Post by elir on Dec 12, 2019 6:54:24 GMT
It boils down to this:
If JJD is the person represented in all these composites then we can conclude one or both of the following :
1.witness descriptions can vary greatly according to conditions during the sighting etc.
2.composite kits from the 1970-1980s or drawings based on witness descriptions are inconsistent and unreliable
If we assume that the composites do not necessarily depict JJD, then the differences may represent either:
3.a different offender
or
4.person in the vicinity who was completely unrelated to the crime.
How many witnesses that are still around and contributed to those composites ,believe based on what they now know, that they saw JJD?
Because of the trial , witnesses may not be able to comment right now, but after the initial arrest there may have been interviews with these witnesses. Would love to know what they think.
For example, I was surprised that the DA didn't charge JJD with shooting Rodney Miller. Does that mean they don't have enough evidence to charge or does it mean that they now doubt it was DeAngelo?
If they doubt it was DeAngelo then the Ripon Court composite is likely category 3.a different offender .
If there are several composites that LE firmly believe are in category 3, then do those excluded composites resemble one another closely enough to suggest an additional serial offender in the area?
That is much more likely than inept identakits or inept witnesses.
Every attempt to make one of them look like DeAngelo is more a stretch than anything else, other than McGowen. The Maggiore smirk composite looks good only in comparison the the case norm.
Actually a number of studies found that identikits were not very accurate, from "Davies, Graham M.; Valentine, Tim (2006) Facial Composites: Forensic Utility and Psychological Research". In Rod C. L. Lindsay; et al. (eds.). Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology. Vol. 2 Memory for People. Mahwah, NJ:
"An initial attempt to gauge the likely accuracy of the Photofit kit was reported
by Ellis, Davies and Shepherd (1975). In one study, witnesses worked with a trained
operator to reproduce a likeness after briefly viewing a photograph of one of a number
of white male targets. The resulting composite was then viewed by panels of judges
who attempted to choose the correct face from an array of 36 different faces. The
accuracy of the judges at this task was generally poor: while there were isolated
examples of likenesses which were readily recognised, overall accuracy was generally
poor, with just 12.5% of judges’ first selections being correct, which increased to 25%
if their second and third choices were taken into account.
by Ellis, Davies and Shepherd (1975). In one study, witnesses worked with a trained
operator to reproduce a likeness after briefly viewing a photograph of one of a number
of white male targets. The resulting composite was then viewed by panels of judges
who attempted to choose the correct face from an array of 36 different faces. The
accuracy of the judges at this task was generally poor: while there were isolated
examples of likenesses which were readily recognised, overall accuracy was generally
poor, with just 12.5% of judges’ first selections being correct, which increased to 25%
if their second and third choices were taken into account.
Davies, Ellis and Shepherd (1978a) asked participants to make Photofit
composites of two faces, one immediately following observation and a second after a
delay of one week. Degree of likeness of the composites was assessed both by rating
scales and an identification task. Overall level of accuracy was again poor and there
was no measurable change in quality of likeness between composites made
immediately and those made after a delay, despite a follow-up study confirming that
recognition memory for the faces had significantly deteriorated in the interval. The
authors concluded that this was further evidence for the insensitivity of the system.
composites of two faces, one immediately following observation and a second after a
delay of one week. Degree of likeness of the composites was assessed both by rating
scales and an identification task. Overall level of accuracy was again poor and there
was no measurable change in quality of likeness between composites made
immediately and those made after a delay, despite a follow-up study confirming that
recognition memory for the faces had significantly deteriorated in the interval. The
authors concluded that this was further evidence for the insensitivity of the system.
Ellis, Davies and Shepherd (1978a) compared Photofit composites made in
the presence of a photo of the target face with those made from memory. Again, no
differences in rated quality of likeness emerged as a result of viewing condition, a
finding again suggestive of low sensitivity in the system. In an attempt to probe
memory for the face independent of the composite, the witnesses themselves made
sketches of the faces. These drawings showed significant differences in rated quality
between those made from memory and those made in the presence of the target, again
suggesting gross insensitivity in the composite system."
the presence of a photo of the target face with those made from memory. Again, no
differences in rated quality of likeness emerged as a result of viewing condition, a
finding again suggestive of low sensitivity in the system. In an attempt to probe
memory for the face independent of the composite, the witnesses themselves made
sketches of the faces. These drawings showed significant differences in rated quality
between those made from memory and those made in the presence of the target, again
suggesting gross insensitivity in the composite system."