Judging the credibility of witnesses

[YonicScrewdriver]

"In 2008 a group of Norwegian researchers ran an experiment to better understand how police investigators come to a judgment about the credibility of rape claims. Sixty-nine investigators were played video-recorded versions of a rape victim's statement, with the role of victim played by an actress. The wording of the statement in each version was exactly the same, but the actress delivered it with varying degrees of emotion. The investigators, who prided themselves on their objectivity, turned out to be heavily influenced in their judgments by assumptions about the victim's demeanour: she was judged most credible when crying or showing despair.

In reality, rape victims react in the immediate aftermath of the event in a variety of ways: some are visibly upset; others are subdued and undemonstrative. There is, unsurprisingly, no universal reaction to being raped. The detectives were relying on their instincts, and their instincts turned out to be constructed from inherited and unreliable notions about women in distress.

Professional interrogators remain stubbornly convinced of their ability to tell if a person is being truthful simply by observing them. The lawyer and fraud expert Robert Hunter has termed this misapprehension "the demeanour assumption". He points out that it underpins the notions of oral evidence and jury trials; those who watch witnesses give evidence are assumed to be best placed to judge whether they are telling the truth."

From an article about this book - www.amazon.co.uk/Born-Liars-Cant-Without-Deceit/dp/1849164258?tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-21 - has anyone read it?

[RufusTheReindeer]

I haven't read it but I did jury service a few years ago where we were told to look at the witnesses to see what we thought about the truth of their evidence

On one case there was a very calm, stoic woman and a very emotional man (can't really give further details I don't think)

The man got most of the sympathy and the woman was described as being cold, without question she was seen as too calm and therefore the bad guy

[RufusTheReindeer]

Sorry should clarify that the case I'm referring to was NOT a rape case

I just felt it was an example of how sympathetic people can be depending on your demeanour

[YonicScrewdriver]

Thanks Rufus. I have done jury service but all the parties were male (not sexual assault related) but I agree demeanour was a big factor, I guess it makes an ongoing impression throughout the words whilst the words are hard to remember individually over the course of various witnesses.

[EBearhug]

I remember my mother saying when she did jury service, she was surprised she made her mind up quickly, and was then basically waiting for evidence which either confirmed or disproved her initial conclusion. (Can you have an initial conclusion, or is that an oxymoron?) At least she was aware of it - probably lots of jurors work the same way without having any real awareness of doing it.

[cadno]

This here is an excerpt of the criminal bench book to judges. its an illustration on how they should sum up to a jury re: demeanour of witnesses in a rape case

"You must decide whether you are sure the complainant did not consent to sexual intercourse with the defendant. That will require an assessment by you of the complainant’s evidence. I must emphasise that the assessment is for you to make. However, it is important that you do not bring to that assessment any preconceived views as to how a witness in a trial such as this should react to the experience. Any person who has been raped will have undergone trauma whether the defendant was known to her (or him) or not. It is impossible to predict how that individual will react, either in the days following, or when speaking publicly about it in court. The experience of the courts is that those who have been victims of rape react differently to the task of speaking about it in evidence. Some will display obvious signs of distress, others will not. The reason for this is that every person has his or her own way of coping. Conversely, it does not follow that signs of distress by the witness confirms the truth and accuracy of the evidence given. In other words, demeanour in court is not necessarily a clue to the truth of the witness’ account. It all depends on the character and personality of the individual concerned".

so the courts are aware of the problem - whether they do enough to address it, is quite another matter.

[EBearhug]

I wonder what would happen if all testimony and cross examination happened in writing, via some sort of system like IM where all parties see the typed text.

Aren't there comparatively high levels of illiteracy in the prison population? I think it would be massively discriminatory on those grounds.

The idea of "blind" evidence is interesting, though I don't know how it would work in practice.

[EBearhug]

There are also issues with having evidence in speech - if someone has problems with hearing (which they may not be fully aware of themselves.) And in foreign languages, I tend to be far more able in read/written than heard/spoken interaction and English isn't everyone's first language - though others would be fluent in spoken without being able to read.

[EBearhug]

Ah, we cross-posted.

I was very impressed by the transcribers at FiL. In fact, I may have been watching them more than listening to the session I was in at one point.

I assume good transcription services don't come cheap though.

[YonicScrewdriver]

Thanks all. There's a lot of "I didn't like her demeanour" on the Perugia threads. And I think Kate McCann came in for some of that too.