Why eyewitnesses get it wrong - Scott Fraser

Scott Fraser studies how humans remember crimes -- and bear witness to them. In this powerful talk, which focuses on a deadly shooting at sunset, he suggests that even close-up eyewitnesses to a crime can create "memories" they could not have seen. Why? Because the brain abhors a vacuum. Editor's note: In the original version of this talk, Scott Fraser misspoke about available footage of Two World Trade Center (Tower 2). The misstatement has been edited out for clarity.

Talk by Scott Fraser

[toriaphillips]

I'm a lawyer who has decided to change careers and is studying psychology. This talk inspires me to pursue forensic psychology, big time!

[minidini]

Woha very interesting! It's so fascinating to study the process of finding truth and finally set an innocent person free again..!! I get to believe in humanity when I hear about such great people :) Thank you Scott Fraser

[henrikolsen]

Very interested in these subjects about perception and what we make of it.
Although at @10:35 about "totally dilated eyes" (pupils), it seems shallow depth of field is mixed with possible distance to focus. He is holding his hand close to his eyes, while communicating that 18 inches (just referred as depth of field) as "the distance at which you can focus and see details" (now talking and implying focus distance with hand and talk). I won't argue _at all_ whether a face can be recognized at said conditions. But it's slightly uncomfortable to suddenly feel a loss of trust in the talk, right at the moment he explains how he as an expert testified to those arguments in court. Let's hope focus was better in court (pun intended).

[michaelpettersson]

I got a hearing disability, my subconscious "fill in the blanks" when I mishear things so I can hear something else then what was actually said. If it still make sense I may not ask for a clarification and I get stuck with false information.

[lanzcordero]

Came here from the "happiness according to science" video of veritasium.

[dheerajishere]

awesome!...reminded me of '12 Angry men'

[HannahGraceIsrael]

I need to share this … DA was granted immunity 1976. Here is what they have immunity against

Here’s a non-exhaustive list of the type of misconduct for which prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity because these actions purportedly relate to their role in the judicial process:
• Falsifying evidence
• Coercing witnesses
• Soliciting and knowingly sponsoring perjured testimony
• Withholding exculpatory evidence and/or evidence of innocence
• Introducing evidence known to be illegally seized at trial
• Initiating a prosecution in bad faith (in other words, for personal reasons or with knowledge that the individual didn’t commit the crime)

[SIeepParalysis]

Shout out to anyone here from forensics or any other classes

[billngo]

In 1991, Francisco Cio was convicted of murder based on eyewitness testimony from six teenagers. Twenty-one years later, a retrial was granted due to concerns about the reliability of eyewitness identification in low-light conditions. Expert analysis revealed poor lighting at the crime scene, impacting the teenagers' ability to accurately identify the shooter. A court reenactment, under similar lighting, demonstrated the limitations of vision, leading to Cio's release. The case highlights the fallibility of eyewitness testimony and the need for scientific evidence in legal proceedings.

[Miss_.Elaina]

who came here from law and order to finish their assignment

[moonrisessun]

here, for my compare and contrast essay. between eye testimony vs. dna testing

[GamesGirlsMovies]

so that guy knocked up his girlfriend when he was 17 ...

[brygenon]

Then we look up the fall of the second tower on 11 Sept 2001 and wonder why the good and smart people of TED did not weed this idiocy out.