.png)
One of the first things investigators need to ascertain is “witness suitability” by examining whether eyewitnesses were even capable of accurately perceiving the event in the first place.[1]
Helpfully outlined in the acronym ADVOKATE, investigators need details to the following categories: (A) the amount of time witnesses observed the event; (D) their distance from the event; (V) the visibility conditions at the time of the event; (O) the degree to which their observation may have been obstructed; (K) their knowledge of (or familiarity with) the people, places, and objects involved; (A) were there any particular reasons for remembering the event; (T) the time elapsed since the event occurred; and (E) whether there are errors in the witnesses description of the event. These details help identify “defeating values” that would automatically disqualify a person as an accurate witness, such as being at a distance beyond fifteen meters from the event or making observations when the visibility level was below fifteen lux.[2]
Likewise, investigators need to assess people’s physical and mental competency, as well, especially in terms of age and ability to comprehend the event. For instance, young children and seniors over the age of sixty are prone to mistaken remembrances and identifications.[3]
Investigators should also establish whether the witnesses have frequent memory, visual, or auditory problems that might negatively affect their suitability. In terms of mental competency, investigators need to be cautious about relying solely on those with mental illnesses, developmental disabilities, or other cognitive handicaps that are known to affect the accuracy of their testimonies. Indeed, people with certain debilities are more likely to provide fewer details of an event, are more vulnerable to misleading questions, are more susceptible to misunderstanding requests for information, and are more likely to be inaccurate in their recall. Importantly, those with moderate intellectual or physical disabilities, while not being significantly less accurate than others, may be proficient at hiding their handicaps, which make investigators more vigilant about accepting testimonies without first assessing witness mental and perceptual competency.[4]
Finally, investigators ought to consider other non-optimal conditions, as well, such as inclement weather, interruptions, and distractions that might have affected a witness’s observations. Investigators should also discover whether claimants were intoxicated or under the influence of any other substance that could potentially alter their perception of reality, including (but not limited to) alcohol, drugs, and prescription medication. Fatigue and other related factors, such as illness, dementia, fever, malnutrition, and dehydration can also create “malleable” witnesses whose perception and memory of the event are susceptible to distortion.[5] Once an investigator determines the eyewitnesses are suitable, they should then evaluate the accuracy of their testimonies.
[1] Bromby and Hall, “ADVOKATE,” 145‒46; Duke, Lee, and Pager, “A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words,” 10‒11. [2] Cf. Elizabeth F. Loftus, “Reconstructing Memory: The Incredible Witness,” Psychology Today 8 (December 1974): 116‒19 and Bromby and Hall, “ADVOKATE,” 146‒47. [3] Memon, Vrij, and Bull, Psychology and Law, 110. [4] Cf. Memon, Vrij, and Bull, Psychology and Law, 100‒1 and Manzanero et al., “Evaluación de la credibilidad,” 338‒44. [5]Memon, Vrij, and Bull, Psychology and Law, 108‒9, 111; Smalarz and Wells, “Eyewitness Certainty,” 163, 167‒68.
