St. Petersburg Times Online: Business
 Devil Rays Forums
Place an Ad Calendars Classified Forums Sports Weather
tampabay.com

 

 

 

printer version

I saw what I saw -- at least, I think I did, maybe

OFF/BEATglidewell
GLIDEWELL
E-mail:
Click here

Archive
By JAN GLIDEWELL, Times Columnist

© St. Petersburg Times
published October 20, 2002


So how come all of those eyewitnesses in the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shooting turned out to be so unreliable?

I mean the ones who didn't finally admit they were lying.

If they saw the guy, why couldn't they give a decent description, come up with a sketch? Huh?

I have learned the hard way, a couple of times, how tough being an eyewitness can be.

One occasion happened while I was testifying in court.

I was being asked about what I had observed in a case in which a man was accused of having assaulted two police officers.

I had seen the fight; there wasn't any doubt about it. I was in the police station drinking coffee when the defendant, who was drunk and resisting officers' attempts to book him, suddenly jumped on one of the cops and the three of them wound up in a free-for-all on the floor.

"How would you describe the defendant's demeanor?" asked the defense attorney.

"Obstinate," I said, adding that he was refusing to answer routine questions as he was booked.

"If he wasn't talking, how can you say he was obstinate?" the lawyer asked.

"He had his fists balled up," I said.

The attorney pointed out that there was a counter, about chest-high, between me and the defendant and, after some sarcastic references to X-ray vision, asked me how I knew that.

I was stumped.

The defendant was acquitted, benefitting from yet another example of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.

How I had seen the unseeable bugged me as I walked the two blocks to the police station, stood behind the counter and saw what I had forgotten, a convex mirror near the ceiling providing a fish-eye view of everything that had gone on in the room.

Fifteen years later I was ribbing a prosecutor acquaintance in a Dade City coffee shop because one of his office's cases had blown up over identification issues.

As I looked right at him, he asked, "How tall am I?"

I guessed about 5 feet 8 inches.

"I'm 5-10," he said. "How much do I weigh?"

I was off by 35 pounds.

"Okay," I pointed out, noting that the case I was kidding him about involved a misidentification of eye color, "but at least I know your eyes are brown."

He leaned closer so his eyes were about 8 inches from mine.

They were green.

He made his point.

I have been accused of saying things on a witness stand that another reporter, a woman, said.

I have been identified as a murderer in a case I was covering (and, yes, I had an alibi).

A Times employee once identified me at a public event as another columnist, who is taller, thinner, doesn't have a beard and is African-American.

Eyewitness testimony generally comes from people who saw what they saw during emotionally charged situations, with very brief exposure, sometimes in poor lighting and with people who are deliberately trying to obscure identification.

DNA evidence shows that some women have even made erroneous eyewitness identifications of men who raped them, meaning there was more time and closeness (but higher stress levels) than occur in most criminal cases.

Ironically, juries are usually more ready to accept the testimony of a real or alleged eyewitness than they are tons of circumstantial evidence, although it is proven time after time that sometimes we report things we wanted to see or thought we should have seen rather than what we actually did see.

I have been fired upon by snipers. It is a jarring, disconcerting experience, probably even more so when it takes place outside the confines of war and in familiar circumstances in which one should feel safe.

It is not to say that eyewitness testimony in the D.C.-area shootings should be discounted, or that it might not ultimately provide the key to the case.

But witnesses are human and fallible, and dramatic and instant revelations are more the stuff of television drama than real life.

There is more than one way to catch a killer, and let's hope one of them works quickly.

Back to Times Columnists

Back to Top

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111
 

Times columns today

Mary Jo Melone
  • This story of one woman is the tale of many

  • Robert Trigaux
  • When it comes to jobs, Florida's more is less

  • Helen Huntley
  • On money

  • Jan Glidewell
  • I saw what I saw -- at least, I think I did, maybe

  • Philip Gailey
  • Improving on a good voting system

  • Martin Dyckman
  • Voters should hold them accountable

  • Robyn E. Blumner
  • Doesn't anyone notice the erosion of our freedoms?

  • Hubert Mizell
  • No 'lock' wins for college football teams once on top

  • John Romano
  • Schmidt's thoughts with mom

  • Gary Shelton
  • A monster defense? Prove it, Philly says

  • Darrell Fry
  • Even in win, Gators take nothing for granted

  • From the Times North Suncoast desks
  • Why are so many itchin' for this job?
  • The neighbor behind the storm
  • A veteran retreat
  • Pasco rewind
  • Pasco loses softball coach to Berkeley Prep
  • Five players earn golds at Senior Games
  • Walking with purpose
  • Homecoming court seeing double
  • Policy chasm divides two candidates
  • Hernando rewind
  • Central down but not out
  • Leopard relives instant of impact

  • Editorial
  • Tax debtors shouldn't get county work

  • Letters
  • Court fight over ticket a waste of media coverage
  • Recycling plan spurs outcry, worries of growing landfill
  • In political war, signs often victims
  • Adams deflects criticism of past

  • Greg Hamilton
  • Handling pressure crucial in a race where mud, jeers fly
  • Citrus rail
  • Laying down law for poor sports

  • Editorial
  • Amid school closure, needy kids left adrift

  •