Eyewitness Testimony in
Paranormal Investigations
By Wayne Harris-Wyrick
Paranormal investigation is a class of research not
generally recognized as “real science” by the mainstream
scientific community. Yet many paranormal investigation
groups exist around the country. The Atlantic Paranormal
Society (TAPS) of Warwick, Rhode Island, one of the more
long-standing and best known such groups, initiated an
affiliate program called the TAPS Family in 2003. TAPS
Family members are paranormal investigation groups spread
around the United States and the world which follow the
scientific approach of investigation made popular by
TAPS. This is the closest existing institution aimed at a
standardization of paranormal investigation protocols.
TAPS Family members generally practice the investigative
methods regularly used by TAPS themselves.
One of the standard techniques TAPS uses is to obtain detailed eyewitness accounts from the owners or proprietors and their family, friends or employees of a reportedly haunted location. During this process, eyewitnesses describe the paranormal activity they, and often many others, have witnessed. TAPS then uses this information to plan their investigative strategy for the location: placement of cameras and other equipment and the places within the location where they concentrate their investigation plus their subsequent analysis of any captured evidence that may support the claims of eyewitnesses. Because of their extensive Family affiliates and the popularity of their television show “Ghost Hunters”, this is an investigative model emulated by many investigation groups. In fact, it is very similar to the investigation model used for centuries by law enforcement and prosecution agencies around the world.
The problem with this investigative technique is that memory is often quite fallible or perhaps malleable is a better description. Magicians regularly take advantage of this and police interrogators, lawyers and prosecutors are well aware of it. Professor Steven B. Duke teaches criminal procedure and evidence at Yale Law School. In an article titled “Eyewitness Testimony Doesn't Make It True--A Commentary by Steven B. Duke” Dr. Duke wrote about a study of 8,000 FBI cases between 1989 and 1996 in which a suspect was convicted based in part on one or more eyewitnesses who had identified the suspect and also in which biological specimens were available. Subsequent analysis of the DNA specimens cleared 2000, or 25%, of those convicted on the strength of eyewitness accounts. Duke further illustrates an alarming potential for false convictions based on eyewitness testimony when he states that:
Experts who study memory describe this as the Misinformation Effect. Wikipedia defines it as “a memory bias that occurs when misinformation affects people's reports of their own memory.”3 There are multiple potential causes of such misinformation in memory. Elizabeth Loftus, affiliate professor of psychology and Law at the University of Washington studies the Misinformation Effect. She describes numerous ways, verified by experimental data from many researchers, that memory can be wrong. Loftus and Hunter G. Hoffman, in "Misinformation and Memory, The Creation of New Memories," reports
Loftus and Hoffman conclude that misleading information can turn a lie into memory’s truth. People may believe that they saw things that never existed or occurred, or that they saw things differently than they actually were. They state
One major source of memory misinformation occurs when people discuss a common witnessed event. Every witness would have a different point of view and bring a different psychology and background to the interpretation of the witnessed event. Through discussion, each witness can influence and/or be influenced by other witness and their psychological take on the event. The net result can be and often is that no one witness’s story actually matches the reality of what was witnessed.
After the fact, and with no objective verification of the truth, it proves problematical if not impossible to find the commonality of eye witness accounts. There may well BE a commonality in the stated accounts, but the Misinformation Effect makes it difficult to discern the actual witnessed events as various intervening phenomena can change the collected and individual memories of all witnesses.
Another danger is that interviewing eyewitnesses, who may or may not be remembering events correctly, can cause investigators to be pre-disposed as to what evidence they are looking for and where they might concentrate efforts to obtain evidence. “Facts” in their memories might well effect what evidence they find upon review.
Scientific analysis must be free from investigator bias. The most rigorous investigation protocols are designed so that the investigator can not unconsciously affect the gathering of evidence, outcome of the investigation or the analysis of the collected data and evidence, often described as the “double blind” protocol.
Central Oklahoma Paranormal Studies recognizes such problems. Our investigation protocol prohibits allowing all members of the investigation team the knowledge of what, or where, activity was witnessed by our clients. One or two members will interview the clients to verify that reports of paranormal activity exist and that the location does indeed deserve investigation, but, the details of that interview are not shared with all team members. Following this regiment strenuously ensures that inaccurate or “misinformed” memories of witnessed events will not interfere with the investigation or subsequent analysis of acquired data, therefore eliminating the "Misinformation Effect" from affecting our conclusions, data and advice to the client.
One of the standard techniques TAPS uses is to obtain detailed eyewitness accounts from the owners or proprietors and their family, friends or employees of a reportedly haunted location. During this process, eyewitnesses describe the paranormal activity they, and often many others, have witnessed. TAPS then uses this information to plan their investigative strategy for the location: placement of cameras and other equipment and the places within the location where they concentrate their investigation plus their subsequent analysis of any captured evidence that may support the claims of eyewitnesses. Because of their extensive Family affiliates and the popularity of their television show “Ghost Hunters”, this is an investigative model emulated by many investigation groups. In fact, it is very similar to the investigation model used for centuries by law enforcement and prosecution agencies around the world.
The problem with this investigative technique is that memory is often quite fallible or perhaps malleable is a better description. Magicians regularly take advantage of this and police interrogators, lawyers and prosecutors are well aware of it. Professor Steven B. Duke teaches criminal procedure and evidence at Yale Law School. In an article titled “Eyewitness Testimony Doesn't Make It True--A Commentary by Steven B. Duke” Dr. Duke wrote about a study of 8,000 FBI cases between 1989 and 1996 in which a suspect was convicted based in part on one or more eyewitnesses who had identified the suspect and also in which biological specimens were available. Subsequent analysis of the DNA specimens cleared 2000, or 25%, of those convicted on the strength of eyewitness accounts. Duke further illustrates an alarming potential for false convictions based on eyewitness testimony when he states that:
The testimony of eyewitnesses, as described by Dr. Steven B. Duke, can carry substantial weight during prosecution. However, errors during the steps of retaining and recalling memory contribute highly to false testimony. David Moran, Assistant Professor of Law, Wayne State University Law School wrote more about how memory is acquired and where in this process it can fail:“At least 80,000 prosecutions in this country every year rely largely on eyewitness testimony. If only half of those result in convictions, we may still be sending to prison nearly 5,000 innocents annually, based on false eyewitness testimony alone.”1
Just as in criminal cases, the use of eyewitness testimony for paranormal investigation could prove problematical. Witnesses to such events are usually members of the same family or employees of the same company and usually such activity has been long-standing. Family members/employees often discuss the witnessed activity and provide ample opportunity for memories to be altered or exaggerated, particularly when witnesses exchange information about and views on the witnessed events.“The acquisition of information into memory involves a three-step process. At each stage of the process, errors are possible. During acquisition, the first step in the memory process an event is perceived and information "bits" are initially stored in memory."
"In the second stage, information is held or retained in memory. In the final stage, memory is searched and pertinent information is retrieved and communicated. In the acquisition stage, information is "encoded" into a person's memory system. However, every detail of an experience is not encoded; the human mind can only process a fraction of the rapidly incoming physical stimuli. Both consciously and unconsciously, the observer determines which details are actually encoded according to where his or her attention is focused."
“The physical aspects of an event are obviously compromised by the selective nature of the acquisition stage of memory. However, matters are further complicated by the fact that acquisition also involves a social component. Thus, a witness' ability to perceive accurately is affected by both event factors—those inherent to the event itself—and witness factors—those inherent to the witness.”2
Experts who study memory describe this as the Misinformation Effect. Wikipedia defines it as “a memory bias that occurs when misinformation affects people's reports of their own memory.”3 There are multiple potential causes of such misinformation in memory. Elizabeth Loftus, affiliate professor of psychology and Law at the University of Washington studies the Misinformation Effect. She describes numerous ways, verified by experimental data from many researchers, that memory can be wrong. Loftus and Hunter G. Hoffman, in "Misinformation and Memory, The Creation of New Memories," reports
They report the result of one experiment in which it was estimated that only 32.6% of correct responses about the event item resulted from an actual memory for the item in the control condition.“When people do not have an original memory, they can and do accept misinformation and adopt it as their own memory. However, it also appears that misinformation can sometimes impair an otherwise accessible original memory.”4
Loftus and Hoffman conclude that misleading information can turn a lie into memory’s truth. People may believe that they saw things that never existed or occurred, or that they saw things differently than they actually were. They state
A scary thought for those who fear a Big Brother environment. And it has important ramifications for paranormal investigators.“Give us a dozen healthy memories . . . and our own specified world to handle them in. And we’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train it to become any type of memory that we might select . . . regardless of its origin or the brain that holds it.”4
One major source of memory misinformation occurs when people discuss a common witnessed event. Every witness would have a different point of view and bring a different psychology and background to the interpretation of the witnessed event. Through discussion, each witness can influence and/or be influenced by other witness and their psychological take on the event. The net result can be and often is that no one witness’s story actually matches the reality of what was witnessed.
After the fact, and with no objective verification of the truth, it proves problematical if not impossible to find the commonality of eye witness accounts. There may well BE a commonality in the stated accounts, but the Misinformation Effect makes it difficult to discern the actual witnessed events as various intervening phenomena can change the collected and individual memories of all witnesses.
Another danger is that interviewing eyewitnesses, who may or may not be remembering events correctly, can cause investigators to be pre-disposed as to what evidence they are looking for and where they might concentrate efforts to obtain evidence. “Facts” in their memories might well effect what evidence they find upon review.
Scientific analysis must be free from investigator bias. The most rigorous investigation protocols are designed so that the investigator can not unconsciously affect the gathering of evidence, outcome of the investigation or the analysis of the collected data and evidence, often described as the “double blind” protocol.
Central Oklahoma Paranormal Studies recognizes such problems. Our investigation protocol prohibits allowing all members of the investigation team the knowledge of what, or where, activity was witnessed by our clients. One or two members will interview the clients to verify that reports of paranormal activity exist and that the location does indeed deserve investigation, but, the details of that interview are not shared with all team members. Following this regiment strenuously ensures that inaccurate or “misinformed” memories of witnessed events will not interfere with the investigation or subsequent analysis of acquired data, therefore eliminating the "Misinformation Effect" from affecting our conclusions, data and advice to the client.
1Duke, Steven. "Eyewitness Testimony Doesn't Make It True--A Commentary by Steven B. Duke" June 12, 1996. Yale Law School. http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm
2Moran, David. "Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases." 4th ed. (1995) Wayne State University Law School. http://tinyurl.com/ydy7h5q
3Wikipedia contributors. "Misinformation effect." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 8 Nov. 2008. Web. 26 Jan. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_effect
4Loftus, Elizabeth and Hoffman, Hunter. "Misinformation and Memory, The Creation of New Memories." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118(1):100-104 (March 1989). University of Washington. http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/hoff.htm