In Scoot Fraiser's talk, he is talking about a crime that happened in a small community, Lynwood, California on January 18, 1991. A total of six teenagers were out in the yard and the father of the house was out in the yard telling the boys to come in. A car slowly drives by the boys then proceeds to drive about thirty feet ahead, and the passenger sticks his arm out of the car and shoots twice to kill the father. Each of the boys were eyewitnesses and were asked to describe what had happened and what the shooter looked like. They all had chosen who the shooter was, in less than twenty four hours, they found out the crime was committed by Francisco Carillo. He was seventeen at that time and lived three blocks away.
Each of the teenagers and the investigation officers all said that light was and you could see everything. The crime happened in January, the sun sets super early during this time of year. How is that possible? How could the teenagers get a complete face recognition when it was almost pitch black outside with no light from the moon or anything, only natural light was shining? Pictures show true facts, and the scene was almost pitch black. With the amount of little light, there was only scoptic vision and very little face recognition.
So, Scott Fraiser went to The Judge and asked for a retrial, but he was not going to get it with numbers. So Fraiser took the Judge to the crime scene and had him stand right where the teenagers stood during the incident. Fraiser had the incident reenacted with some of his workers and a black object that was not a gun. The Judge stood and the car drove past by him and then ahead of him. The passenger stuck out his arm and his head and The Judge could not see the face. They had the car come back around and the car stopped right in front of The Judge, and he could looked in the car for s long as he wanted. He could not even see the face or anything. Keep in mind, they reenacted the crime and at the exact same time, which was seven o'clock at night. The judge decided to retrial Francisco Carillo and he was founded not guilty.
The brain only stores a small percent of our visions and parts of the experience. Accuracy in visions are not completely accurate all of the time. In conclusion, eyewitnesses may not be the best evidence and may not know exactly what they saw. Pictures are the best evidence.
This TED talk related to Twelve Angry Men because the eyewitnesses proved false events. Their accusations were not correct, same thing with the boys. They thought they saw who the person was that killed the father; however, they did not. Same thing with the woman and the old man. They though they saw the seventeen year old boy killed his father. However in reality, the woman could not see because she wears heavy duty glasses and she was not wearing them to go to sleep. The old man could not walk to the door to see that the boy killed his father. They both thought the boy did it, only because they did not know what else to believe.
Each of the teenagers and the investigation officers all said that light was and you could see everything. The crime happened in January, the sun sets super early during this time of year. How is that possible? How could the teenagers get a complete face recognition when it was almost pitch black outside with no light from the moon or anything, only natural light was shining? Pictures show true facts, and the scene was almost pitch black. With the amount of little light, there was only scoptic vision and very little face recognition.
So, Scott Fraiser went to The Judge and asked for a retrial, but he was not going to get it with numbers. So Fraiser took the Judge to the crime scene and had him stand right where the teenagers stood during the incident. Fraiser had the incident reenacted with some of his workers and a black object that was not a gun. The Judge stood and the car drove past by him and then ahead of him. The passenger stuck out his arm and his head and The Judge could not see the face. They had the car come back around and the car stopped right in front of The Judge, and he could looked in the car for s long as he wanted. He could not even see the face or anything. Keep in mind, they reenacted the crime and at the exact same time, which was seven o'clock at night. The judge decided to retrial Francisco Carillo and he was founded not guilty.
The brain only stores a small percent of our visions and parts of the experience. Accuracy in visions are not completely accurate all of the time. In conclusion, eyewitnesses may not be the best evidence and may not know exactly what they saw. Pictures are the best evidence.
This TED talk related to Twelve Angry Men because the eyewitnesses proved false events. Their accusations were not correct, same thing with the boys. They thought they saw who the person was that killed the father; however, they did not. Same thing with the woman and the old man. They though they saw the seventeen year old boy killed his father. However in reality, the woman could not see because she wears heavy duty glasses and she was not wearing them to go to sleep. The old man could not walk to the door to see that the boy killed his father. They both thought the boy did it, only because they did not know what else to believe.