Target Sports

Horror Story

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • leVieux

    TSRA/NRA Life Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Yes I agree, I think I essentially mentioned they often depend on it as the end all be all of their case but that is usually when they have little else to present as evidence. Even though they depend upon eyewitness testimony too much in some cases that does not necessarily mean they would not rather have physical evidence like DNA, fingerprints, blood or other physical things that bolster the case. Of course, eyewitness testimony can be among the best evidence if the eyewitness is both accurate and reliable; then it pretty much is as good as gold. The thing is proving that the witness is both accurate and reliable is not often easy unless that person has given given accurate testimony in past cases (or has a history of being able to accuratley report things he/she has seen in other types of situations) and that witness was deemed reliable because of past experience as an eyewitness or because physical evidence - in even only one case - backs up the witness' testimony.
    ,
    But, it wasn't an "Eyeitness ID".

    IIRC, it was a local who simply told that he had seen "a man carrying a small girl child away" from the resort.

    leVieux
    .
    Capitol Armory ad
     

    mongoose

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 10, 2012
    1,289
    96
    nm
    Yes I agree, I think I essentially mentioned they often depend on it as the end all be all of their case but that is usually when they have little else to present as evidence. Even though they depend upon eyewitness testimony too much in some cases that does not necessarily mean they would not rather have physical evidence like DNA, fingerprints, blood or other physical things that bolster the case. Of course, eyewitness testimony can be among the best evidence if the eyewitness is both accurate and reliable; then it pretty much is as good as gold. The thing is proving that the witness is both accurate and reliable is not often easy unless that person has given given accurate testimony in past cases (or has a history of being able to accuratley report things he/she has seen in other types of situations) and that witness was deemed reliable because of past experience as an eyewitness or because physical evidence - in even only one case - backs up the witness' testimony.
    It is scary how bad eyewitness accounts can be and that they are ever used in the prosecution of a crime. I have seen the results of thirty people witness the same crime and the differences in description of a perpetrator and his clothing were amazing.
     

    leVieux

    TSRA/NRA Life Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Such a statement, from the unnamed reliable eyewitness does not mean the mother was uninvolved. The fact is eyewitness testimony is often considered among the worst type of evidence admitted in trial proceedings; at least according to the prosecutors, defense attorneys with whom I worked during my 32 year career in LE; it is also the belief of many Forensic Psychologists. I am not saying whoever was that witness was wrong, just stating a fact as I know it about eyewitness testimony. Here are a couple of snippets, with links to their sources, that may be of interest about the reliability of eyewitness testimony (you can find many others):





    There are numerous cases you can find in which eyewitness testimony got someone wrongfully convicted who was later found innocent because of DNA or some other form of physical evidence presented to the courts that proved them innocent. What most folks, who are not involved in either side of criminal proceedings but may be involved as jurors, believe is that eyewitness testimony is usually accurate and is reliable. They are wrong about that all to often. Thus eyewitness testimony is often considered the weakest evidence that can be presented and such evidence should be heavily scrutinized by law enforcement officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges. Sadly, it is all to often that LE and prosecutors depend upon eyewitness testimony as being the end all be all of all types of evidence in a prosecution.

    Relative to this case and who was suspected, many times in crimes involving the disappearance of a child, it is one or both of the parents involved - some even sell their children to sexual predators. I am not saying the police were right or wrong in how they handled it but that their focus on the parents is what was to be expected until the parents were ruled out as suspects. That regardless of any so called reliable eyewitness testimony at that early stage of the investigation that somehow makes you believe only one person was involved. Of course, along with looking at the parents, the police should also have been focusing on other suspects and all evidence as well including the statements of eyewitnesses. It is quite possible, likely even probable as we know it now, that an eyewitness in this particular case actually did see a man carrying a child away and that likely was Madeline McCann. That does not, especially at the early stages of an investigation, rule out the parents as suspects. How the police went about the early stages is another thing. If they were incompetent at getting it done properly - and if what I have read about their investigation and their actions or inaction relevant to it are true - then it seems they were incompetent. That is not only a shame but should have resulted in disciplinary action against them, again if the accounts of their ineptness are true. Still though, none of that rules out the parents as suspects early on. In fact, the authorities may still hold the parents or one of them in suspicion today although due to media coverage and public opinion, as well as political pressure, would not likely admit such again until such time that they might obtain substantial proof of such.

    Until the responsible person(s) for her disappearance is/are convicted or posthumously are proven guilty we will not know one way or the other.

    I understand and we've all seen the demonstrations of the unreliability of eyewitness IDENTIFICATION & detail. But, usually the most basic recognition of an EVENT is much more dependable.

    For instance, if the group of 30 witnesses observed a truck wreck, their observation that a WRECK happened would be more reliable than their descriptions of the specific vehicles' details.

    In this specific crime, there were a number of folks who were WITH the Mother throughout the entire episode and knew that she had not had any unexplained absences.

    Since we were nearby during the initial events, I did follow this a while and never saw or heard ANY evidence that the parents were involved.

    Lastly, I repeated the tale here to remind us of the event and of how quickly and unexpectedly bad things can and do happen, not to spur incessant technical speculation re the details.

    leVieux
    .
     
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,120
    Messages
    2,953,359
    Members
    34,941
    Latest member
    Irowland1994
    Top Bottom