Sure enough, the only photos shown were of Duke lacrosse players.

If the case goes to trial, the defense likley will use a psychological expert like Gary Wells or Elizabeth Loftus to explain the principles of eyewitness identification

Hmmm, Sounds like a bad lineup to me. Should have been 46 different photo lineups with one player in each one. That's how I have done it. This way, even if the accuser makes a mistaken ID, they're still 100% to get a player from the party and that's bad police work.

What is *not* mentioned is how many times the accuser went through the photos or how exactly the photos were arrayed

why would anyone do a line up like that?

One thing to keep in mind is that even if they had done a better line-up, it wouldn't necessarily make it any clearer if she was making stuff up or telling the truth. After all, she WAS at the party, she did see the people there, rape or no rape, so she should have been able to pick Duke players out of a line-up.

Patrick posted: Hmmm, Sounds like a bad lineup to me. Should have been 46 different photo lineups with one player in each one. That's how I have done it. This way, even if the accuser makes a mistaken ID, they're still 100% to get a player from the party and that's bad police work.

While experts as you have pointed out are a plus, any regular person can point out that the woman was guaranteed to pick a duke lacrosse player who attended the party.

It seems to me that they would of mixed in a some extra faces, to check her credibility as well.

The recommended photo-lineup procedure in North Carolina is that the witness should see six photos, one of whom is the accused, and five of whom resemble the description of the accused. This procedure is taught in criminal justice classes in NC.

Well, my point, Scrutinizer, is that there was no accused. This wasn't a "lineup" in that sense. So how would that procedure have actually been relevant?

I don't think the defense will gain much purchase with this line of argument, unless they at least can exhibit a marginal display of scientific literacy.

There was no one specifically accused, but there was a pool of available suspects, and that pool should have been diluted by known innocents to strengthen the credibility of her identification.

Wouldn't players that were not at the party, but were included in the line up be these "known innocents?"

e) Include a minimum of seven fillers (non-suspects) per photo identification procedure and five for live lineups.

f) If there is more than one suspect that fits the description of the perpetrator, there can be more than one suspect in the lineup; however the number of fillers should be increased to a minimum of seven (or five for live lineups) per suspect. Whether to include one suspect and seven fillers per line-up, or to include more than one suspect and increase the number of fillers to keep the proportion of suspects to fillers constant at 1 to 7, is a discretionary decision. By keeping the proportion of fillers to suspects constant, the reliability of the identification remains constant.

g) Fillers should resemble the witness's description of the perpetrator in significant features (face, profile, height, weight, build, posture, gait, voice, specific articles of clothing, etc.) or, in the case where a composite is used, based on their resemblance to a composite. If the perpetrator was described as having an unusual identifying mark, all fillers should have similar markings or all lineup members should have similar coverings over the described area.

of the accused

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

Supamike, you seem certain it is impossible either of the arrested guys are involved. While one of them has some sort of alibi, what about the other guy, Finnerty? Why do you think he is entirely ruled out?

I was neutral at first and didn't know which story was correct. But the defense appears to be afraid to go to court and are trying to bully the accuser and prosecution into dropping the case before trial with hearsay evidence, rumors, innuendos, etc.

OK, I can't recognize the same students I work with all semester if they get a haircut! But if someone committed a crime against me and I could pick the person out from an available pool of suspects, but not from a group of similar looking people, does that mean I'm SOL?

"Known innocents" also called fillers or foils, are persons who resemble the description of the perpetrator given by the accuser but who are known to have no involvement in the incident.

if someone committed a crime against me and I could pick the person out from an available pool of suspects, but not from a group of similar looking people, does that mean I'm SOL?

PB--you are incorrect in your descriptions of a lineup.

The DA waited three weeks to show her a photo lineup. By that time, he had to have a pretty good idea which of the players were suspects according to her description.

These boys have good alibis, one has an iron-clad alibi,

The way it seems that the media, and the defense seem to have a pretty good alibi for Fineerty, but are choosing to hold back on it to the media. It just another card in their hand. But even with him having a bad alibi, it still to me washes.

It was then, she told the police, that Mr. Seligmann forced her to perform oral sex, and Mr. Finnerty raped and sodomized her and the third suspect strangled her, according to a transcript of a photo identification session with police on April 4. The transcript was obtained by WTVD in Raleigh, N.C. She told the police that the attack lasted for about 30 minutes.

Team captains have told the police that 41 of the 47 Duke lacrosse players attended the party. The team captains left Mr. Seligmann off the list they gave to the police although he had been photographed watching the dancers.

[TL] wrote:

The DA waited three weeks to show her a photo lineup. By that time, he had to have a pretty good idea which of the players were suspects according to her description.

Are you guessing about that?

The fact that witness misidentification played a role in many of the innocence project's successful cases says nothing about the incidence of improper witness identification where guilty people were convicted. That's an important thing to quantify before you start making judgments about how notoriously bad witness identification is.

I'm assuming by "the incidence of improper witness identification where guilty people were convicted" you mean "the incidence of conviction of guilty parties when improper identification procedures were followed"---false negatives, rather than false positives, as it were.

my own experience is that police and prosecutors generally do have a suspect or suspects in mind prior to a lineup or a photo id. Lineups are generally used to confirm the ability of the witness to identify the suspect.