Watch
You need the Flash Player (version 7 or higher) to view this clip - download Flash. http://media.open2.net/eyewitness/staged_crime_misidentification.flv Copyrighted The Open UniversityListen
Save this MP3 file to your computer You need the Flash Player (version 7 or higher) to use our MP3 player - download Flash. Copyrighted The Open University Download What can I do with this?Read
Graham Pike: You’re about to see video footage of a staged crime. Please watch it carefully.
Do you think you would make a good witness if you were now interviewed by the police? Would you be able to remember everything about the crime? Can you remember what the person was wearing? Can you remember what the person took? Can you remember how many computers were in the office? Did the person have to unlock the door before entering the office? Although details such as these are important, perhaps the most important information the witness can provide relates to the identity of the perpetrator. As well as describing the appearance of the perpetrator, witnesses are also often asked to identify the perpetrator from an identification parade. Of course, the police first have to find and arrest a suspect before they ask the witness to make an identification, which usually means a gap of four to six weeks between the crime and the identity parade.
So let’s see how good a witness you would be. In a moment, we’re going to show you a photo line up. There will be a letter next to each of the photos in the line up. All you have to do is work out who the perpetrator is and remember their letter. Like most witnesses, you probably didn’t find it that easy to remember what the perpetrator looked like, so let’s work out how you did. Did you pick one of the letters? I’m afraid that if you picked any one from the identity parade you made a misidentification. The perpetrator of the crime you saw previously wasn’t in the parade. So if you picked out anyone, you picked out an innocent suspect. So if you did identify an innocent suspect, why was that? Psychological research has pointed to a number of reasons that could explain this.
Amongst these are the fact that our memory for unfamiliar faces is very inaccurate. The person you saw commit the crime was unfamiliar to you; you only saw them for a few seconds. It’s therefore very hard for you later to identify them, to recognise them. Secondly, you saw all the faces in the identity parade at the same time, that is they were presented simultaneously. When you see faces in the identity parade at the same time what you tend to do is try to pick the best match for the perpetrator, even if that person isn’t the perpetrator, so you look amongst all the faces and you pick the one that most resembles the perpetrator, even if it’s not them. Thirdly, it’s possible that you pick someone out from the line up because I told you to. At the beginning of the identity parade, the instruction that was used was a leading question, it suggested to you that the perpetrator was going to be in the parade because I said pick out who it is and remember their number, so maybe the reason you picked someone out was because you were told to.
Psychologists and the police have worked hard in the UK to overcome these problems, so suggestive questions are not used and the faces are shown one at a time to avoid witnesses simply picking the best match. However, it is very hard to overcome the fact that our memories tend to be very inaccurate. Misidentifications can lead to someone being prosecuted for a crime they did not commit. In 2007, DNA evidence finally exonerated Jerry Miller, who had spent 24 years in a prison for a rape he did not commit. His conviction was based on evidence from two eyewitnesses. Their misidentification led to an innocent person being imprisoned for most of their adult life whilst the real perpetrator walked free. Jerry Miller’s case was the 200th case the US Innocence Project successfully appealed using DNA evidence. Eye witness identifications played a role in 77% of these wrongful convictions.
Martin Conway: Flashbulb memory
The Open University
Professor Martin Conway, Professor of Cognitive Psychology at The University of Leeds talks us through flashbulb memory. Read more : Martin Conway: Flashbulb memory
Becky Milne explains the cognitive interview
The Open University
Dr Becky Milne, Principal Lecturer at the Institute of Criminal Justice Studies at the University of Portsmouth, explains the technique of cognitive interviewing. Read more : Becky Milne explains the cognitive interview
Login or Register to post comments
Comments on: "Misidentification: can you identify the crimi
1066 has started a thread discussing Misidentification: can you identify the criminal?.
Hi all
saw immediately that he was not in the line-up. was expecting something tricker than that.
just finished OU psychology degree - was great to see Graham 'for real'!
Oh my God what a pointless waste of time. I came on expecting to take part in a mini version of the programme to merely get this pathetic test. Why didn't they test us on the questions the guy was asking? First of all the pictures were blurred and small! why do that? And secondly they totally made out it was a test to pick the right one. I get the point he was making but I was like, "well it doesn't look likeany of them. If it is any then maybe F but he's changed alot since the photo!" What the hell did that prove?? Nothing. RUBBISH WASTE OF TIME.
I had really tried to take in as much information as possible, but I really did fall for the idea that the culprit WAS in the lie up of photographs. I plumped for 'H', because he was probably the best match. I did, however, think that none of the men in the photographs looked like him!
i actually got it right altho at 1st a did say the letter G then changed my mind and said it woz none of them..
Well got the V neck sweater wrong as he was wearing a cardigan and it was a swipe tag or card he was wearing, believe there was another computer behind the white screen also reckon he worked at this place as he knew where he was and did not take the exit route.He did remind me of one of the Weasley twins from Harry Potter...
Oh well never mind....lol terrible hair cut too...
I couldn't pick out the criminal in the line out, so I know I got that right...pats oneself on the back, I remember him being red headed (not too red though) with a short high fringe and his hair was quite thick but not long at all,He was tall and also remembered him having a navy v neck sweater with a white T shirt with what looked like blue wings, He wore jeans and as he walked away he had something that looked like keys or a tag hanging from his right side he also wore a watch with a very wide strap, stole a black laptop and the door was not locked by the way....don't remember how many computers as I thought he was after wallets or a purse...Now You have to believe that I did not watch this video again as what would be the point of working out how bad my memory is by cheating...but will go back after posting this to check it out.......I'll let you know how I think I scored :-)
Dear 1066 - I wonder if your chagrin at getting it "wrong" meant that you didn't listen to the rest of the commentary. If you had, then the point of it would perhaps have been a bit clearer; it might be worth listening to it, as the 'trick question' does, by its very use, have a very important point to make.
If you did listen to it, and still think you wuz robbed - well, never mind! I don't suppose it took a huge amount of time out of your life.
Regards.
I would just like to agree
I would just like to agree with u
How unsurprising and dissapointing. The whole video was basically a trick question.
The reason I picked someone was because I was told that the criminal was one of the people in the 9 pictures presented, and unlike in the real world there was no possibility that the criminal was not in the line up, or a possibility that the creators of the line up had made a mistake.
Such a shame. For me you have proven nothing, where you had a real opportunity to show some important findings, I now believe none of it - well none of the research put forward by yourselves.
What a totally futile proceedure.
Why not actually HAVE the criminal in the line up - you can then prove - at least to some - that people make mistakes.
By not having the criminal in the line up you prove nothing as in the real world there is the option of human error.
Yours is simply a trick question, and proves nothing. Shame.