Duke Lacrosse: Photo Lineup Procedure Transcript
As several commenters have noted, the transcript of the eyewitness identification procedure used by police in having the accuser ID players is here. It's a big topic, and deserves its own thread.
I just finished reading it and I believe it is even more flawed than previously reported.
The first thing that leaps out at me is police failed to tell her the suspects may or may not be in the photos. This instruction is essential. (See here (pdf), pages 41 to 43.) Research is clear that if you don't give that admonition to the eyewitness, there will be more "false hits" and the chances of a reliable ID are dramatically reduced. From Wisconsin's guidelines(pdf):
Witnesses viewing photo arrays and lineups should be instructed that the real perpetrator may or may not be present and that the administrator does not know which person is the suspect.
At first glance, it might seem that informing an eyewitness that the perpetrator may or may not be present in an array or lineup would be stating the obvious. However, eyewitnesses may feel pressure to identify someone from a lineup or array because they believe the police would not be presenting the individuals if all were innocent. When the true perpetrator is not present, this tendency may influence eyewitnesses to identify an innocent person. Studies show that telling the witness that the perpetrator may or may not be present counteracts the tendency to identify the person who looks the most like the perpetrator and reduces mistaken identification rates by as much as 41.6%.11 Telling witnesses that the administrator does not know who the suspect is will also help prevent witnesses from mistaken.
The second glaring error is that the officer says he only used photos of those believed to be at the party. He even told the accuser that the photos were of those of players whom police believed to be at the party. This may be the most egregious error, as I've written before. First, it tells her she's looking at a group which police believe include her attackers. Second, there are no foils.
The third problem is that she says one of the assaulters had a mustache. She says one of the photos looks like the guy except he doesn't have a mustache. This is another improper ID technique. Once they knew one of the guys she described as her assailants had a mustache, they should have shown her photos only of guys with mustaches, including of course, many who were not on the team.
In fact, they should have done three separate procedures, each one with guys who resembled her descriptions of a particular attacker, not lacrosse team players who did not resemble her description.
Some other notes:
- Reade Seligman is the one she identified with 100% accuracy as the guy who was in front of her and who made her perform oral sex.
- She describes image 34 as the guy who made the comment about the broomstick. He was not one of her assaulters.
- Colin Finnerty, image 40, is the one she identified as the second man to rape her. Finnerty is not, she said, the one who strangled her.
| < Tony Snow's First Press Gaggle This Morning | Leopold: Rove Told Bush He Will Be Indicted > |
