Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[Spud]

I thought I'd post this up for interest in response to LR a year ago on the subject of eyewitness reliability.

So called eyewitnesses who were probably dead when the gospels were concocted. Eyewitness testimonies are often way off the mark, especially when relating the less than credible events attributed to the long dead, Jesus.

A shooting in Sweden in 2013 was filmed on two mobile phones and the footage compared with eyewitness testimony:

The analysis showed clear differences between the witness testimonies and the film. Elements associated with perceived threat, for example, the assailant’s armament and movement direction and number of shots fired, were remembered fairly accurately. However, most witnesses poorly recollected when, that is, after which shot, the assailant fell to the ground. Moreover, memory of the actual order of events was altered and important aspects omitted that were crucial from a legal point of view.

https://tinyurl.com/2pexdy7c

Elements associated with perceived threat were remembered fairly accurately, and importantly, were enough to confirm that the policeman had killed the perpetrator in self defence:

All 13 witnesses reported seeing the knife, and several were even more specific, using terms like “kitchen knife”, “stainless knife”, or “a big silvery knife”. Furthermore, all 13 witnesses reported hearing the police shouting “drop the knife”.

However, only 1 out of 13 eyewitnesses reported, correctly according to the film, that the perpetrator was already on the ground when the policeman fired the final shot. The others reported the final shot being fired before he fell.

This seems to have potentially led to claims that he shot him more times than was necessary and therefore illegally. But the overall picture is of the perpetrator trying his best to attack the officer, who fired in self defense.

So applying this to the gospels, perhaps the details that involved a high level of stress for the witnesses were recalled more accurately. I'm assuming that the authors had access to eyewitnesses. The calming of the storm, the conversation at the last supper, when the disciples became distressed, and the conversation between Jesus and Thomas after the resurrection,

You could also relate this study to how perhaps one gospel would record accurately a particular detail crucial to understanding the progression of events, such as the timing of the last supper or the resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, whereas the others might be vague or focus on Galilean appearances.

[Gordon]

Don't be so silly, Spud.

It has long been known that eye-witness accounts can be unreliable, as is the case in the Swedish incident you note. Now, if you want to compare that incident with the claims in the NT then you'll need to produce some equivalent testimony: so, from the 1st century CE, you'll need the mobile phone footage and the details of the witnesses, so that they can be interrogated and their recollections compared with the footage - and I suspect that might be problematic.

Alternatively, you could avoid making specious comparisons.

[Aruntraveller]

As an exercise in straw clutching that is quite impressive.

[ProfessorDavey]

I thought I'd post this up for interest in response to LR a year ago on the subject of eyewitness reliability.

A shooting in Sweden in 2013 was filmed on two mobile phones and the footage compared with eyewitness testimony:

The analysis showed clear differences between the witness testimonies and the film. Elements associated with perceived threat, for example, the assailant’s armament and movement direction and number of shots fired, were remembered fairly accurately. However, most witnesses poorly recollected when, that is, after which shot, the assailant fell to the ground. Moreover, memory of the actual order of events was altered and important aspects omitted that were crucial from a legal point of view.

https://tinyurl.com/2pexdy7c

Elements associated with perceived threat were remembered fairly accurately, and importantly, were enough to confirm that the policeman had killed the perpetrator in self defence:

All 13 witnesses reported seeing the knife, and several were even more specific, using terms like “kitchen knife”, “stainless knife”, or “a big silvery knife”. Furthermore, all 13 witnesses reported hearing the police shouting “drop the knife”.

However, only 1 out of 13 eyewitnesses reported, correctly according to the film, that the perpetrator was already on the ground when the policeman fired the final shot. The others reported the final shot being fired before he fell.

This seems to have potentially led to claims that he shot him more times than was necessary and therefore illegally. But the overall picture is of the perpetrator trying his best to attack the officer, who fired in self defense.

So applying this to the gospels, perhaps the details that involved a high level of stress for the witnesses were recalled more accurately. I'm assuming that the authors had access to eyewitnesses. The calming of the storm, the conversation at the last supper, when the disciples became distressed, and the conversation between Jesus and Thomas after the resurrection,

You could also relate this study to how perhaps one gospel would record accurately a particular detail crucial to understanding the progression of events, such as the timing of the last supper or the resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, whereas the others might be vague or focus on Galilean appearances.

You really aren't helping yourself Spud.

Note that these eye witnesses were formally interviewed within 3 days of the incident. The interviews were formally recorded and each eye witness approved the recording of the interviews. Yet the reliability of the eye witness testimony was still rubbish.

So let's compare to the gospels. Can you provide the evidence of a formal interview with eye witnesses within a couple of days. Who conducted those interviews, how were those eye witness testimonies recorded. Did the eye witnesses confirm that the recording was an accurate record of what they said.

Weird, because as far as I'm aware the first record of these claimed eye witness accounts we have available are extant copies from perhaps 150 years after the event, with nothing reliable know about their provenance.

So Spud, if formally recorded eye witness testimonies from a couple of days after the event are rubbish, are you really claiming that many generation handed-down stories finally recorded decades or centuries after the purported events are somehow accurate. Laughable.

[Owlswing]

You really aren't helping yourself Spud.

Note that these eye witnesses were formally interviewed within 3 days of the incident. The interviews were formally recorded and each eye witness approved the recording of the interviews. Yet the reliability of the eye witness testimony was still rubbish.

So let's compare to the gospels. Can you provide the evidence of a formal interview with eye witnesses within a couple of days. Who conducted those interviews, how were those eye witness testimonies recorded. Did the eye witnesses confirm that the recording was an accurate record of what they said.

Weird, because as far as I'm aware the first record of these claimed eye witness accounts we have available are extant copies from perhaps 150 years after the event, with nothing reliable know about their provenance.

So Spud, if formally recorded eye witness testimonies from a couple of days after the event are rubbish, are you really claiming that many generation handed-down stories finally recorded decades or centuries after the purported events are somehow accurate. Laughable.

The one highlighted word says it all!

Owlswing

)O(

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really aren't helping yourself Spud.

Note that these eye witnesses were formally interviewed within 3 days of the incident. The interviews were formally recorded and each eye witness approved the recording of the interviews. Yet the reliability of the eye witness testimony was still rubbish.

Impressive forensic conclusion on the reliability of eye witness evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really aren't helping yourself Spud.

Note that these eye witnesses were formally interviewed within 3 days of the incident. The interviews were formally recorded and each eye witness approved the recording of the interviews. Yet the reliability of the eye witness testimony was still rubbish.

So let's compare to the gospels. Can you provide the evidence of a formal interview with eye witnesses within a couple of days. Who conducted those interviews, how were those eye witness testimonies recorded. Did the eye witnesses confirm that the recording was an accurate record of what they said.

Weird, because as far as I'm aware the first record of these claimed eye witness accounts we have available are extant copies from perhaps 150 years after the event, with nothing reliable know about their provenance.

So Spud, if formally recorded eye witness testimonies from a couple of days after the event are rubbish, are you really claiming that many generation handed-down stories finally recorded decades or centuries after the purported events are somehow accurate. Laughable.

I doubt if you apply the same standard to other historical documents.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems to me that some on this board ignore new testament as history because.

1: You cannot trust documents written after the event which go through multiple copies.

and

2: Non Christian sources written after the event which go through multiple copies do not contain the information.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be so silly, Spud.

It has long been known that eye-witness accounts can be unreliable

Can be or are?

[Gordon]

It seems to me that some on this board ignore new testament as history because.

1: You cannot trust documents written after the event which go through multiple copies.

and

2: Non Christian sources written after the event which go through multiple copies do not contain the information.

Where aspects of the provenance of any document/source is uncertain then it comes with risks: where the authors of a document might potentially be biased it comes with risks, and especially so where the documents contains fantastic claims: where is a gap between the alleged events and the earliest recording of said events then there are the risks of introduced mistakes, exaggerations and lies/propaganda.

I'd say these risks apply to any and all documents/sources.

[ProfessorDavey]

It seems to me that some on this board ignore new testament as history because.

1: You cannot trust documents written after the event which go through multiple copies.

and

2: Non Christian sources written after the event which go through multiple copies do not contain the information.

No-one is ignoring the documents.

However in a historical context (rather than a theological one) you need to look at the credibility and reliability of the claims, just as you do with any other historical document and claim. And the problem with the gospel claims (even if we ignore their inherent implausibility of some of the claims) is that they seriously fail the standard historical tests for reliability for the following reasons.

1. They are neither contemporaneous nor written geographically close the the purported events.
2. The versions we have have been through multiple iterations and there is a strong evidence of changes to the documents over time.
3. They are written by partial authors
4. There is no independent corroborative evidence (either written or archeological) to verify the claims. The best being archeological but also backed up by contemporary written evidence from 'the other side'.
5. There is no evidence that they are intended as articles of factual evidence rather than articles of faith.

There are, of course, plenty of other historical claims that have similarly weak evidence and they are also considered in the same vein. However there is a major difference - so the evidence that Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings by an arrow in the eye is very weak. However the evidence that he died at the Battle of Hastings is much stronger and how he died is historically irrelevant (albeit a nice story). With the gospels there are people who claim the details to be absolutely true (despite no credible evidence) and also construct a whole belief system around that claim - and one that impacts on those who don't hold that belief.

If there were a group of true believers in the Harold-eye-arrow claim that also demanded that no-one should be allowed to engage in archery then I might be more exercised about the veracity of the claim. But as it is whether or not Harold died by an arrow in the eye is completely irrelevant to my life. So despite the fact that the evidence for this claim is weak it doesn't greatly bother me, beyond being clear that the evidence is weak.

[ProfessorDavey]

Impressive forensic conclusion on the reliability of eye witness evidence.

Impressive diversionary tactic Vlad.

Sure I wrote the conclusion in the rather colloquial 'Yet the reliability of the eye witness testimony was still rubbish.' However that is irrelevant - I could just as easily said that 'Yet the reliability of the eye witness testimony was still very poor.' or other such terminology.

The conclusion of the study is that in a 'field' experiment (rather than a contrived lab study) the eye witnesses varied one to another in their recollection of the event despite being formally interviewed about it just days afterwards.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I doubt if you apply the same standard to other historical documents.

Isn't the point rather that you apply different standards to your preferred supernatural story than you apply to all the other supernatural stories from different faith traditions? 

[ProfessorDavey]

Vlad,

Isn't the point rather that you apply different standards to your preferred supernatural story than you apply to all the other supernatural stories from different faith traditions?

Indeed - classic double standards. Why does Vlad accept the claims of christianity in the absence of evidence while rejecting the claims of other religion similarly based on a paucity of evidence.

We actually have a term for stories and claims arising from early cultures, particularly involving a supernatural element to the claim. We call them myths.

[Spud]

Vlad,

Isn't the point rather that you apply different standards to your preferred supernatural story than you apply to all the other supernatural stories from different faith traditions?

Muhammed and other religious founders were the only ones to see the angel who dictated the scripture to them, whereas Christ was written about by multiple independent sources.
Myths develop over centuries. Christianity was established within decades after the events it describes. Eg the authors were familiar with the geography, plant life, people known from archaeology, etc in Palestine, so must have lived soon after the time of events.

[Spud]

The conclusion of the study is that in a 'field' experiment (rather than a contrived lab study) the eye witnesses varied one to another in their recollection of the event despite being formally interviewed about it just days afterwards.

But it also brings out the fact that the witnesses got the crucial details correct.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

But it also brings out the fact that the witnesses got the crucial details correct.

How do you know that?

[Spud]

Spud,

How do you know that?

It says in the abstract that elements associated with perceived threat were remembered fairly accurately.

In the Results it says,

All 13 witnesses reported seeing the knife, and several were even more specific, using terms like “kitchen knife”, “stainless knife”, or “a big silvery knife”. Furthermore, all 13 witnesses reported hearing the police shouting “drop the knife”....All but one of the 13 witnesses reported seeing the perpetrator advancing toward the policeman. All 13 also reported that the policeman fired warning shots into the air and the perpetrator ignored these warnings shots and continued to advance toward the policeman. To this point in the timeline of events, the testimonies were fairly consistent and in accordance with what the film clips showed."

These details give a clear picture of what happened, despite other details not being recalled accurately.

What we learn from this is that people tend to accurately remember "elements associated with perceived threat".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

It says in the abstract that elements associated with perceived threat were remembered fairly accurately.

In the Results it says,

All 13 witnesses reported seeing the knife, and several were even more specific, using terms like “kitchen knife”, “stainless knife”, or “a big silvery knife”. Furthermore, all 13 witnesses reported hearing the police shouting “drop the knife”....All but one of the 13 witnesses reported seeing the perpetrator advancing toward the policeman. All 13 also reported that the policeman fired warning shots into the air and the perpetrator ignored these warnings shots and continued to advance toward the policeman. To this point in the timeline of events, the testimonies were fairly consistent and in accordance with what the film clips showed."

What we learn from this is that people tend to accurately remember "elements associated with perceived threat".

Ah, I thought you meant the "witnesses" to the alleged resurrection. Other have explained to you already why your thesis is mistaken, but in any case if someone genuinely thought that, say, the woman on stage had been sawn in two and reconnected their accounts would have "got the details correct" too, but only insofar as they thought them to be correct.   

[Spud]

Spud,

Ah, I thought you meant the "witnesses" to the alleged resurrection. Other have explained to you already why your thesis is mistaken, but in any case if someone genuinely thought that, say, the woman on stage had been sawn in two and reconnected their accounts would have "got the details correct" too, but only insofar as they thought them to be correct.   

Others have pointed out the three days v longer time span difference, yes. I think these witnesses would remember the key fear-associated details they described, for longer than three days, and I'd suggest the recollection of a knife being brandished would stick in the memory for quite some time.

It doesn't matter that there wasn't video evidence from AD 30. The point here is not to prove that their accounts are true, but that the results of this study suggest that key elements would be remembered correctly.

The sawn in two analogy doesn't work because the lady was conscious throughout, so the observer knows it is an optical illusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

pud,

Others have pointed out the three days v longer time span difference, yes. I think these witnesses would remember the key details associated with fear which were described for longer than three days, and I'd suggest the recollection of a knife being brandished would stick in the memory for quite some time.

It doesn't matter that there wasn't video evidence from AD 30. The point here is not to prove that their accounts are true, but that the results of this study suggests that key elements would be remembered correctly.

The sawn in two analogy doesn't work because the lady was conscious throughout, so the observer knows it is an optical illusion.

You’re not getting it. The “conscious throughout” point is irrelevant: the problem is not that the conjuring trick is the same as the “resurrection” in all its particulars, but rather that it too would be an event (being sawn in two and surviving) that would be impossible according to all known understanding of how the world works. The point here is that “Jesus was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again” and “a woman was sawn in two, then reconnected” are both narratives. They’re descriptions of what people thought had happened so that – even if there was some way to verify that the witnesses actually said what was ascribed to them later on – what they said was only the story that made most sense to them at the time.

Whether either story mapped to what actually happened though is a different matter entirely.       

[Gordon]

It doesn't matter that there wasn't video evidence from AD 30. The point here is not to prove that their accounts are true, but that the results of this study suggest that key elements would be remembered correctly.

You're still missing it, Spud.

You have no way to check, unlike with your Swedish example, that what was 'remembered' in the NT claims is factually correct given the risks of human artifice. You are clinging to the idea that aspects that are related to feelings of 'fear' or 'threat' tend to be better remembered but you have no way to check, unlike with the Swedish incident, whether the people involved with the NT claims actually felt fearful or threatened: after all, you can't even exclude the possibility that what found its way into the NT involves errors or lies.

[ProfessorDavey]

It says in the abstract that elements associated with perceived threat were remembered fairly accurately.

In the Results it says,

All 13 witnesses reported seeing the knife, and several were even more specific, using terms like “kitchen knife”, “stainless knife”, or “a big silvery knife”. Furthermore, all 13 witnesses reported hearing the police shouting “drop the knife”....All but one of the 13 witnesses reported seeing the perpetrator advancing toward the policeman. All 13 also reported that the policeman fired warning shots into the air and the perpetrator ignored these warnings shots and continued to advance toward the policeman. To this point in the timeline of events, the testimonies were fairly consistent and in accordance with what the film clips showed."

These details give a clear picture of what happened, despite other details not being recalled accurately.

What we learn from this is that people tend to accurately remember "elements associated with perceived threat".

But you are missing the point that they were formally interviewed about their recollection. So they will have been carefully and formally asked about the various aspects of their recollection. And these are first hand witnesses.

How on earth is that equivalent to the claimed witnesses in the gospels. Who interviewed them? When were they interviewed? How was their recollection recorded? The answer is that we have no idea and at best we have people who may have seen something (and we've seen from the study that their immediate recollection can be faulty) who may have told someone else, who themselves told someone else etc etc - who eventually wrote this multiple generation story down.

So if you apply the gospel approach to the Sweden incident, you'd have 13 people not formally interviewed whose recollections were immediately faulty and will, likely get more faulty over time. Those 13 people give an account to someone else at some point in the future, who tells someone else etc etc. Rather than getting the core details (e.g. single man with knife) correct - through time you get someone claiming there was a gun-man, another that there were several attackers with knives, another that the police attacked an innocent unarmed man etc etc.

Eye witness testimony, even when recounted straight away, is notoriously faulty. When viewed from years or decades later having been through multiple generations of here-say any confidence in the veracity of the remembers and transmitted story to the original becomes vanishingly small.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gordon,

You're still missing it, Spud.

You have no way to check, unlike with your Swedish example, that what was 'remembered' in the NT claims is factually correct given the risks of human artifice. You are clinging to the idea that aspects that are related to feelings of 'fear' or 'threat' tend to be better remembered but you have no way to check, unlike with the Swedish incident, whether the people involved with the NT claims actually felt fearful or threatened: after all, you can't even exclude the possibility that what found its way into the NT involves errors or lies.

There’s a potentially bigger problem here too. Even allowing for the huge uncertainties about the accuracy of accounts written down long after the statements were made, let’s say that a witness actually saw a man with a knife running toward a policeman and that the policeman saw him coming and shot him. That’s a factual description. Now let’s try an eye-witness account of it – when asked, he might for example have said, “I saw an assailant attacking a policeman with a knife, and in self-defence the policeman was forced to kill him.”

Various parts of this version though (“assailant”, “attacking”, “self-defence”) are interpretations; elements layered on by the witness. They amplify and justify the story, but they’re not descriptions of the facts.       

Now let’s re-run the events, but from a different perspective. Let’s say that the “assailant” was a butcher working in his shop cutting meat with a cleaver when he happened to look out of the window and saw a bus careering down the hill toward a policeman. Panicked, the butcher ran out of his shop (still carrying the knife) with the intention of pushing the policeman out of harm’s way. The policemen though mistook his intent and so shot him.

This phenomenon seems to me to be a major problem for those who would claim the resurrection story to be true. Even if they could navigate the minefield of translation, repetition etc potential for mistakes in the extant version, still they’d have no way to know that the narrative the witnesses layered on (“Jesus was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again”) wasn’t just like the narrative layered on in the knifeman story. What if a bigger picture was available that the witnesses didn’t see (say, the body being switched behind the scenes) akin to the bigger picture of the oncoming bus? The resurrection narrative would still make sense to the witness, but it would tell you nothing about the reality. 

[Gordon]

Hi Gordon,

There’s a potentially bigger problem here too. Even allowing for the huge uncertainties about the accuracy of accounts written down long after the statements were made, let’s say that a witness actually saw a man with a knife running toward a policeman and that the policeman saw him coming and shot him. That’s a factual description. Now let’s try an eye-witness account of it – when asked, he might for example have said, “I saw an assailant attacking a policeman with a knife, and in self-defence the policeman was forced to kill him.”

Various parts of this version though (“assailant”, “attacking”, “self-defence”) are interpretations; elements layered on by the witness. They amplify and justify the story, but they’re not descriptions of the facts.       

Now let’s re-run the events, but from a different perspective. Let’s say that the “assailant” was a butcher working in his shop cutting meat with a cleaver when he happened to look out of the window and saw a bus careering down the hill toward a policeman. Panicked, the butcher ran out of his shop (still carrying the knife) with the intention of pushing the policeman out of harm’s way. The policemen though mistook his intent and so shot him.

This phenomenon seems to me to be a major problem for those who would claim the resurrection story to be true. Even if they could navigate the minefield of translation, repetition etc potential for mistakes in the extant version, still they’d have no way to know that the narrative the witnesses layered on (“Jesus was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again”) wasn’t just like the narrative layered on in the knifeman story. What if a bigger picture was available that the witnesses didn’t see (say, the body being switched behind the scenes) akin to the bigger picture of the oncoming bus? The resurrection narrative would still make sense to the witness, but it would tell you nothing about the reality.

Or that the whole story is no more that fictitious propaganda for Jesus that was contrived by his credulous fans living in credulous times: something that the Spuds of this world seem congenitally unable to even countenance.