#eyewitness testimony

"INDIAN SWEARS SEA SERPENT PLAYS IN LAKE COUCHICHING," Toronto Star. July 4, 1934. Page 18. ---- Rowing Over From Rama Early in Morning He Saw "Monster" 16 Feet Long, He Says Reported Six Years Ago ==== Orillia, July 4. Joseph Stinson, 60-year-old Indian from the Ojibway band on the Rama reserve, came for ward with a story to-day that a sea serpent inhabits the waters of Lake Couchiching.

In an excited and hurried manner, hesitating only occasionally for breath. Stinson told of how he had encountered a "sea monster" measuring more than sixteen feet in length when he was rowing across the lake from Rama early in the morning. "I thought it was a dead-head or some-thing when I first caught a glimpse of it floating toward the deep water off the shore from Chief Island," the Indian related after repeatedly insisting when reporters looked doubtful that his story was "the absolute truth."

Stinson said it was about 5.30 in the morning when he set out for Orillia on his eventful trip. The water was rough and he headed his boat toward Lehman's Point directly across the lake from the reserve. It was after he got around Chief Island that he was suddenly startled, he said, by a "strange sight."

"This dead-head was gliding slowly along the water about 100 yards from shore. It was heading toward the middle of the lake. Suddenly it shot up out of the water and instead of a head it revealed itself as a monster of at least sixteen feet in length," Stinson asserted.

"I became a little excited when I saw it jump," the Indian admitted, "for I didn't have a club or anything to protect myself with except an oar. By this time the serpent was about 50 yards from the boat. It was not making toward me. After the first bit of excitement was over I stood up in the boat and continued to stare."

Six days before Christmas, Darien Harris’ family showed up to court hoping he would be granted bail. They got more than they expected. He will walk out of a Chicago courthouse as a 30-year-old exonerated man after being incarcerated for 12 years.

On Tuesday, prosecutors dropped all charges against Harris in the 2011 shooting of Rondell Moore. Harris’ conviction was largely based on the testimony of a witness who turned out to be legally blind. Earlier this month, a judge overturned his conviction, and Cook County prosecutors said they planned to retry him. But after reviewing the totality of the evidence, they decided against retrying Harris.

Harris’ mother, Nekesha Harris, can finally release the shame and fear she said she’s been carrying for years as she raised her younger children.

“I feel like I am dreaming. I guess when I feel him in my arms, it will be real,” she said outside the courtroom shortly after prosecutors decided not to go forward with a second trial.

This outcome may be an answered prayer, but experts say the Harris case underscores a series of cracks in the criminal justice system. Mistaken eyewitness identification is among the leading contributors in wrongful conviction cases across the country.

Of the more than 3,400 wrongful convictions since 1989, more than 900 — most of them Black — were the result of witnesses mistakenly identifying a person as the culprit, according to the National Registry of Exonerations’ database.

Black men are also overrepresented in the headcount of exonerees every year. Moreover, most exonorees were incarcerated for more than half of their lives. Harris was arrested weeks before his high school graduation in June 2011 and convicted in 2014.

“In order to comprehend an event that we witness, various aspects of the event must be interpreted by us. Only part of this interpretation is based upon the environmental input that gave rise to it; that is, only part comes from our actual perception of an event. Another part is based on prior memory or existing knowledge, and a third part is inference. We store in memory not the environmental input itself, nor even a copy or a partial copy, but the interpretation that we gave to the input when we experienced it. In fact, we probably store only fragments of that interpretation.”

Note that eyewitness testimony is, by far, the weakest form of evidence that a person can present in support of a claim. In spite of its high value in the court of law, in the "court" of science, eyewitness testimony is essentially useless. Psychologists have known for quite some time how ineffective the human senses are as data taking devices. Note that the pedigree of the observer is irrelevant here - as long as he or she is human, the fallibility of observation is manifest.

"MOTHERS' THANKS EARNED BY BUCK WITNESS THINKS," Toronto Star. July 4, 1933. Page 1 & 2. ---- Many Should Be Grateful to Communist Leader for Acts in Riot, Court Told --- ADVISED CONVICTS ---- Accused Man Accepts Deputy Warden's Explanation of "Ruse" ---- Special to The Star Kingston, July 4. - Leg-shackled, in pairs, fourteen convicts came to the court house here this morning to bear witness in the defence of Tim Buck and Adrian Vandergayt, convicts accused of rioting last October at Kingston penitentiary. Buck, who is being tried by Judge G. E. Deroche, is defending himself. He called Anthony Becker as his second witness. Becker was employed at the blacksmith shop on the day of the riot. He said that on seeing a gang of men descend to the ground from the tailor shop, via a scaffold, he had pulled the switch controlling the power in the shop. "What made you pull the switch?" asked Buck. "I pulled it impulsively," explained Becker. Buck had come to the guards and told them in a respectful manner to go to the mail bag rooms, witness said. In the mail-bag room Becker said he had seen Garceau and Behan make speeches. Buck Didn't Speak "If I had made a speech you wouldh ave heard it?" "Yes." T. J. Rigney, K.C., for the crown asked Becker how far Buck had been from the switch when it was pulled. "About 30 feet," witness said. "What was the reason you pulled the switch?" "I saw men coming.from the tailor shop so I walked over and pulled the switch." "What has the men coming down the scaffold to do with the pulling of the switch?" "I had heard rumors." Mr. Rigney pressed for an answer as to the connection. Buck objected, saying that in his estimation the question had been answered.

Mr. Rigney wanted to know what witness would do if he saw a horse coming down the street. "Well," drawled the witness, "it all depends on the horse - " he broke off laughing. The court also laughed, and Mr. Rigney changed his line of questioning.

Becker said that Buck had come into the blacksmith shop and he had asked where he was going. Buck said he was going to tell the officers to go to the mail-bag room where they would be safer.

"Was there anyone else there when Buck spoke to you?" "No, just the two of us," replied Becker. Spoke to Officers Buck had then gone to the officers and communicated his wish for their safety. The officers had spoken regarding changing their clothes, and Buck had told them they could do as they liked, witness stated.

One of the officers had changed his clothes, and the three had left to go upstairs to the mail-bag room.

After the departure of the officers Buck and witness had walked slowly along the hallway and eventually they came to the mail-bag shop, he recalled.

Becker said that Buck did not make a speech in the mail-bag shop.

"You're positive of that?" "Buck did not make a speech in the mail-bag room," said Becker in a firm voice.

Buck complained to the court that he had been taken to the north gate at 7.30 this morning to see Mr. Nickle, who is assisting him with his defence.

"They told me Mr. Nickle had telephoned that he wanted to see me there. I was kept there without breakfast until I was brought here. Mr. Nickle now tells me that he did not telephone.

"I have had no chance to see my witnesses because of this ruse and I would like an adjournment for a few minutes in order to do so. And also to get some breakfast."

An adjournment for 15 minutes was ordered by the court and arrangements were made by Sheriff R. F. Vair to have some breakfast brought to Buck.

A Misunderstanding On the resumption of court, Judge Deroche told Buck that Deputy Warden George Sullivan had explained the circumstances of the ruse.

"It was clearly a misunderstanding." stated he.

"I think it was your honor," commented Buck.

One of the men who some years ago escaped with "Red" Ryan and others, Thomas "Shorty" Bryans, was the next witness called by Buck. Bryans hobbled to the stand with the aid of crutches. Buck asked that the witness be allowed to sit down and permission was given.

Bryans said that he had heard rumors of an impending demonstration and that when the motor stopped he thought it was a signal. He had gone to the dome where Buck, Garceau and others had talked.

Buck had stated that Deputy Warden Walsh had asked him to speak to the men. Garceau, he said, had spoken to the men, telling them that he understood the boys were out for reform and better conditions.

Sam Behan, who was acquitted on Saturday, had spoken about "unity and one for all, all for one," said witness.

"Who said that?" asked Buck. "Sam Behan did."

He recalled that Buck had stooda round during the demonstration but had not spoken until after the warden had made a speech. Buck then told the men that the soldiers would not harm them as long as they kept calm and did no violence.

"You then advised them to collect water because you said the place was a fire trap." asserted Bryans.

Unsolicited, Bryans sald: "There are women and children in Kingston, in fact, in Canada, who should he grateful for what Tim Buck did that day."

"What do you mean?" inquired Buck. "Well, what you did to keep the thing quiet and peaceful," eplained Bryans.

Can't Tell of Bloodshed Mr. Rigney asked witness what he meant by the statement regarding the gratitude of the mothers and children of Canada.

"Well, for the speeches they made - and the way they put things over."

Buck wanted Bryans to elaborate on this but when witness started to tell about prison riots he had been in and the amount of bloodshed there had been the court objected.

Three speeches had been made in the dome, said Wm. McKenzie, another convict, by Garceau, Behan and Warden Smith. After the warden's speech Buck had spoken but witness was unable to say what time had elapsed. Buck, in his speech, had told the men that the warden had telephoned for troops but that they should feel no alarm as long as they behaved themselves, said McKenzie.

Went for His Cake The next witness, Clifford Hines, stood in the box and answered the questions with contrasting flashes of white teeth against the dark background of his face.

Buck asked who had pulled the motor switch. "Is it necessary that I say who it was?" asked Hines. "The man in question is quite wiling that you should," advised Buck.

"It was Becker," answered witness.

Hines said he was positive it was Sam Behan who had made the statement "One for all. All for one."

Buck had warned the men not to act violently and therefore they would come to no harm. This speech had a quietening effect on the men, Hines claimed.

Hines said he had returned to the blacksmith shop to retrieve a piece of cake which he had left there, in case of a siege.

https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/the-bible-isnt-a-game-of-telephone

https://www.chrissbiblenewsletter.org/p/the-bible-isnt-a-game-of-telephone

Trauma can change what a person notices, remembers, and later struggles to recall—but it does not provide a simple explanation for every gap, inconsistency, or vivid memory.

A fragmented account is not proof that someone is lying. An emotionally powerful memory is not proof that every detail is accurate. Understanding trauma and memory requires holding both truths at once.

My new post examines fragmented recall, weapon focus, delayed disclosure, intrusive memories, dissociation, recovered memories, and the misinformation effect. It also considers why trauma-informed practice should improve the way evidence is collected without replacing scrutiny or corroboration.

Read “What Trauma Can—and Cannot—Explain About Memory” on Crime Central.