Criminal Psychology

1. Criminal Psychology Chapter 10 Eyewitness Testimony Talbot Kellogg Community College

2. On the next screen, click on the picture to begin watching the video.

4. You were just an eye witness to a suspect who set a bomb and dropped it down a ventilator shaft. The police inform you they have caught the person and have them in custody. They just need you to pick him out. Click on the next picture of a line-up and see if you can pick him out. Do not watch the first video a second time. There are no second chances for an eye-witness.

5. After identifying the correct suspect, continue to the next slide.

6. Who did you pick? • The actual suspect was…..

7. None of them! • This is an example of a demand characteristic that can, at times lead to misidentifications. We pick the person most like the one we remember. This is also known as the relative judgment. See the case and videos of Ronald Cotton.

8. The Importance of Eyewitnesses • What makes it important? • What makes a good witness? • Race • Gender • Age • Availability to testify • Ability to testify • Witnesses’ assertion of good memory Of virtually no importance. Of the highest importance.

9. Memory Memory Consolidation – solidifying of memories Priming/ Redintegration Constructive Processing – updating earlier memories with incorrect information. Misinformation Effect – accepting incorrect information at the time the memory is being formed, as factual. Problems in Eyewitness Testimony(Visual Memory)

10. The case of Ronald Cotton, Jennifer Thompson & Bobby Poole.

14. The role of the Psychologist • Applied Researcher/ Expert witness • System variables – Procedures and processes used by the police and other members of the criminal justice system which could negatively affect the accuracy of the accounts of witnesses (line-up v. photo array, leading ?). • Estimator variables – Environmental factors and internal characteristics of the person which could affect the nature and accuracy of their memory (weapon focus, cross-racial ID). • Trainer/ Educator to the Criminal Justice System • Police Consultant

15. Problematic Systemic Procedures • Asking poorly constructed questions. • Allowing one eyewitness to overhear the response of other eyewitnesses. • Taking “spotty” notes of witnesses’ answers. • Failing to use any theory of a proper memory interview (i.e. cognitive interview). • Using interviewers who have little training or little understanding in the nature of memory.

16. Questioning Witnesses (Information Generation) • Problems • Limited Training • Overuse of close-ended questions v. Open-ended questions. • Interrupting the witness. • Little or no assistance to enhance memory. • Leading questions. • Unconscious transference. • Demand characteristics. • The Goals of Law-enforcement.

17. How to Improve Memory • Slow down the rate of questioning. • Utilize the cognitive interview. • Tailor questions to the individual witness. • Witness-centered rather than Interviewer-centered interview. • Be sensitive to the distinction between correct and incorrect responses. • Do not form premature conclusions.

18. Use of Lineups/ Photo arrays • Suspect identification • Identity Parade • Photo Spread • Benefits of Identity Parade • Information such as gait and behaviors. • Benefits of the Photo Spread • Availability • No counsel required

19. Common Errors • Implies the criminal is present. • Demand Characteristic – Make a choice. • Asking the eyewitness specifically about the suspect and not the foils (confirmation bias). • Encouraging loose recognition. • Leaking a hunch. • Providing feedback to the witness to increase confidence. • Relative Judgment Process.

20. Proper Procedural Rules Double - Blind Witnesses should be told that it is possible that the true perpetrator may not be present and that the officer does not know who the suspect might be. The suspect should not “stand out”. A clear statement should be taken from the witness at the time of the identification. Provide views of different suspects sequentially rather than simultaneously.

21. Expert Witness – What is reliable enough to testify about? Box 10-6

22. Steps in the evaluative process • FBI’s Facial Identification Catalogue • Identikit – 1896 & Dr. Alphonse Bertellin • Component Approach • Holistic Process – face recognition in which one considers the relationship of features and general appearance v. a piecemeal or component analysis.

23. Richard Speck • 1966 • Chicago • Mass Murderer • 8 nursing students

25. Steps in the evaluative process • FBI’s Facial Identification Catalogue • Identikit – 1896 & Dr. Alphonse Bertelllin • Holistic Process – face recognition in which one considers the relationship of features and general appearance v. a piecemeal or component analysis. • http://stuffucanuse.com/j_mugshot1.htm

26. Fingerprinting

28. The Crime • On the 11 March 2004 thirteen bombs were loaded onto commuter trains at Alcala de Henares station, 40km outside Madrid. Not long after, ten of them exploded killing 191 people and wounding more than 1,700. Using a fingerprint found on a plastic bag filled with detonators, the FBI, with automated computer matching and experienced experts, obtained and confirmed a positive identification with a US citizen, Brandon Mayfield. Mayfield, a recent convert to Islam, appeared to fit the bill perfectly and he was immediately arrested and imprisoned.

29. Punishment? • Nevertheless, two weeks later, Mayfield was released after Spanish police announced they had caught the real owner of the fingerprint. Mayfield was completely innocent, having simply been the victim of two misfortunes: firstly to have a fingerprint similar to the bomber and secondly to already be in the US fingerprint database (currently totaling around 10 million entries).

30. Outcome • FBI promises to review practices“The FBI apologizes to Mr. Mayfield and his family for the hardships that this matter has caused,” the bureau said in a statement. The agency also said it would review its practices on fingerprint analyses.

31. How does fingerprinting work? • Complete prints are rare. • Partial prints are more common. • Partial prints are compared to suspects prints (by the human eye and via technology). • Top – Down Processing. • Percentage of accuracy is then determined.

33. Research • Initially, Dror, Peron, Hind & Charlton (2005) examined contextual effects in a student population. It was found that participants cued with emotionally charged contextual information, such as gruesome crime scene photos, were more likely to indicate a match between ambiguous fingerprints than uncued control participants.

34. Dror & Charlton (2006) actually re-presented experienced fingerprint experts with cases in which, five years previously, they had confirmed positive matches. This was carried out covertly so the experts themselves were in their normal work environment, and were unaware they were examining prints they had previously analyzed. Contextual information was then provided to the experts in order to attempt to replicate the findings of the earlier study in a naturalistic setting. In an admittedly small sample size (n=6), two-thirds of the experts made decisions inconsistent with their own previous judgments.

35. Is fingerprinting flawed? • Dr. ItielDror – “Clearly no”. • Fingerprinting is a necessity and is clearly more accurate than even eye-witness testimony. • Changes need to be made in application and training. • Context should be removed from the experts evaluation. • The application of points of match or rates of probable match should be identified.