Making A Case Interviewing Witnesses

MAKING A CASE Interviewing Witnesses Interviewing Suspects Creating A Profile Recognising Faces

Introduction: Interviewing Witnesses Within this topic there are three areas to consider: > Recognising faces. > Factors influencing identification. > The cognitive interview. Each of these areas has a research study to support the findings under the heading of interviewing witnesses.

One key area for the police and to be able to make a case is the interviewing of witnesses who may have vital evidence to give. Research from the cognitive approach suggests that what a witness sees and remembers is influenced by many factors including: What might these factors include? Interviewing Witnesses

WHAT IS AN E-FIT? Computerised method of synthesising images to produce facial composites of wanted criminals based on eyewitness descriptions

Who is this?

Recognising Faces Recognising faces is a highly complex process that appears unique and fine- tuned in human beings. The Thatcher Effect shows us that we are inclined to recognise upright faces. These findings and others help us to understand the importance of accurate face recognition during the process of interviewing witnesses.

The Thatcher Effect The Thatcher effect has shown that people are more likely to show recognition for the face which has upright distinct internal facial features.

Bruce and other researchers have shown that there is a clear difference between recognising familiar and unfamiliar faces. Read the handout on Sinha et al (2006) research from a meta-analysis of face recognition research. Match the 8 key factors on slide 9 that influence facial recognition. Recognising Faces: 35-36

Sinha et al. (2006) Summary of Face Recognition research. Illumination influences recognition Motion of face helps recognition Special neurons developed for recognition Familiarity Faces processed as a whole (holistically) Eyebrows and hairline = most important Low-resolution images Faces and expressions are processed differently Everyone has the ability to recognise faces “Crimewatch” TV programme Facial reconstruction is expressionless Required for facial reconstruction Facial reconstruction is stationary CCTV images Facial reconstruction Suspect seen in poor light

Background to Bruce et al’s study Familiar faces enjoy high recognition even under difficult circumstances, whereas unfamiliar ones are often misidentified even in good conditions. Familiar faces are recognised using their internal features (eyes, eyebrows, nose, mouth) Whereas unfamiliar ones are recognised by external features such as head shape, hair and ears.... Witnesses tend to see suspects for a very short time and therefore use unfamiliar face perception when creating a composite. This means that external features will be described best. However, witnesses are trying to recognise familiar faces and therefore are relying on the internal features to identify them.

Internal and External Features

Evaluation of Recognising Faces: Bruce et al What was the sample? What was the sampling method? Can it be generalised?

Evaluation of Recognising Faces: Bruce et al What method was used in the study? What are the strengths of this method? What are the weaknesses of this method? What is the advantage of using an independent design in this study?

Evaluation of Recognising Face: Bruce et al Comment on the reliability of memory in facial recognition? Comment on the reliability of the study (think about doing two experiments)

PROBLEMS / ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH FACE RECOGNITION  Expectations / stereotypes (Duncan, 1976)  Limitations of technology - exposure mode (static; expressionless) * Errors in police procedure PG39

Factors influencing identification - Weapon focus Loftus et al What happens when a weapon is involved in the crime? Weapon focus: refers to the concentration of a witness’s attention on a weapon which results in them having difficulty in recalling other details of the scene & identifying the person of the crime.

This is an estimator variable and is the idea that a witness will focus more closely on the weapon than they will on the person holding the weapon. There is debate about the reason for this effect and whether it is caused by the danger posed by the weapon or the unusualness of the situation Research into stress suggests that we perform poorly when we are at both high and low levels of arousal and best at a medium level of arousal ( Yerkes Dodson Law). This would suggest that a witness’ recall of crime would be poor when their level of physiological arousal is high. Attempts to test this hypothesis are affected by both ecological validity and ethical issues. Weapon Focus

Evaluating factors influencing identification Weapon focus: Loftus et al What method was used in the study? What are the strengths of this method? What are the weaknesses of this method?

Evaluating factors influencing identification Weapon focus: Loftus et al Self-reports were also used in the study. What are the problems with this method? Is eye fixation data a valid measure of someone’s attention to pieces of research? Why is it effective to have a control group in this case?

Evaluating factors influencing identification Weapon focus: Loftus et al What other factors besides the weapon could have caused the individual to forget what happened in the crime scene? Comment on the reliability of the study (note: two experiments were carried out).

The cognitive interview Fisher et al The cognitive interview is a set of instructions given by the interviewer to the witness to reinstate the context of the original event and to search through memory by using a variety of retrieval methods It rests on two basic assumptions: Memory of an event is made up of an interconnected network and that there should therefore be several ways of getting to the same point. Retrieval from memory will be more effective if at the time of retrieval the context surrounding the original events can be reinstated. Cognitive interviewing is designed to facilitate accurate recall through a set of instructions.

The Principles of CI: Page 42 Interview Similarity Focused retrieval Extensive retrieval Witness-compatible questioning

Fisher et al. Field Test of the Cognitive Interview Fisher and Geigelman: Found that if detectives were trained in CIT (cognitive interview technique, they found out significantly more information than those who were not trained. It did take longer to conduct the interview, but the difference was not significant.

The cognitive interview Fisher et al There are four basic principles, according to Fisher et al (1989). Explain each of them in a bit more detail: Interview similarity: Focused retrieval: Extensive retrieval: Witness-compatible questioning:

Evaluating the cognitive interview Fisher et al What could be a problem with the sample? Which types of crimes will work best with the cognitive interview? The CI depends on the witness being cooperative. Why? What are some of the problems with the CI? What do the police need to be careful about when carrying out the cognitive interview?

Overall: Evaluating research into Interviewing Witnesses How are the studies reductionist? Do the studies explain witness behaviour through personality or situational factors? Is the research ethnocentric?

Evaluating research into Interviewing Witnesses How can the research findings be applied to everyday life?