The Problem with Eyewitnesses 1. Read this article: Who was Jean Charles de Menezes? De Menezes was a 27-year-old electrician who was shot dead by police on 22 July 2005. Officers were hunting terrorists who had tried to bomb London the previous day, two weeks after the 7 July attacks in the capital killed 52 people. He was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at point-blank range by officers from the Met police’s CO19 firearms unit. Why did police think he was a terrorist? In the early hours of that day, police traced a gym card found in one of the bags containing the failed bombs to an address at Scotia Road, south London. They believed it was being used by a suspected terrorist called Hussain Osman. A senior officer drew up a plan that anyone coming out of the address should be allowed to walk a short distance away so they were out of sight of anyone else in the flats, then stopped by armed police and their identity checked. After he left his flat, for some reason officers allowed him to board a bus towards Stockwell station, They followed him and shot him after he boarded a Northern line train at Stockwell. Rules of engagement introduced by the Met to deal with suicide bombers required armed officers to shoot and kill suspected bombers before they have a chance to detonate any explosives. But it was a case of mistaken identity. What did the police say in the aftermath of the shooting? The Met police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, told a press conference that the dead man “was challenged and refused to obey police instructions”, while Scotland Yard said his “clothing and behaviour at the station added to their suspicions”. These claims were all later found to be false. Blair admitted the force had made a “serious mistake” in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. In 2009, the Met had to pay compensation believed to be just over £100,000 plus the family’s legal costs. In return the family agreed to end their legal (civil) action against Scotland Yard. Have the force or any of the officers involved ever been held accountable for the killing of De Menezes? In 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service said there was “ insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual police officer”. But the Met was successfully prosecuted under health and safety legislation the following year and fined £175,000. In 2007, the Independent Police Complaints Commission decided that no disciplinary action would be taken against any officers involved in the shooting. In 2008, an inquest jury rejected Scotland Yard’s claim that De Menezes was lawfully killed as part of an anti-terrorism operation, recording an open verdict, after being barred by the coroner from returning a verdict of unlawful killing. ​ Jean Charles De Menezes The aftermath of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station has shown that eyewitness testimony may not always be as reliable as it seems. On the day Mr Menezes was killed, a picture was quickly painted by eyewitnesses of a suspect who had vaulted over a ticket barrier, ran away from police, and had worn a bulky jacket that could have concealed a device. Scotland Yard did nothing to dispel that impression, saying that the shooting had been "directly linked" to anti-terrorism operations, that Mr Menezes had been challenged but had not obeyed, and that the victim's "clothing and behaviour" had added to suspicions. In the months following, the image of Mr Menezes' conduct was slowly dispelled, before being completely shattered by Independent Police Complaints Commission through documents leaked to ITV News. Identification Errors According to the documents, Mr Menezes was wearing a light denim shirt or jacket, walked through the barriers having picked up a free newspaper, and only ran when he saw his train arriving. It has left many scratching their heads as to how the witnesses could have got it so wrong. The reliability of eyewitness accounts of crime has proved a rich seam for psychologists and criminologists to mine over the years. Andrew Roberts, a lecturer in law at Leeds University specialising in evidence, said courts have recognised for a long time that eyewitness identification evidence is "inherently unreliable". Two cases helped change the view in British courts, he said. DISTORTING FACTORS Stress/ Emotion Presence of a gun/ weapon Conferring with others (interference) Leading questions Media coverage Misinterpretation/ Stereotyping In 1969, Laszlo Virag was convicted of stealing from parking meters and using a firearm while trying to escape police officers. Despite his alibi and other contradictions, he was identified by eight witnesses as the man who committed the crime. While he was in prison it was found another person had committed the crime and he was pardoned. In 1972, Luke Dougherty was convicted of shoplifting after two witnesses picked his face out of a police album. He was eventually cleared and both cases led to the Devlin Committee's investigation of identification evidence, which found that many witnesses overstated their ability to single out the right person. News Reports But it is not just the thorny issue of recognising a face that confuses witnesses. Witnesses' recollection of every aspect of an incident can be contaminated by what they hear from other people. Forensic psychologist Dr Fiona Gabbert has been working at Aberdeen University with Professor Amina Memon on the distortions in eyewitness recollection. "Memories are very vulnerable to error. If you witness a crime and then read a local news report everything can be combined in your memory at a later date," she said. 2. Write a 500 word article discussing whether or not eye-witness testimony should be used as evidence in a court room. Bring to your first psychology lesson in September. Without it you’ll not be admitted .