very powerful even if you didn't do it, no evidence and the word of a one individual can cost you your whole life and i am fully aware that there are people who may say they didn't commit a crime but truly have its so sad to see and hear of a individual doing time for something they actually didn't do and years later after forensics they a released into a society they know nothing about, striped from there life's only for the justice system to apologize even though they'll never get there life back and it happens more often then it should its really sad that child he spoke of in this video was only 17 image the hurt his mother felt I cant image raising my son only for the system to take him!! all because of one eyewitness so messed up think of the man he could've been. patient 123
They definitely should not use eyewitness testimony as the key evidence when convicting someone of a crime. There are many factors that come into play that can affect what a person sees; if they are afraid or the event happens really fast the adrenaline that is pumping through the body can make you misinterpret what you really see. So police should not just rely on having someone point out the person they thought did it because they could easily mistake the right person with someone who had absolutely nothing to do with it. Birdman123
Yes they did speak on eye witness testimony. However in the form that it was used I do not feel that it was acceptable at all. Yet they believed he was under pressure and scared so he actually confessed to something that he did not have anything to do with. Yes adrenaline does play a huge part in how we interpret certain situations and also how we respond to certain situation. Though they were doing their job they did go a bit overboard with the interrogation. Forensics123
I agree the whole situation is sad. He spent years of his life incarcerated for something he did not do and he will never get that time back. It was nice though to here that he and his son were both attending college in California. I think that Carrillo will always be affected by this though, seeing that it happened to him at such a young age. gabegun123
This was a very interesting video because it talks about how this man was arrested from an eyewitness statement. In this TED talk he talks about how a father was killed in a drive by shooting and there were six witnesses that saw the shooting. The police got a photo lineup of some people they suspected to have partaken in the shooting. They showed the photos to the witnesses and they picked who they believed did the shooting; after that the police arrested the man that the witnesses pointed out he went to the trial and they used the photo identification when convicting him for the shooting. It shows just how loosely they can use information to prosecute someone. With eye witness statements I think it should not be taken as hard evidence; with adrenaline flowing and fear the person is feeling they could have thought that they saw something concrete but instead they mistook it for something else. So police should not just rely on eyewitness testimony as the key piece of evidence because it could be wrong. Birdman123
Its true that using eye witness statements are not the best and most reliable bits to use in court especially with that being all they had to go on for a murder case. wreked123
Eye witness statements are not always the most reliable, yet they can possibly put you a bit closer to solving a crime. Though in this particular situation, not so much as they possibly thought it would have. Because if we continue pressuring the wrong person for a crime he or she never committed, and possibly prosecute based on these conditions. Our testimony there after will never be held reliable. Forensics123
I agree, I think that it could be a very slippery slope just going off of what an eye witness has to say, not because they would be wrong because they could defiantly know what they saw for sure, but in a stressful situation your brain can play tricks on you. GRUNT123
Scott is obviously very good at what he does and the story was told from his perspective, but some issues were not fully developed in his narrative. I don’t understand why ALL five of the witnesses independently picked the suspect out of a mugshot line up. If they did not talk to each other before identifying him, did they know him or was there some kind of conflict between them? Why did they say they saw him, when the reconstruction showed it could have been anybody in the car? I also had trouble understanding why the report said the lighting was good. Except for summer in North America, 1900 is generally dark or pretty close and a point of reference would be helpful. From the photos the light seemed anything but good and the street lights did not cover the area where the incident happened. This is still an excellent illustration of the unreliability of eye witness testimony but in this case leaves out the why. Humvee123
The Forensic expert in this video did a great job on explaining how eyewitness testimony isn't that accurate at all. By explaining the science behind how your brain adds bits and pieces of things to a memory that arnt necessarily true. Witch in this case led to a wrong conviction and let the killer run free with no worries. But due to him and the lawyer explaining these things and reconstructing the scene led to a petition for his release. wreked123
This video relates to the area of coercion, and what can happen if you give a false confession. There is actually a such thing as a false confession even if they did not do the crime. In the video they believed that Michael Crowe killed his own sister Sarah. Yet they believed he was under pressure and scared so he actually confessed to something that he did not have anything to do with. This 14 year old boy is scolded in interrogation as they simply lie to this minor about rehabilitation if he confesses. Yet if he doesn't he will go to a hard core adult prison. This child should not have been interviewed without his parents being present to begin with. They are trying to make this kid remember something that he has absolutely no memory of. Because clearly this kid is completely innocent and scared. He has just lost his sister and the police is trying to pin the murder on him. Though he has had no time to grieve. They have him in the interrogation room until he confesses to a crime that he did not commit. Yet when pressure is applied we know that we can make a person do or say what we feel they should, rather it be true or not. Forensics123
I completely agree that you can get any confession you want as long as you say and do anything to them. I also agree that it is an unimaginable scenario this child has been put into and not only is he dealing with losing his sister, he is being pinned for it as well. Acquianted123
This video was really good. I think these days it would be very hard to put someone in jail for shooting someone then not being able to find a gun or find the car they were driving. So I my eyes there is no hard prof, only the eye witnesses. This video really opened my eyes because I had no idea there was guys that went out and did things like this to solve cases and it’s really cool how much science really goes into this. I really like all the hard work this guy put into freeing this man. I agree that we as law enforcement should learn much more about math and science while in school. GRUNT123
The video does a very good job at making as aware of how unreliable eyewitnesses actually are. Just the fact that they all said that there was good lighting is a faulty detail they testified to. Elite123
It is pretty crazy seeing just how far we have come in terms of cases like this particular one. I'm not sure what training the officers went through in order to seek out confessions with little to no regard to anything else. Coercion itself seems like a very shady practice from the start. In regards to this kid that was a suspect in murdering his own sister, it seems like steps should have been taken to actually rationalize the situation and the officers should have maybe tried to put themselves in his shoes. I mean even just sitting here thinking about it I can clearly see that this child was under monumental stress and just pushed through the hoops so they could end their shift and go home. Eyewitness statements should definitely be used as evidence, but maybe not to the point they are being used a crutch in order to get a conviction. Acquainted123
This video is the most interesting video I have watched from this class so far in my opinion. I am a big fan of Ted Talks they make the topic a lot more interesting. This video is very informative on how eyewitness are not always, (hardly ever) the most reliable source of information. I was surprised at how many people where falsely convicted from eyewitness testimony. It was weird how all the wittinesses said that there was good lighting when there obviously was no way their could be since it was at 7:00pm at night and the house had very poor artificial lighting. I wasn't expecting the judge to go out to the scene of the crime himself when he did they had the driver come by twice once at 30 feet away then another time he was 3 feet away and he could really even see anything so the judge agreed with them at that point. Elite123
I love tedtalk videos you should watch the other tedtalks. I agree that eyewitnesses are not reliable at all because a lot of them could be paid off and forced to lie to help an individual stay out of prison. I think it was a great idea to have the actually judge go to the scene they should have that happen on other cases as well. explorer123
This is a interesting subject. It makes sense that the majority of innocent people in prison are due to cases whose main evidence was that of an eye witness. It was interesting to hear how the mind works and how it sometimes slightly alters how we remember things. The eye witness's in this case claimed to remember seeing Carrillo as the shooter in the vehicle. When they reenacted the scenario it was clear to see that there was no way that any of the witnesses were able to see anyone who was in the vehicle. I also thought it was odd that nothing about the vehicle itself was tied to the case. You would thing that the vehicle would be a major piece of evidence. It makes you wonder how many more innocent people are currently serving time, and also how reliable is an eyewitnesses testimony at times. I am glad there was a retrial in this case. gabegun123
I agree that the retrial of these people are what needs to happen because it could uncover a lot of missed errors and give people some time to actually live their lives depending on if they have been locked up for a decent amount of time
I love TED talks; they're always very interesting. This topic especially. I have always wondered what kind of problems there are with eye witnesses, and how often they are wrong. Unfortunately after watching this video I see that it happens a lot more than I figured it would. I had no idea how altered our memories of certain events actually are. This creates a huge issue in the criminal justice system. Which brings us to the specific case in this video. Frank Carrillo was sentenced to life for first degree murder. The only evidence that they had against him was the eye witnesses of five young children. During trial the officers and kids said they could see very well, but when Scott did the research he found that it would have been very dark. After seeing the pictures from when Scott went and reconstructed the crime seen it is very clear that getting a good enough visual to put someone away for life is not possible. They also never found a weapon or the vehicle. It's scary to think any of us could go to prison just because someone said they saw us. dangkids123
I think this was my first TED talks that I have watched and I to like it. Found it very informative and made me think outside the box a little bit. I’m sure we have all been in a situation where we had to describe stuff that we have seen. Whether it is a car someone was driving or clothes someone was wearing. In these situations I know I have been wrong before and wondered how I could have missed it.silverline123
I have watched many TEDtalks and like the format of these videos. I personally think that if I were to witness a murder I honestly would stand in shock in fear that I would be killed next because I have no gun or way to defend myself. I wouldn’t trust my testimony because all my thoughts would be jumbled up and just thinking about how that could have been me. Eyewitness testimony’s can be false because the eyewitness could be paid off or forced to lie to save on person from prison time. I agree that reconstructed memories occur on many cases because one time you'll tell a story to one person and the next time you tell someone the same story you could have told a completely different story because you don't remember exactly what happened. I never really realized about the 9/11 second tower until he mentioned it saying we never really saw it collapse we just imagined it because the news said so. Traumatic evens can cause many people to shutdown and forget everything that has happened. Explorer123
The information that Scott Fraser gave about the 9/11 attacks was interesting. I was a freshman in high school. After school I remember watching it for hours on the TV. I also thought I had watched video of both towers falling that day. It’s crazy how your mind can fill in blanks or combine things into one. Silverline123
I agree with you when saying that eyewitnesses are often times non-reliable sources. I, like you, think that if I was in their shoes, I wouldn't remember a thing about the crime; I'm worried too much about being the next victim. I also agree that in traumatic situations, our brains shut down; it's called "fight or flight" and it's our natural instincts. Gators123
This video was very good and made me think a lot. Eye witness testimony is crucial in all cases but it also has so much room for error. Eye witness testimony is very important for officers and detectives. Since the officers and detectives were not there to see the crime be committed they rely heavily on this. As an officer I think they need to be aware that what individual’s say they need to look into it and use the eye witness testimony as a starting point. I think eye witness testimony should be used but I don’t think it should be used at such a high level and evidence be pushed aside. Found it interesting that the officer on scene considered the crime scene well lit. After seeing the pictures that were taken later, I see completely why prosecution didn’t want to retry him. As to why they tried him in the first place without any gun or car as evidence is unsure to me. Silverline123
Eye witness is very controversial in how accurate it is. It should not be allowed to be something that decides cases. In this video is really shows how one could trick themselves into believing something that did not even happen but it seems perfectly logical in their mind that it did. With this amount of uncertainty they should hold eye witness testimony at a lower standard just like a lie detector test it could really save a lot of people that might actually be innocent in the long run.
At the beginning the video was hard to get into simply because I don’t remember what I was doing when the Twin Towers in New York were hit; I was only 5. However, once he began talking about the trial of Francisco Carrillo, I was intrigued. The first question was: what’s wrong with him being sentenced to life? My answer was quick and easy; if he really did do it, I don’t see any problems. But if he didn’t commit the murder, we’ve got a problem. Why make someone pay for what they didn’t do?
I liked how, when the judge asked, the speaker told him that he wanted him (the judge) to go to the scene of the crime to see what he could bring back from the scene. After, the judge was also told to stay there and let the same thing happen once more, this time with the vehicle stopping in front of him. When this happened, I (along with the judge) changed my mind about if I had thought Carrillo committed the murder.
I completely agree with the judge’s decision to give this man another chance at life; he didn’t do anything wrong. Gators123
I agree with you when saying that eyewitnesses are often times non-reliable sources. I, like you, think that if I was in their shoes, I wouldn't remember a thing about the crime; I'm worried too much about being the next victim. I also agree that in traumatic situations, our brains shut down; it's called "fight or flight" and it's our natural instincts. Gators123
very powerful even if you didn't do it, no evidence and the word of a one individual can cost you your whole life and i am fully aware that there are people who may say they didn't commit a crime but truly have its so sad to see and hear of a individual doing time for something they actually didn't do and years later after forensics they a released into a society they know nothing about, striped from there life's only for the justice system to apologize even though they'll never get there life back and it happens more often then it should its really sad that child he spoke of in this video was only 17 image the hurt his mother felt I cant image raising my son only for the system to take him!! all because of one eyewitness so messed up think of the man he could've been. patient 123
ReplyDeleteThey definitely should not use eyewitness testimony as the key evidence when convicting someone of a crime. There are many factors that come into play that can affect what a person sees; if they are afraid or the event happens really fast the adrenaline that is pumping through the body can make you misinterpret what you really see. So police should not just rely on having someone point out the person they thought did it because they could easily mistake the right person with someone who had absolutely nothing to do with it. Birdman123
DeleteYes they did speak on eye witness testimony. However in the form that it was used I do not feel that it was acceptable at all. Yet they believed he was under pressure and scared so he actually confessed to something that he did not have anything to do with. Yes adrenaline does play a huge part in how we interpret certain situations and also how we respond to certain situation. Though they were doing their job they did go a bit overboard with the interrogation. Forensics123
DeleteI agree the whole situation is sad. He spent years of his life incarcerated for something he did not do and he will never get that time back. It was nice though to here that he and his son were both attending college in California. I think that Carrillo will always be affected by this though, seeing that it happened to him at such a young age. gabegun123
DeleteThis was a very interesting video because it talks about how this man was arrested from an eyewitness statement. In this TED talk he talks about how a father was killed in a drive by shooting and there were six witnesses that saw the shooting. The police got a photo lineup of some people they suspected to have partaken in the shooting. They showed the photos to the witnesses and they picked who they believed did the shooting; after that the police arrested the man that the witnesses pointed out he went to the trial and they used the photo identification when convicting him for the shooting. It shows just how loosely they can use information to prosecute someone. With eye witness statements I think it should not be taken as hard evidence; with adrenaline flowing and fear the person is feeling they could have thought that they saw something concrete but instead they mistook it for something else. So police should not just rely on eyewitness testimony as the key piece of evidence because it could be wrong. Birdman123
ReplyDeleteIts true that using eye witness statements are not the best and most reliable bits to use in court especially with that being all they had to go on for a murder case. wreked123
DeleteEye witness statements are not always the most reliable, yet they can possibly put you a bit closer to solving a crime. Though in this particular situation, not so much as they possibly thought it would have. Because if we continue pressuring the wrong person for a crime he or she never committed, and possibly prosecute based on these conditions. Our testimony there after will never be held reliable. Forensics123
DeleteI agree, I think that it could be a very slippery slope just going off of what an eye witness has to say, not because they would be wrong because they could defiantly know what they saw for sure, but in a stressful situation your brain can play tricks on you.
DeleteGRUNT123
Scott is obviously very good at what he does and the story was told from his perspective, but some issues were not fully developed in his narrative. I don’t understand why ALL five of the witnesses independently picked the suspect out of a mugshot line up. If they did not talk to each other before identifying him, did they know him or was there some kind of conflict between them? Why did they say they saw him, when the reconstruction showed it could have been anybody in the car?
ReplyDeleteI also had trouble understanding why the report said the lighting was good. Except for summer in North America, 1900 is generally dark or pretty close and a point of reference would be helpful. From the photos the light seemed anything but good and the street lights did not cover the area where the incident happened.
This is still an excellent illustration of the unreliability of eye witness testimony but in this case leaves out the why. Humvee123
The Forensic expert in this video did a great job on explaining how eyewitness testimony isn't that accurate at all. By explaining the science behind how your brain adds bits and pieces of things to a memory that arnt necessarily true. Witch in this case led to a wrong conviction and let the killer run free with no worries. But due to him and the lawyer explaining these things and reconstructing the scene led to a petition for his release. wreked123
ReplyDeleteThis video relates to the area of coercion, and what can happen if you give a false confession. There is actually a such thing as a false confession even if they did not do the crime. In the video they believed that Michael Crowe killed his own sister Sarah. Yet they believed he was under pressure and scared so he actually confessed to something that he did not have anything to do with. This 14 year old boy is scolded in interrogation as they simply lie to this minor about rehabilitation if he confesses. Yet if he doesn't he will go to a hard core adult prison. This child should not have been interviewed without his parents being present to begin with. They are trying to make this kid remember something that he has absolutely no memory of. Because clearly this kid is completely innocent and scared. He has just lost his sister and the police is trying to pin the murder on him. Though he has had no time to grieve. They have him in the interrogation room until he confesses to a crime that he did not commit. Yet when pressure is applied we know that we can make a person do or say what we feel they should, rather it be true or not. Forensics123
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that you can get any confession you want as long as you say and do anything to them. I also agree that it is an unimaginable scenario this child has been put into and not only is he dealing with losing his sister, he is being pinned for it as well. Acquianted123
DeleteThis video was really good. I think these days it would be very hard to put someone in jail for shooting someone then not being able to find a gun or find the car they were driving. So I my eyes there is no hard prof, only the eye witnesses. This video really opened my eyes because I had no idea there was guys that went out and did things like this to solve cases and it’s really cool how much science really goes into this. I really like all the hard work this guy put into freeing this man. I agree that we as law enforcement should learn much more about math and science while in school.
ReplyDeleteGRUNT123
The video does a very good job at making as aware of how unreliable eyewitnesses actually are. Just the fact that they all said that there was good lighting is a faulty detail they testified to. Elite123
DeleteIt is pretty crazy seeing just how far we have come in terms of cases like this particular one. I'm not sure what training the officers went through in order to seek out confessions with little to no regard to anything else. Coercion itself seems like a very shady practice from the start. In regards to this kid that was a suspect in murdering his own sister, it seems like steps should have been taken to actually rationalize the situation and the officers should have maybe tried to put themselves in his shoes. I mean even just sitting here thinking about it I can clearly see that this child was under monumental stress and just pushed through the hoops so they could end their shift and go home. Eyewitness statements should definitely be used as evidence, but maybe not to the point they are being used a crutch in order to get a conviction. Acquainted123
ReplyDeleteThis video is the most interesting video I have watched from this class so far in my opinion. I am a big fan of Ted Talks they make the topic a lot more interesting. This video is very informative on how eyewitness are not always, (hardly ever) the most reliable source of information. I was surprised at how many people where falsely convicted from eyewitness testimony. It was weird how all the wittinesses said that there was good lighting when there obviously was no way their could be since it was at 7:00pm at night and the house had very poor artificial lighting. I wasn't expecting the judge to go out to the scene of the crime himself when he did they had the driver come by twice once at 30 feet away then another time he was 3 feet away and he could really even see anything so the judge agreed with them at that point. Elite123
ReplyDeleteI love tedtalk videos you should watch the other tedtalks. I agree that eyewitnesses are not reliable at all because a lot of them could be paid off and forced to lie to help an individual stay out of prison. I think it was a great idea to have the actually judge go to the scene they should have that happen on other cases as well.
Deleteexplorer123
This is a interesting subject. It makes sense that the majority of innocent people in prison are due to cases whose main evidence was that of an eye witness. It was interesting to hear how the mind works and how it sometimes slightly alters how we remember things. The eye witness's in this case claimed to remember seeing Carrillo as the shooter in the vehicle. When they reenacted the scenario it was clear to see that there was no way that any of the witnesses were able to see anyone who was in the vehicle. I also thought it was odd that nothing about the vehicle itself was tied to the case. You would thing that the vehicle would be a major piece of evidence. It makes you wonder how many more innocent people are currently serving time, and also how reliable is an eyewitnesses testimony at times. I am glad there was a retrial in this case. gabegun123
ReplyDeleteI agree that the retrial of these people are what needs to happen because it could uncover a lot of missed errors and give people some time to actually live their lives depending on if they have been locked up for a decent amount of time
Deletewutang123
I love TED talks; they're always very interesting. This topic especially. I have always wondered what kind of problems there are with eye witnesses, and how often they are wrong. Unfortunately after watching this video I see that it happens a lot more than I figured it would. I had no idea how altered our memories of certain events actually are. This creates a huge issue in the criminal justice system. Which brings us to the specific case in this video. Frank Carrillo was sentenced to life for first degree murder. The only evidence that they had against him was the eye witnesses of five young children. During trial the officers and kids said they could see very well, but when Scott did the research he found that it would have been very dark. After seeing the pictures from when Scott went and reconstructed the crime seen it is very clear that getting a good enough visual to put someone away for life is not possible. They also never found a weapon or the vehicle. It's scary to think any of us could go to prison just because someone said they saw us. dangkids123
ReplyDeleteI think this was my first TED talks that I have watched and I to like it. Found it very informative and made me think outside the box a little bit. I’m sure we have all been in a situation where we had to describe stuff that we have seen. Whether it is a car someone was driving or clothes someone was wearing. In these situations I know I have been wrong before and wondered how I could have missed it.silverline123
DeleteI have watched many TEDtalks and like the format of these videos. I personally think that if I were to witness a murder I honestly would stand in shock in fear that I would be killed next because I have no gun or way to defend myself. I wouldn’t trust my testimony because all my thoughts would be jumbled up and just thinking about how that could have been me. Eyewitness testimony’s can be false because the eyewitness could be paid off or forced to lie to save on person from prison time. I agree that reconstructed memories occur on many cases because one time you'll tell a story to one person and the next time you tell someone the same story you could have told a completely different story because you don't remember exactly what happened. I never really realized about the 9/11 second tower until he mentioned it saying we never really saw it collapse we just imagined it because the news said so. Traumatic evens can cause many people to shutdown and forget everything that has happened.
ReplyDeleteExplorer123
The information that Scott Fraser gave about the 9/11 attacks was interesting. I was a freshman in high school. After school I remember watching it for hours on the TV. I also thought I had watched video of both towers falling that day. It’s crazy how your mind can fill in blanks or combine things into one. Silverline123
DeleteI agree with you when saying that eyewitnesses are often times non-reliable sources. I, like you, think that if I was in their shoes, I wouldn't remember a thing about the crime; I'm worried too much about being the next victim. I also agree that in traumatic situations, our brains shut down; it's called "fight or flight" and it's our natural instincts. Gators123
DeleteThis video was very good and made me think a lot. Eye witness testimony is crucial in all cases but it also has so much room for error. Eye witness testimony is very important for officers and detectives. Since the officers and detectives were not there to see the crime be committed they rely heavily on this. As an officer I think they need to be aware that what individual’s say they need to look into it and use the eye witness testimony as a starting point. I think eye witness testimony should be used but I don’t think it should be used at such a high level and evidence be pushed aside. Found it interesting that the officer on scene considered the crime scene well lit. After seeing the pictures that were taken later, I see completely why prosecution didn’t want to retry him. As to why they tried him in the first place without any gun or car as evidence is unsure to me. Silverline123
ReplyDeleteEye witness is very controversial in how accurate it is. It should not be allowed to be something that decides cases. In this video is really shows how one could trick themselves into believing something that did not even happen but it seems perfectly logical in their mind that it did. With this amount of uncertainty they should hold eye witness testimony at a lower standard just like a lie detector test it could really save a lot of people that might actually be innocent in the long run.
ReplyDeleteWutang123
At the beginning the video was hard to get into simply because I don’t remember what I was doing when the Twin Towers in New York were hit; I was only 5. However, once he began talking about the trial of Francisco Carrillo, I was intrigued. The first question was: what’s wrong with him being sentenced to life? My answer was quick and easy; if he really did do it, I don’t see any problems. But if he didn’t commit the murder, we’ve got a problem. Why make someone pay for what they didn’t do?
ReplyDeleteI liked how, when the judge asked, the speaker told him that he wanted him (the judge) to go to the scene of the crime to see what he could bring back from the scene. After, the judge was also told to stay there and let the same thing happen once more, this time with the vehicle stopping in front of him. When this happened, I (along with the judge) changed my mind about if I had thought Carrillo committed the murder.
I completely agree with the judge’s decision to give this man another chance at life; he didn’t do anything wrong. Gators123
I agree with you when saying that eyewitnesses are often times non-reliable sources. I, like you, think that if I was in their shoes, I wouldn't remember a thing about the crime; I'm worried too much about being the next victim. I also agree that in traumatic situations, our brains shut down; it's called "fight or flight" and it's our natural instincts. Gators123
ReplyDelete