filled in the blanks and they are certain they DID witness it.....If you read the Shanksville reports there are over 100 "eyewitnesses" not one of whom saw the plane touch the ground.Same for the Pentagon,many heard a plane pass close overhead and saw a flash at the Pentagon and are certain of what they saw without seeing an ACTUAL strike.......In short thousands of witnesses who saw something and have been convinced by network repetition of what it was they saw.

[mirandapriestly]

11. Thanks so much for your logic!

It drives me crazy when people say there were "thousands" of witnesses, there weren't. People just think that becauase they saw it "on tv". At the twin towers , even if you were at the location when it happened, the likelihood that you would have an unimpeded view of the impact is very unlikely, because of the angles and closeness of the buildings. You would actually have to be standing in a very specific place.

[catnhatnh]

12. Thanks for the kind words....

...I "saw" it on tv too,but I try to keep in mind I also saw J.R. Ewing get shot, and the castaways rescued from "Gillagin's Island".....

[mirandapriestly]

13. heh heh..nt

[KJF]

30. Sorry to interrupt the shitstorm...

... into which this thread has descended with a response to the original post, but...

If you ask me, eyewitnesses are pretty unreliable and I prefer to use them as backup only when they are corroborating something that can be independently established using other evidence (like a photo). For example, there's a photo that shows mechanical damage to the utility vault retaining wall at the Pentagon (caused by an engine clipping it IMO) and an eyewitness account that says the plane hit the wall. They go nicely together.

Alternatively, if we have no other evidence, just eyewitnesses (like the events in the back of United 93), then I guess we have no choice but to use them, but I would allocate such conclusions a lesser weight than other conclusions based on different (better) types of evidence.

There should usually be a kernel of truth in the eyewitness accounts, but it is sometimes pretty tricky to figure out what it really is.

[catnhatnh]

31. How dare you re-establish....

...the original thread? Seems certain posters here have some rather petulant ego issues.....

[Jazz2006]

32. It is unfortunate, indeed, that a good thread was hijacked by a couple of

shitstormers and turned into a "bash Jazz" thread.

But the original premise is a good one, and worth salvaging.

I agree, as noted above, that eyewitness accounts of events can be and are notoriously unreliable. And I reiterate that I would be highly suspicious if all of the witnesses reported seeing the same thing in the same way.

Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, there are no video cameras recording the events and no audio recordings of events as they unfold, so sometimes all that is left is the eyewitness accounts (with all of their inherent flaws) and whatever physical evidence that can be subsequently salvaged.

That doesn't mean that we, collectively, shouldn't try to piece things together with whatever evidence and means we have available to us. It just means that we should also give a nod to reality along the way, and not expect that every detail will be captured on "film at 11".

[greyl]

33. That's difficult to quantify beyond "they aren't very".

There is plenty of evidence on this particular forum that people who witness the same video over and over and over and over again, can see what they want to see, rather than being objective. Sometimes it's mind blowing the amount of self-deception that goes on.

...
Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate. Most people aren't expecting to be deceived, so they may not be aware of deceptions that others might engage in. Some people make up stories. Some stories are delusions. Sometimes events are inappropriately deemed psychic simply because they seem improbable when they might not be that improbable after all. In short, anecdotes are inherently problematic and are usually impossible to test for accuracy.
...
http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html

more related:
http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/eyewitness.htm
http://www.csicop.org/si/9511/eyewitness.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/testimony-episprob/

[Peter Frank]

36. Blah Blah Blah...

Nice attempt at diversion; but the "official" explanation of 911 defies the laws of physics (if not of politics).

How about some scientific proof of your claims?

[quickesst]

37. I gotta...

call bullshit on Jazz2006. You're the poster who started the shitstorm in the first place. Everyone please re-read the thread and tell me when the first confrontation occurred. It occurred when Jazz(post#6) read an insult into the previous poster's comment that was obviously not there. Over the course of months I've been reading this forum, I have noticed this tactic on a regular basis. The unfortunate thing is that some people will bite, but there will always be someone to steer the conversation back to the topic. Just don't try to pretend you are part of that steering correction. Thanks.
quickesst

[greyl]

38. Nah, post 23 was the first ad hominem. nt

[mirandapriestly]

40. You make them all the time, greyl

I remember I didn't have anything against you until you made an untrue personal attack on me, one of them was even removed . So you people are skilled at putting your misdeeds onto someone else. I put Jazz on ignore, but I can imagine his/her/it's posts because s/he has called me "crazy", and although it's from a troll internet poster, it is disturbing to have someone say something like that to you. Many of jazz posts have been withdrawn because of alerts due to personal attack. The same is not true of Hope, a very reasonable posters. You are a hypocrite and neither of you would be able to get away with this on other DU forums.

[quickesst]

43. It's all...

they have to fall back on. Actually, the only thing they can hope to accomplish here is to get to those who are not yet educated on the subject deterred from delving further. They are using a tried and true strategy of making serious 9/11 truthsearchers look like kooks. It won't work on those of us who cannot be deterred because we know they're reaching. So, to all who have not researched the subject enough to form an opinion, one good place to start is right here. I read the forums pretty much every day untill recently. I decided to participate because I felt secure in knowing that there were people here who know the truth, are not afraid of the truth, and most importantly, can logically and convincingly speak the truth. I get the distinct impression that the only purpose they serve is disruption, and to slow the steady migration of truthseekers. Other than that, I have no idea why anyone with a life would spend so much time trying to counter the observations here, which they clearly find whacky at best. If the ct crowd's conspiracy theories are just that, then I would assume it will eventually go by the wayside, such as Kennedy, and if there is absolutely no evidence, wittnesses, or research that proves government involvement, then they have nothing to worry about. It will pass. So, exactly why spend so much time on something like this, and why not invade the ufo community likewise. Pretty whacky theories there too. And it would serve to fill up the few hours they don't spend here. Thanks.
quickesst

[mirandapriestly]

55. Sadly you're right

I had a new (to 911) poster pm and say "how can you stand it?" about the debunkers/disrupters on this forum,especially one. He was really upset and never posted again. I've had other posters PM me with similar remarks, then they stop posting. Makes me sick.

I don't understand either why people would spend so much time arguing with those that they thought were "kooks", it doesn't make sense. For example, I don't believe in extraterrestial UFO's, I think people might see stuff, but it's government secret planes or some other explanation. But, I don't go to UFO forums and start arguing with them, that would be, well, pathetic.

[greyl]

44. That's an extreme exaggeration.

Furthermore, it happens to be off the point of this particular "conversation". Instead of jumping in to comment on the specific topic at hand, you're jumping in to attack me personally.

Anyway, you must be referring to this exchange we had in February(that you ultimately replied to over a month later) in which you jumped in to attack me personally and discourage discussion, instead of dealing with the specific topic at hand.:

mirandapriestly
Sun Feb-19-06 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Don't worry about posting your response

They can just read the Fox News archives and get the same thing.


Name removed (me, greyl)
Sun Feb-19-06 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

mirandapriestly
Sun Feb-19-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. You can't give one example of that and you know it

You are simply trying to disrupt this thread and you succeeded. Go play these games in GD or LBN and see how,long you last.


greyl
Sun Feb-19-06 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. I'm sorry.

I could give you an example showing what I meant by that, but I'd rather apologize to you for saying it at all.
It was a hotheaded over-generalized personal attack and I was wrong to say it.
I'm sincerely sorry, mirandapriestly.


mirandapriestly
Fri Mar-24-06 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. that's OK, I've been rude before to you before

and I don't like being that way.nt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=71589

Intriguing, no?

edit: added link

[Jazz2006]

49. Not true, miranda.

Only 2-3 posts of mine have ever been deleted, and not for personal attacks.

[Peter Frank]

46. Welcome to the DU quickesst...

:hi:

[Jazz2006]

48. Not so, quickesst

Hope started it in her post #7 (in response to my post #3) in which she insinuated that I was lying about my occupation, etc.

Read it again. Pay attention to the post numbers and not just the order they fall on the page.

[Thorandmjolnir]

41. Just an observation

I am a casual observer of DU but is fascinated with the discussions regarding 9-11.

However, I have noticed that the debunkers are always the same people, they have tremendous expertise in the subject they are debunking and have unlimited time to do the debunking.

Oh, and by the way, Jazz2006, you did say you were a pilot. In fact, you claimed to have flown a "fully loaded stretch DC-8 and it was pretty easy."

your post 65 in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x82058#83231

PS. I am an attorney too :)

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thorandmjolnir]

47. You must be joking!

You are joking right?

Because, no one can possibly read the sentence "flying a plane" and then claim not to be a pilot.

Jazz was arguing that it was pretty easy to fly that kind of plane. How would Jazz know if Jazz was not the pilot?

I have been on numerous flights on all kinds of planes, but I have no basis for expressing an opinion about the ease of flying the various planes.

If you can read that statement and conclude that Jazz is not a pilot, you have a better imagination than me.

You even quote Jazz as "it's been several years since I've flown a large aircraft - I only did so a few times as I'm one of those people who has done so without formal training, thus my response to the opening post, the topic of which is flying large aircraft without formal training),...

Now, tell me again how you can read that and square that with Jazz's statement that he/she never claimed to be a pilot?

Unless "i've flown a large aircraft" means something different to you :)

[Jazz2006]

51. Bjarne Riis. Flying aircraft without formal training does not

make one a pilot and I pointed out specifically that I do NOT have any formal training and had flown large aircraft a few times.

While one can say that flying a plane = piloting a plane, it does not follow that flying a plane makes one a pilot.

[Jazz2006]

52. What happened to your post, greyl?

n/t

[Jazz2006]

50. You've misunderstood, Bjarne Riis

I said that I have flown large aircraft - specifically WITHOUT training, which is what the thread was about.

See #97 in the same thread, for instance:

As I recall, (it's been several years since I've flown a large aircraft - I only did so a few times as I'm one of those people who has done so without formal training, thus my response to the opening post, the topic of which is flying large aircraft without formal training), you can input data on the fly, so to speak, and the autopilot will respond to that input and follow the data you've given it - turns, altitude adjustments, coordinates, etc. In fact, you HAD to input data on the fly because autopilot systems, over long flights, would sort of accumulate errors over the length of the flight and they had to be corrected to adhere to the flight plan or other contingencies.... etc.

... and then later in the same post:

{on edit: I know I have some photos of me flying a fully loaded stretch DC8 over the Pyrenees Mountains in Spain - and this just reminded me that I should dig them out and look at them again - spectacular view! - and besides that, it was the first officer (co-pilot) taking the photos while I was in his seat flying the plane, and I think that someone with aircraft knowledge could probably even interpret the readings on the panel that show the flight path as I meandered about.}


Cheers, Jazz.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

56. For someone who

claims to have me on "ignore", you spend an awful lot of your time lying about me and attempting to diparage me, miranda.

While one could speculate endlessly about why you do so continuously, and about why you chose to attack me from the very first day I joined DU without knowing a thing about me, personally, I can't be bothered to plumb the depths of whatever strange and twisted ideas might compel you to do so.

[mirandapriestly]

57. Stop responding to my posts

when you are on ignore, I can't read them, all I see is "Ignored" and you know that.

[Jazz2006]

58. Right. Just as soon as you stop lying about me and trying to disparage

me all over the place, I'll be happy to stop responding to your inane posts.

Until then, you don't get a pass that allows you to carry on such crap without response.

[simonm]

42. Ah, Memories of a faulty eyewitness

There is no need to tell me how unreliable witnesses can be. In my younger days I was once falsly accused and arrested for a crime.

There I was, walking on the sidewalk minding my own business and a police officer arrests me. He brings me to the scene of the crime (broken car window) and a lady points at me and claims she saw me do it. I'm still wondering today how she could accuse me when I didn't f'in do it! It was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm hispanic and I know this is a common problem among black folks.

Luckily, I was a minor so the record is not public, but as an adult it would have been a disaster.

[Jazz2006]

53. Sadly,

it happens with alarming regularity. Innocent people are misidentified by faulty "eyewitness" testimony all the time, often with grievous consequences. Juries have a tendency to put way too much stock in eyewitness testimony unless they are explicitly instructed about the frailties of such evidence. Even then, they often do not understand how unreliable it can be.

I'm glad that in your case, it didn't ruin your life. Even being arrested and charged when you knew full well that you had nothing to do with it must have been horrible and must have made you feel as though you'd entered an alternate universe.