this is me with my client Ricky Jackson the moment he learned that he was going
the moment he learned that he was going to be set free after serving almost 40
to be set free after serving almost 40 years in prison for a murder he didn’t
years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit
commit and this is him a couple hours later
and this is him a couple hours later walking out into the Cleveland air aged
walking out into the Cleveland air aged 57 as a free man for the first time
57 as a free man for the first time since he had just turned 18 years old
since he had just turned 18 years old Ricky was convicted in 1975 when a white
Ricky was convicted in 1975 when a white businessman was gunned down in cold
businessman was gunned down in cold blood in Ricky’s predominantly black
blood in Ricky’s predominantly black neighborhood in Cleveland and as you can
neighborhood in Cleveland and as you can imagine a crowd soon gathered and a
imagine a crowd soon gathered and a twelve-year-old boy stepped forward and
twelve-year-old boy stepped forward and told the police I saw who did this it
told the police I saw who did this it was Ricky Jackson and his two friends
was Ricky Jackson and his two friends the police believed a little boy they
the police believed a little boy they went and arrested Ricky and his two best
went and arrested Ricky and his two best friends and they disbelieved Ricky from
friends and they disbelieved Ricky from that point forward they were convinced
that point forward they were convinced Ricky and his friends committed this
Ricky and his friends committed this murder and they twisted and spend every
murder and they twisted and spend every piece of evidence that came forward like
piece of evidence that came forward like trying to fit a square peg into a round
trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in fact they ended up missing very
hole in fact they ended up missing very strong leads it could have led them to
strong leads it could have led them to the actual perpetrator years later
the actual perpetrator years later obviously Ricky was freed but he served
obviously Ricky was freed but he served many years on death row and actually
many years on death row and actually came within a few weeks of his execution
came within a few weeks of his execution date when because of a lucky
date when because of a lucky technicality he and his two best friends
technicality he and his two best friends were moved off of death row to life in
were moved off of death row to life in prison so they could be alive to see
prison so they could be alive to see their vindication and exoneration in
their vindication and exoneration in 2015 in 2003 I co-founded the Ohio
2015 in 2003 I co-founded the Ohio Innocence Project right here at U C’s
Innocence Project right here at U C’s college of law with now Mayor John
college of law with now Mayor John Cranley and others and our mission is to
Cranley and others and our mission is to work with law students to investigate
work with law students to investigate the cases of Ohio inmates who claim
the cases of Ohio inmates who claim they’re innocent and if we can determine
they’re innocent and if we can determine that they’re innocent seek their freedom
that they’re innocent seek their freedom and this is nine of the 24 people that
and this is nine of the 24 people that we have now freed through our work the
we have now freed through our work the 24 exonerees in Ohio served 450 years in
24 exonerees in Ohio served 450 years in prison for crimes they didn’t commit and
prison for crimes they didn’t commit and they are part of 2000 exonerees
they are part of 2000 exonerees nationally they’ve been identified in
nationally they’ve been identified in the past 25 years wrongfully convicted
the past 25 years wrongfully convicted served time they didn’t commit and we
served time they didn’t commit and we know that those 20 those 2,000 are just
know that those 20 those 2,000 are just the tip
the tip the iceberg because if you do this work
the iceberg because if you do this work you see that in every one of these cases
you see that in every one of these cases if you look at it closely it took
if you look at it closely it took coincidence after coincidence miracle
coincidence after coincidence miracle after miracle for it for you to actually
after miracle for it for you to actually spring an innocent person in most of the
spring an innocent person in most of the cases we investigate we end up the dead
cases we investigate we end up the dead ends the witnesses have died or the DNA
ends the witnesses have died or the DNA to be tested has been lost by the police
to be tested has been lost by the police I actually came to this innocence work
I actually came to this innocence work by accident I was for many years a
by accident I was for many years a prosecutor in New York City and Here I
prosecutor in New York City and Here I am getting an award at the time from
am getting an award at the time from Attorney General Janet Reno on the far
Attorney General Janet Reno on the far left is Eric Holder who later became the
left is Eric Holder who later became the Attorney General under Obama and after I
Attorney General under Obama and after I left the prosecutor’s office I wanted to
left the prosecutor’s office I wanted to be a law professor and my first job was
be a law professor and my first job was at a different law school and they had
at a different law school and they had an Innocence Project there but the
an Innocence Project there but the professor who ran it was on sabbatical
professor who ran it was on sabbatical the first year so they asked me to
the first year so they asked me to supervise it since I had this criminal
supervise it since I had this criminal investigation background but I was
investigation background but I was extremely skeptical and had this
extremely skeptical and had this prosecutors mentality
prosecutors mentality I didn’t think innocent people were
I didn’t think innocent people were convicted in this country and I can
convicted in this country and I can remember one of the first meetings I sat
remember one of the first meetings I sat in with the students they were talking
in with the students they were talking about this guy they were investigated
about this guy they were investigated they were convinced he’s innocent they
they were convinced he’s innocent they just visit him in prison and I sat there
just visit him in prison and I sat there thinking what a load of BS this guy’s
thinking what a load of BS this guy’s totally guilty but DNA testing went
totally guilty but DNA testing went forward his DNA didn’t match the DNA
forward his DNA didn’t match the DNA from the crime scene and he was released
from the crime scene and he was released and so that was a totally shocking
and so that was a totally shocking experience for me it began opening my
experience for me it began opening my eyes to problems in the system and so
eyes to problems in the system and so from that point forward now this has
from that point forward now this has been you know 15 or 16 years I’ve spent
been you know 15 or 16 years I’ve spent my life working on wrongful convictions
my life working on wrongful convictions and I’ve learned a couple things one is
and I’ve learned a couple things one is that we convicted and some people in
that we convicted and some people in this country far more than we would ever
this country far more than we would ever recognize and second that this is caused
recognize and second that this is caused by simple human failing psychological
by simple human failing psychological limitations that cause investigations to
limitations that cause investigations to go astray in fact the criminal justice
go astray in fact the criminal justice system is still operating based on the
system is still operating based on the understandings of the human mind from
understandings of the human mind from the 1950s I’m going to talk about three
the 1950s I’m going to talk about three different things three different
different things three different psychological phenomenons that lead to
psychological phenomenons that lead to wrongful convictions confirmation bias
wrongful convictions confirmation bias malleable memories and lie detection
malleable memories and lie detection deficits and the first is confirmation
deficits and the first is confirmation bias confirmation bias is a problem that
bias confirmation bias is a problem that all of a sudden beings tend to go into a
all of a sudden beings tend to go into a situation interpret
situation interpret all the evidence and all the facts that
all the evidence and all the facts that come toward them and a way to confirm
come toward them and a way to confirm their pre-existing beliefs or what they
their pre-existing beliefs or what they hope the outcome to be so if you’re
hope the outcome to be so if you’re looking at a field of stars or field of
looking at a field of stars or field of evidence where everything’s pointing to
evidence where everything’s pointing to know if you want the answer to be yes
know if you want the answer to be yes and you have an agenda to find the
and you have an agenda to find the answer to be yes you’re going to be able
answer to be yes you’re going to be able to patch together a constellation to
to patch together a constellation to find that answer this exists not just in
find that answer this exists not just in the criminal justice system but of
the criminal justice system but of course in everyday life this is the
course in everyday life this is the debate between gore and Bush in the 2000
debate between gore and Bush in the 2000 presidential election and after the
presidential election and after the debate they did surveys of people and
debate they did surveys of people and they said which candidate appeared more
they said which candidate appeared more presidential more honest and answered
presidential more honest and answered this questions with more concrete ways
this questions with more concrete ways he was going to solve the nation’s
he was going to solve the nation’s problems and of course Democrats
problems and of course Democrats overwhelmingly he said Oh gore was much
overwhelmingly he said Oh gore was much more honest he gave concrete answers and
more honest he gave concrete answers and Bush just gave you know sort of jargon
Bush just gave you know sort of jargon he was more presidential Republicans
he was more presidential Republicans overwhelmingly said the exact opposite
overwhelmingly said the exact opposite Bush was more presidential gave more
Bush was more presidential gave more honest answers because that’s the human
honest answers because that’s the human tendency to go into a situation and we
tendency to go into a situation and we see what we want to see we latch on to
see what we want to see we latch on to and re-register in our mind those pieces
and re-register in our mind those pieces of evidence that confirm it while we
of evidence that confirm it while we discount everything else so how does
discount everything else so how does this play on the criminal justice system
this play on the criminal justice system well criminal investigations are awash
well criminal investigations are awash in confirmation bias because we’re not
in confirmation bias because we’re not recognizing advances in recent
recognizing advances in recent psychology but I’m going to just point
psychology but I’m going to just point out one area where you can see this and
out one area where you can see this and that’s in the Forensic Sciences of those
that’s in the Forensic Sciences of those 2000 people who have been identified as
2000 people who have been identified as wrongfully convicted about 40 percent of
wrongfully convicted about 40 percent of them were convicted based on wrong
them were convicted based on wrong forensic science testimony I’m talking
forensic science testimony I’m talking about the CSI people you see on TV
about the CSI people you see on TV somebody at the original trial said hey
somebody at the original trial said hey this guy’s fingerprint was at the crime
this guy’s fingerprint was at the crime scene or was this defendant whose foot
scene or was this defendant whose foot tread was in the mud next to the dead
tread was in the mud next to the dead body but later they were proven innocent
body but later they were proven innocent so the forensic scientists gave
so the forensic scientists gave incorrect testimony so we started
incorrect testimony so we started studying or social scientists started
studying or social scientists started studying how could this happen and we
studying how could this happen and we realize a confirmation blast pays a big
realize a confirmation blast pays a big role before we turn to that though I’m
role before we turn to that though I’m going to have you do a real quick
going to have you do a real quick experiment I want you to take about 10
experiment I want you to take about 10 seconds to read that paragraph and tell
seconds to read that paragraph and tell me how many f’s
me how many f’s you see
okay how many c1f how many see two three four five six okay nobody saw six there
four five six okay nobody saw six there are six F’s there and about 75% of you
are six F’s there and about 75% of you said there are three F’s okay there are
said there are three F’s okay there are three F’s in substantial words the other
three F’s in substantial words the other three are in the word of so if you count
three are in the word of so if you count the word of there are six FS in that
the word of there are six FS in that paragraph so why did you miss those
paragraph so why did you miss those words because your expert readers and
words because your expert readers and your mind has created shortcuts to get
your mind has created shortcuts to get to you to the result you need which is
to you to the result you need which is
to you to the result you need which is quick comprehensive reading so how does
quick comprehensive reading so how does that play into the forensic sciences
that play into the forensic sciences this is a fingerprint and a fingerprint
this is a fingerprint and a fingerprint experts job is to take on the left
experts job is to take on the left that’s the fingerprint found at the
that’s the fingerprint found at the crime scene on the bloody knife and on
crime scene on the bloody knife and on the right is the fingerprint of the
the right is the fingerprint of the suspect the police have identified and
suspect the police have identified and they’ve taken him to the police station
they’ve taken him to the police station and rolled his finger in ink and there
and rolled his finger in ink and there you go and the job of a fingerprint
you go and the job of a fingerprint expert is to say is this the same a
expert is to say is this the same a psychologist named tal djor started
psychologist named tal djor started looking at these wrongful convictions
looking at these wrongful convictions and saying why do we have all this bad
and saying why do we have all this bad testimony in these forensic cases and he
testimony in these forensic cases and he wondered if confirmation bias could play
wondered if confirmation bias could play result so what he did was he went to
result so what he did was he went to leading fingerprint experts around the
leading fingerprint experts around the world and he said I need you to do
world and he said I need you to do something for me I’ve got fingerprints
something for me I’ve got fingerprints from a case where an expert years ago
from a case where an expert years ago testified that there was a match but
testified that there was a match but later DNA testing proved the person
later DNA testing proved the person innocence we know the fingerprint expert
innocence we know the fingerprint expert made a mistake can you look at this
made a mistake can you look at this fingerprint and point out the
fingerprint and point out the differences between the two and show me
differences between the two and show me where the fingerprint expert made a
where the fingerprint expert made a mistake 20 years ago but what each of
mistake 20 years ago but what each of those fingerprint experts didn’t know
those fingerprint experts didn’t know was it CL drawer had gone and pulled
was it CL drawer had gone and pulled from the court files one of the of the
from the court files one of the of the fingerprints that each expert had
fingerprints that each expert had testified to was a match years before
testified to was a match years before now fingerprint experts just look at
now fingerprint experts just look at fingerprints all day long so they don’t
fingerprints all day long so they don’t remember one they looked at the day
remember one they looked at the day before and so he had these experts look
before and so he had these experts look at them not knowing they were looking at
at them not knowing they were looking at one they called a match and convicted
one they called a match and convicted somebody based on that testimony before
somebody based on that testimony before and he got 80% of them to flip their
and he got 80% of them to flip their answer and say oh yeah this is not a
answer and say oh yeah this is not a match this fingerprint expert messed up
match this fingerprint expert messed up there’s a discrepancy here here here
there’s a discrepancy here here here here here and what this shows is
here here and what this shows is that how you precondition experts taints
that how you precondition experts taints the outcome and we’re still doing this
the outcome and we’re still doing this in the criminal justice system when I
in the criminal justice system when I was a prosecutor I did this all the time
was a prosecutor I did this all the time I would call it friends and experts I
I would call it friends and experts I say hey man my trials starting on Monday
say hey man my trials starting on Monday I know the bullet came from this guy’s
I know the bullet came from this guy’s gun I need that report let’s goods it’s
gun I need that report let’s goods it’s go let’s go
the other thing I want to talk about the next is malleable memory and most people
next is malleable memory and most people think of human memory as sort of a flash
think of human memory as sort of a flash drive or a database that we’re taking
drive or a database that we’re taking down everything we see and later when it
down everything we see and later when it comes time to testify in court you hit
comes time to testify in court you hit the play button and you just play it
the play button and you just play it back now everybody recognizes that
back now everybody recognizes that sometimes we forget things but most
sometimes we forget things but most people think that what they remember
people think that what they remember they remember accurately in reality
they remember accurately in reality though we now know that human memory is
though we now know that human memory is more like Wikipedia it’s constantly
more like Wikipedia it’s constantly changing we can edit our own memories we
changing we can edit our own memories we do it all the time and other people edit
do it all the time and other people edit our memories through suggestion and the
our memories through suggestion and the scary thing is when someone edits our
scary thing is when someone edits our memories through suggestion we’re not
memories through suggestion we’re not even aware of it so this comes up in a
even aware of it so this comes up in a variety of forms in the criminal justice
variety of forms in the criminal justice system that leads to errant outcomes
system that leads to errant outcomes this is the lineup where a woman who was
this is the lineup where a woman who was raped had to identify the guy who raped
raped had to identify the guy who raped her and she had described the
her and she had described the perpetrator after the attack as sort of
perpetrator after the attack as sort of stocky with a wide face and you’ll see
stocky with a wide face and you’ll see that only the guy on the far right
that only the guy on the far right matches that description of the rest of
matches that description of the rest of them are kind of skinny but she picked
them are kind of skinny but she picked Jerome white in the middle and said I’m
Jerome white in the middle and said I’m positive that was the rapist Jerome
positive that was the rapist Jerome
positive that was the rapist Jerome right served about twenty years in
right served about twenty years in prison and DNA testing later came back
prison and DNA testing later came back and proved that he was innocent and the
and proved that he was innocent and the guy on the far right was the true
guy on the far right was the true perpetrator
perpetrator so how did she get her memory flipped up
so how did she get her memory flipped up well the day before she came in and
well the day before she came in and looked at these five individuals she
looked at these five individuals she went down to the police station and the
went down to the police station and the police officer showed her a few photos
police officer showed her a few photos of people they thought were good
of people they thought were good suspects and the only one of these five
suspects and the only one of these five men that were in that group of photos
men that were in that group of photos was Jerome white in the middle so the
was Jerome white in the middle so the next day when she came in and she looked
next day when she came in and she looked at these five individuals she
at these five individuals she immediately jumped out and recognized
immediately jumped out and recognized Jerome white it had been suggested to
Jerome white it had been suggested to her the day before it might be the
her the day before it might be the perpetrator and it caused her memory to
perpetrator and it caused her memory to get mixed up so much that she identified
get mixed up so much that she identified him as the perpetrator and couldn’t even
him as the perpetrator and couldn’t even see the real rapist who was standing
see the real rapist who was standing right in front of her and this happens
right in front of her and this happens all the time
all the time if you watch making a murder you saw
if you watch making a murder you saw that penny Bernstein did the same thing
that penny Bernstein did the same thing after police suggestion that it might
after police suggestion that it might have been Steven Avery who raped her she
have been Steven Avery who raped her she identified Steven Avery and later when
identified Steven Avery and later when DNA testing proved it was someone else
DNA testing proved it was someone else she said on Dateline NBC even today when
she said on Dateline NBC even today when I look at the guy who I know raped me
I look at the guy who I know raped me I still see Steven Avery’s face it also
I still see Steven Avery’s face it also comes up in false confessions and in
comes up in false confessions and in about a third of the cases of the people
about a third of the cases of the people who have been exonerated they confess to
who have been exonerated they confess to a crime they didn’t commit and I know
a crime they didn’t commit and I know everybody’s sitting here it would say I
everybody’s sitting here it would say I would never in a million years confess
would never in a million years confess to a murder I didn’t commit or a rape I
to a murder I didn’t commit or a rape I didn’t commit but you when you study
didn’t commit but you when you study this issue you would be surprised how
this issue you would be surprised how often it happens after hours and hours
often it happens after hours and hours of police interrogation where they’re
of police interrogation where they’re telling you you did it and suggesting
telling you you did it and suggesting you might have blacked out or you’re
you might have blacked out or you’re suppressing the memory and through their
suppressing the memory and through their questioning you can learn facts about
questioning you can learn facts about the case and you start to picture it in
the case and you start to picture it in your mind and then here’s a dirty little
your mind and then here’s a dirty little secret most people don’t know that
secret most people don’t know that police officers are allowed to lie to
police officers are allowed to lie to suspects in the interrogation room so
suspects in the interrogation room so they do these things they come in and
they do these things they come in and they go oh just got a call from the lab
they go oh just got a call from the lab your DNA is at the crime scene buddy
your DNA is at the crime scene buddy oh we just got your fingerprint and many
oh we just got your fingerprint and many people through time begin to question
people through time begin to question their own memory and then get confused
their own memory and then get confused on the images they’re seeing whether
on the images they’re seeing whether that’s real memory or that’s what was
that’s real memory or that’s what was put there by the police questioning and
put there by the police questioning and if you think it wouldn’t happen to you
if you think it wouldn’t happen to you look at a recent study that just came
look at a recent study that just came out of Canada where they employed real
out of Canada where they employed real interrogation techniques on students
interrogation techniques on students college students and got 70 percent of
college students and got 70 percent of them to confess to committing a serious
them to confess to committing a serious felony before college and in these
felony before college and in these studies where they implant these
studies where they implant these memories on people it’s often the case
memories on people it’s often the case that after they tell the subjects that
that after they tell the subjects that didn’t really happen we were just
didn’t really happen we were just involved in an experiment they still
involved in an experiment they still believed it did they call it their
believed it did they call it their family and they say is it true that I
family and they say is it true that I
family and they say is it true that I really didn’t commit that armed robbery
the third thing I want to talk about is lie deception deficits most people in
lie deception deficits most people in this country believe that human beings
this country believe that human beings can listen to another person and watch
can listen to another person and watch another person telling their story and
another person telling their story and determine with accuracy while they’re
determine with accuracy while they’re telling the truth or not and police
telling the truth or not and police officers believe this even more because
officers believe this even more because they’ve been trained on this psychology
they’ve been trained on this psychology since the 1950s that they’re perfect lie
since the 1950s that they’re perfect lie detectors in fact in one of our cases
detectors in fact in one of our cases David Ayers who spent 11 years in
David Ayers who spent 11 years in in prison for a murder he didn’t commit
in prison for a murder he didn’t commit later when he sued the state the
later when he sued the state the detective who arrested him was on the
detective who arrested him was on the stand and she was being questioned about
stand and she was being questioned about why she began focusing on David Ayers he
why she began focusing on David Ayers he said because I can tell immediately when
said because I can tell immediately when somebody’s telling the truth or not from
somebody’s telling the truth or not from all my experience and I could tell that
all my experience and I could tell that he was lying from the first second I
he was lying from the first second I started interviewing him and that led
started interviewing him and that led her to latch on to him as a suspect and
her to latch on to him as a suspect and the investigation went astray we now
the investigation went astray we now know through advances in psychology
know through advances in psychology however that this is not true at all in
however that this is not true at all in fact human beings are about 54% accurate
fact human beings are about 54% accurate at telling when somebody else is telling
at telling when somebody else is telling the truth or not
the truth or not barely better than a coin flip they do
barely better than a coin flip they do these studies for example where they’ll
these studies for example where they’ll take nursing students and they’ll say to
take nursing students and they’ll say to the nursing students lying is an
the nursing students lying is an important part of your job because
important part of your job because there’s many situations where you’ve got
there’s many situations where you’ve got to keep painting a rosy picture to the
to keep painting a rosy picture to the patient until the doctor determines it’s
patient until the doctor determines it’s the right time to tell them the bad news
the right time to tell them the bad news and so we’re going to test how well you
and so we’re going to test how well you can lie and you’re going to be graded on
can lie and you’re going to be graded on it and they divided the nursing students
it and they divided the nursing students into two groups the first group watches
into two groups the first group watches a video of a pleasant ocean scene and
a video of a pleasant ocean scene and then they’re videotaped talking about
then they’re videotaped talking about what they just saw an answer quest
what they just saw an answer quest answering questions about it the second
answering questions about it the second group is shown a bloody gory disgusting
group is shown a bloody gory disgusting video but they’re told to lie and say
video but they’re told to lie and say they saw a filled with you know flowers
they saw a filled with you know flowers and puppies running around and things
and puppies running around and things like that and they’re videotaped
like that and they’re videotaped answering questions about what they saw
answering questions about what they saw and then human subjects watch the two
and then human subjects watch the two groups and have to determine which group
groups and have to determine which group of nursing students is lying and they’re
of nursing students is lying and they’re about 54 percent accurate this is over
about 54 percent accurate this is over more than 200 studies with more than
more than 200 studies with more than 20,000 human subjects police officers go
20,000 human subjects police officers go through the same type of testing and
through the same type of testing and they’re barely better than regular
they’re barely better than regular citizens still in the 50s in terms of
citizens still in the 50s in terms of accuracy and they perform these with
accuracy and they perform these with videos of interrogations where suspects
videos of interrogations where suspects we now know are lying because of the
we now know are lying because of the evidence that came out later like DNA
evidence that came out later like DNA testing and some interrogations where we
testing and some interrogations where we know the person was telling the truth
know the person was telling the truth
know the person was telling the truth and police officers are also barely
and police officers are also barely better than a coin flip at telling the
better than a coin flip at telling the truth so all of this and many other
truth so all of this and many other things together lead to tunnel vision
things together lead to tunnel vision where something early on the
where something early on the investigation happens detective believes
investigation happens detective believes that this person’s lying to me so they
that this person’s lying to me so they become dead set on they know what
become dead set on they know what happened in this case and they have
happened in this case and they have their theory or a forensic analyst makes
their theory or a forensic analyst makes an error
an error or there’s a false confession and then
or there’s a false confession and then through the rest of the investigation it
through the rest of the investigation it becomes a matter of trying to fit
becomes a matter of trying to fit everything into their theory while
everything into their theory while ignoring all other evidence that
ignoring all other evidence that contradicts it my client Clarence Elkins
contradicts it my client Clarence Elkins like all of these individuals was a
like all of these individuals was a victim of tunnel vision he was convicted
victim of tunnel vision he was convicted of murdering his mother-in-law and the
of murdering his mother-in-law and the only witness was a child the
only witness was a child the granddaughter of his mother-in-law who
granddaughter of his mother-in-law who was spending the night at her
was spending the night at her grandmother’s house that night and she
grandmother’s house that night and she saw the perpetrator for a few seconds in
saw the perpetrator for a few seconds in the dark and as soon as the police rived
the dark and as soon as the police rived there after it happened she said it
there after it happened she said it looks like my uncle Clarence and with
looks like my uncle Clarence and with some questioning from the police after a
some questioning from the police after a
some questioning from the police after a few hours is starting to become it is my
few hours is starting to become it is my uncle Clarence and then they went out
uncle Clarence and then they went out and arrested Clarence went on television
and arrested Clarence went on television
and arrested Clarence went on television and patted themselves on the back for
and patted themselves on the back for solving the crime from that point on
solving the crime from that point on every piece of evidence that surfaced
every piece of evidence that surfaced during the investigation pointed to
during the investigation pointed to Elkins his innocence but they completely
Elkins his innocence but they completely ignored it
ignored it this included alibi testimony yet people
this included alibi testimony yet people saying he was 45 minutes away from the
saying he was 45 minutes away from the crime scene they’re lying and they told
crime scene they’re lying and they told the jury they were lying and forensic
the jury they were lying and forensic evidence which suggested Clarence was
evidence which suggested Clarence was innocent they explained it away our team
innocent they explained it away our team at the Innocence Project working with
at the Innocence Project working with others were able to do DNA testing that
others were able to do DNA testing that not only proved Clarence innocent but
not only proved Clarence innocent but identified someone who had just been
identified someone who had just been released from prison who was a sex
released from prison who was a sex offender living two doors down from the
offender living two doors down from the crime scene as the true perpetrator and
crime scene as the true perpetrator and he’s now serving life in prison the
he’s now serving life in prison the police department that we’re
police department that we’re investigating this murder were
investigating this murder were investigating that guy Earl Mann at the
investigating that guy Earl Mann at the very same time but they became so hey
very same time but they became so hey tunnel vision they settled on Clarence
tunnel vision they settled on Clarence so quickly that they did not see Earl
so quickly that they did not see Earl Mann and what’s even worse is it came
Mann and what’s even worse is it came out later during the civil suit that
out later during the civil suit that before Clarence is trial Earl Mann had
before Clarence is trial Earl Mann had been picked up for another crime and had
been picked up for another crime and had confessed to killing Clarence his
confessed to killing Clarence his mother-in-law but the police were so
mother-in-law but the police were so dead-set in their theory that they sort
dead-set in their theory that they sort of discounted that as the ramblings of a
of discounted that as the ramblings of a derelict I’ve just scratched the surface
derelict I’ve just scratched the surface here but I have a book coming out in
here but I have a book coming out in September that talks about all these
September that talks about all these psychological problems and it makes the
psychological problems and it makes the point that we’re still living in the
point that we’re still living in the 1950s in a criminal investigation and
1950s in a criminal investigation and there are very simple things we can do
there are very simple things we can do to reduce human error in the process but
to reduce human error in the process but we’re
we’re not doing them I want to leave you with
not doing them I want to leave you with one final point this is not just the
one final point this is not just the criminal justice system where all this
criminal justice system where all this psychological stuff comes into play I
psychological stuff comes into play I mean the next time you’re like you know
mean the next time you’re like you know in an argument with a family member or
in an argument with a family member or your roommate and you’re saying hey
your roommate and you’re saying hey somebody lost the remote control
somebody lost the remote control somebody walked off with it where is it
somebody walked off with it where is it and your roommate says you’re the last
and your roommate says you’re the last one that was watching TV and you say nah
one that was watching TV and you say nah you were watching TV last night and you
you were watching TV last night and you start arguing back and forth these same
start arguing back and forth these same psychological phenomenons are kicking in
psychological phenomenons are kicking in and sometimes it’s better to just step
and sometimes it’s better to just step back and search for the remote control
back and search for the remote control thank you
thank you [Applause]
the moment he learned that he was going to be set free after serving almost 40
to be set free after serving almost 40 years in prison for a murder he didn’t
years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit
commit and this is him a couple hours later
and this is him a couple hours later walking out into the Cleveland air aged
walking out into the Cleveland air aged 57 as a free man for the first time
57 as a free man for the first time since he had just turned 18 years old
since he had just turned 18 years old Ricky was convicted in 1975 when a white
Ricky was convicted in 1975 when a white businessman was gunned down in cold
businessman was gunned down in cold blood in Ricky’s predominantly black
blood in Ricky’s predominantly black neighborhood in Cleveland and as you can
neighborhood in Cleveland and as you can imagine a crowd soon gathered and a
imagine a crowd soon gathered and a twelve-year-old boy stepped forward and
twelve-year-old boy stepped forward and told the police I saw who did this it
told the police I saw who did this it was Ricky Jackson and his two friends
was Ricky Jackson and his two friends the police believed a little boy they
the police believed a little boy they went and arrested Ricky and his two best
went and arrested Ricky and his two best friends and they disbelieved Ricky from
friends and they disbelieved Ricky from that point forward they were convinced
that point forward they were convinced Ricky and his friends committed this
Ricky and his friends committed this murder and they twisted and spend every
murder and they twisted and spend every piece of evidence that came forward like
piece of evidence that came forward like trying to fit a square peg into a round
trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in fact they ended up missing very
hole in fact they ended up missing very strong leads it could have led them to
strong leads it could have led them to the actual perpetrator years later
the actual perpetrator years later obviously Ricky was freed but he served
obviously Ricky was freed but he served many years on death row and actually
many years on death row and actually came within a few weeks of his execution
came within a few weeks of his execution date when because of a lucky
date when because of a lucky technicality he and his two best friends
technicality he and his two best friends were moved off of death row to life in
were moved off of death row to life in prison so they could be alive to see
prison so they could be alive to see their vindication and exoneration in
their vindication and exoneration in 2015 in 2003 I co-founded the Ohio
2015 in 2003 I co-founded the Ohio Innocence Project right here at U C’s
Innocence Project right here at U C’s college of law with now Mayor John
college of law with now Mayor John Cranley and others and our mission is to
Cranley and others and our mission is to work with law students to investigate
work with law students to investigate the cases of Ohio inmates who claim
the cases of Ohio inmates who claim they’re innocent and if we can determine
they’re innocent and if we can determine that they’re innocent seek their freedom
that they’re innocent seek their freedom and this is nine of the 24 people that
and this is nine of the 24 people that we have now freed through our work the
we have now freed through our work the 24 exonerees in Ohio served 450 years in
24 exonerees in Ohio served 450 years in prison for crimes they didn’t commit and
prison for crimes they didn’t commit and they are part of 2000 exonerees
they are part of 2000 exonerees nationally they’ve been identified in
nationally they’ve been identified in the past 25 years wrongfully convicted
the past 25 years wrongfully convicted served time they didn’t commit and we
served time they didn’t commit and we know that those 20 those 2,000 are just
know that those 20 those 2,000 are just the tip
the tip the iceberg because if you do this work
the iceberg because if you do this work you see that in every one of these cases
you see that in every one of these cases if you look at it closely it took
if you look at it closely it took coincidence after coincidence miracle
coincidence after coincidence miracle after miracle for it for you to actually
after miracle for it for you to actually spring an innocent person in most of the
spring an innocent person in most of the cases we investigate we end up the dead
cases we investigate we end up the dead ends the witnesses have died or the DNA
ends the witnesses have died or the DNA to be tested has been lost by the police
to be tested has been lost by the police I actually came to this innocence work
I actually came to this innocence work by accident I was for many years a
by accident I was for many years a prosecutor in New York City and Here I
prosecutor in New York City and Here I am getting an award at the time from
am getting an award at the time from Attorney General Janet Reno on the far
Attorney General Janet Reno on the far left is Eric Holder who later became the
left is Eric Holder who later became the Attorney General under Obama and after I
Attorney General under Obama and after I left the prosecutor’s office I wanted to
left the prosecutor’s office I wanted to be a law professor and my first job was
be a law professor and my first job was at a different law school and they had
at a different law school and they had an Innocence Project there but the
an Innocence Project there but the professor who ran it was on sabbatical
professor who ran it was on sabbatical the first year so they asked me to
the first year so they asked me to supervise it since I had this criminal
supervise it since I had this criminal investigation background but I was
investigation background but I was extremely skeptical and had this
extremely skeptical and had this prosecutors mentality
prosecutors mentality I didn’t think innocent people were
I didn’t think innocent people were convicted in this country and I can
convicted in this country and I can remember one of the first meetings I sat
remember one of the first meetings I sat in with the students they were talking
in with the students they were talking about this guy they were investigated
about this guy they were investigated they were convinced he’s innocent they
they were convinced he’s innocent they just visit him in prison and I sat there
just visit him in prison and I sat there thinking what a load of BS this guy’s
thinking what a load of BS this guy’s totally guilty but DNA testing went
totally guilty but DNA testing went forward his DNA didn’t match the DNA
forward his DNA didn’t match the DNA from the crime scene and he was released
from the crime scene and he was released and so that was a totally shocking
and so that was a totally shocking experience for me it began opening my
experience for me it began opening my eyes to problems in the system and so
eyes to problems in the system and so from that point forward now this has
from that point forward now this has been you know 15 or 16 years I’ve spent
been you know 15 or 16 years I’ve spent my life working on wrongful convictions
my life working on wrongful convictions and I’ve learned a couple things one is
and I’ve learned a couple things one is that we convicted and some people in
that we convicted and some people in this country far more than we would ever
this country far more than we would ever recognize and second that this is caused
recognize and second that this is caused by simple human failing psychological
by simple human failing psychological limitations that cause investigations to
limitations that cause investigations to go astray in fact the criminal justice
go astray in fact the criminal justice system is still operating based on the
system is still operating based on the understandings of the human mind from
understandings of the human mind from the 1950s I’m going to talk about three
the 1950s I’m going to talk about three different things three different
different things three different psychological phenomenons that lead to
psychological phenomenons that lead to wrongful convictions confirmation bias
wrongful convictions confirmation bias malleable memories and lie detection
malleable memories and lie detection deficits and the first is confirmation
deficits and the first is confirmation bias confirmation bias is a problem that
bias confirmation bias is a problem that all of a sudden beings tend to go into a
all of a sudden beings tend to go into a situation interpret
situation interpret all the evidence and all the facts that
all the evidence and all the facts that come toward them and a way to confirm
come toward them and a way to confirm their pre-existing beliefs or what they
their pre-existing beliefs or what they hope the outcome to be so if you’re
hope the outcome to be so if you’re looking at a field of stars or field of
looking at a field of stars or field of evidence where everything’s pointing to
evidence where everything’s pointing to know if you want the answer to be yes
know if you want the answer to be yes and you have an agenda to find the
and you have an agenda to find the answer to be yes you’re going to be able
answer to be yes you’re going to be able to patch together a constellation to
to patch together a constellation to find that answer this exists not just in
find that answer this exists not just in the criminal justice system but of
the criminal justice system but of course in everyday life this is the
course in everyday life this is the debate between gore and Bush in the 2000
debate between gore and Bush in the 2000 presidential election and after the
presidential election and after the debate they did surveys of people and
debate they did surveys of people and they said which candidate appeared more
they said which candidate appeared more presidential more honest and answered
presidential more honest and answered this questions with more concrete ways
this questions with more concrete ways he was going to solve the nation’s
he was going to solve the nation’s problems and of course Democrats
problems and of course Democrats overwhelmingly he said Oh gore was much
overwhelmingly he said Oh gore was much more honest he gave concrete answers and
more honest he gave concrete answers and Bush just gave you know sort of jargon
Bush just gave you know sort of jargon he was more presidential Republicans
he was more presidential Republicans overwhelmingly said the exact opposite
overwhelmingly said the exact opposite Bush was more presidential gave more
Bush was more presidential gave more honest answers because that’s the human
honest answers because that’s the human tendency to go into a situation and we
tendency to go into a situation and we see what we want to see we latch on to
see what we want to see we latch on to and re-register in our mind those pieces
and re-register in our mind those pieces of evidence that confirm it while we
of evidence that confirm it while we discount everything else so how does
discount everything else so how does this play on the criminal justice system
this play on the criminal justice system well criminal investigations are awash
well criminal investigations are awash in confirmation bias because we’re not
in confirmation bias because we’re not recognizing advances in recent
recognizing advances in recent psychology but I’m going to just point
psychology but I’m going to just point out one area where you can see this and
out one area where you can see this and that’s in the Forensic Sciences of those
that’s in the Forensic Sciences of those 2000 people who have been identified as
2000 people who have been identified as wrongfully convicted about 40 percent of
wrongfully convicted about 40 percent of them were convicted based on wrong
them were convicted based on wrong forensic science testimony I’m talking
forensic science testimony I’m talking about the CSI people you see on TV
about the CSI people you see on TV somebody at the original trial said hey
somebody at the original trial said hey this guy’s fingerprint was at the crime
this guy’s fingerprint was at the crime scene or was this defendant whose foot
scene or was this defendant whose foot tread was in the mud next to the dead
tread was in the mud next to the dead body but later they were proven innocent
body but later they were proven innocent so the forensic scientists gave
so the forensic scientists gave incorrect testimony so we started
incorrect testimony so we started studying or social scientists started
studying or social scientists started studying how could this happen and we
studying how could this happen and we realize a confirmation blast pays a big
realize a confirmation blast pays a big role before we turn to that though I’m
role before we turn to that though I’m going to have you do a real quick
going to have you do a real quick experiment I want you to take about 10
experiment I want you to take about 10 seconds to read that paragraph and tell
seconds to read that paragraph and tell me how many f’s
me how many f’s you see
okay how many c1f how many see two three four five six okay nobody saw six there
four five six okay nobody saw six there are six F’s there and about 75% of you
are six F’s there and about 75% of you said there are three F’s okay there are
said there are three F’s okay there are three F’s in substantial words the other
three F’s in substantial words the other three are in the word of so if you count
three are in the word of so if you count the word of there are six FS in that
the word of there are six FS in that paragraph so why did you miss those
paragraph so why did you miss those words because your expert readers and
words because your expert readers and your mind has created shortcuts to get
your mind has created shortcuts to get to you to the result you need which is
to you to the result you need which is
to you to the result you need which is quick comprehensive reading so how does
quick comprehensive reading so how does that play into the forensic sciences
that play into the forensic sciences this is a fingerprint and a fingerprint
this is a fingerprint and a fingerprint experts job is to take on the left
experts job is to take on the left that’s the fingerprint found at the
that’s the fingerprint found at the crime scene on the bloody knife and on
crime scene on the bloody knife and on the right is the fingerprint of the
the right is the fingerprint of the suspect the police have identified and
suspect the police have identified and they’ve taken him to the police station
they’ve taken him to the police station and rolled his finger in ink and there
and rolled his finger in ink and there you go and the job of a fingerprint
you go and the job of a fingerprint expert is to say is this the same a
expert is to say is this the same a psychologist named tal djor started
psychologist named tal djor started looking at these wrongful convictions
looking at these wrongful convictions and saying why do we have all this bad
and saying why do we have all this bad testimony in these forensic cases and he
testimony in these forensic cases and he wondered if confirmation bias could play
wondered if confirmation bias could play result so what he did was he went to
result so what he did was he went to leading fingerprint experts around the
leading fingerprint experts around the world and he said I need you to do
world and he said I need you to do something for me I’ve got fingerprints
something for me I’ve got fingerprints from a case where an expert years ago
from a case where an expert years ago testified that there was a match but
testified that there was a match but later DNA testing proved the person
later DNA testing proved the person innocence we know the fingerprint expert
innocence we know the fingerprint expert made a mistake can you look at this
made a mistake can you look at this fingerprint and point out the
fingerprint and point out the differences between the two and show me
differences between the two and show me where the fingerprint expert made a
where the fingerprint expert made a mistake 20 years ago but what each of
mistake 20 years ago but what each of those fingerprint experts didn’t know
those fingerprint experts didn’t know was it CL drawer had gone and pulled
was it CL drawer had gone and pulled from the court files one of the of the
from the court files one of the of the fingerprints that each expert had
fingerprints that each expert had testified to was a match years before
testified to was a match years before now fingerprint experts just look at
now fingerprint experts just look at fingerprints all day long so they don’t
fingerprints all day long so they don’t remember one they looked at the day
remember one they looked at the day before and so he had these experts look
before and so he had these experts look at them not knowing they were looking at
at them not knowing they were looking at one they called a match and convicted
one they called a match and convicted somebody based on that testimony before
somebody based on that testimony before and he got 80% of them to flip their
and he got 80% of them to flip their answer and say oh yeah this is not a
answer and say oh yeah this is not a match this fingerprint expert messed up
match this fingerprint expert messed up there’s a discrepancy here here here
there’s a discrepancy here here here here here and what this shows is
here here and what this shows is that how you precondition experts taints
that how you precondition experts taints the outcome and we’re still doing this
the outcome and we’re still doing this in the criminal justice system when I
in the criminal justice system when I was a prosecutor I did this all the time
was a prosecutor I did this all the time I would call it friends and experts I
I would call it friends and experts I say hey man my trials starting on Monday
say hey man my trials starting on Monday I know the bullet came from this guy’s
I know the bullet came from this guy’s gun I need that report let’s goods it’s
gun I need that report let’s goods it’s go let’s go
the other thing I want to talk about the next is malleable memory and most people
next is malleable memory and most people think of human memory as sort of a flash
think of human memory as sort of a flash drive or a database that we’re taking
drive or a database that we’re taking down everything we see and later when it
down everything we see and later when it comes time to testify in court you hit
comes time to testify in court you hit the play button and you just play it
the play button and you just play it back now everybody recognizes that
back now everybody recognizes that sometimes we forget things but most
sometimes we forget things but most people think that what they remember
people think that what they remember they remember accurately in reality
they remember accurately in reality though we now know that human memory is
though we now know that human memory is more like Wikipedia it’s constantly
more like Wikipedia it’s constantly changing we can edit our own memories we
changing we can edit our own memories we do it all the time and other people edit
do it all the time and other people edit our memories through suggestion and the
our memories through suggestion and the scary thing is when someone edits our
scary thing is when someone edits our memories through suggestion we’re not
memories through suggestion we’re not even aware of it so this comes up in a
even aware of it so this comes up in a variety of forms in the criminal justice
variety of forms in the criminal justice system that leads to errant outcomes
system that leads to errant outcomes this is the lineup where a woman who was
this is the lineup where a woman who was raped had to identify the guy who raped
raped had to identify the guy who raped her and she had described the
her and she had described the perpetrator after the attack as sort of
perpetrator after the attack as sort of stocky with a wide face and you’ll see
stocky with a wide face and you’ll see that only the guy on the far right
that only the guy on the far right matches that description of the rest of
matches that description of the rest of them are kind of skinny but she picked
them are kind of skinny but she picked Jerome white in the middle and said I’m
Jerome white in the middle and said I’m positive that was the rapist Jerome
positive that was the rapist Jerome
positive that was the rapist Jerome right served about twenty years in
right served about twenty years in prison and DNA testing later came back
prison and DNA testing later came back and proved that he was innocent and the
and proved that he was innocent and the guy on the far right was the true
guy on the far right was the true perpetrator
perpetrator so how did she get her memory flipped up
so how did she get her memory flipped up well the day before she came in and
well the day before she came in and looked at these five individuals she
looked at these five individuals she went down to the police station and the
went down to the police station and the police officer showed her a few photos
police officer showed her a few photos of people they thought were good
of people they thought were good suspects and the only one of these five
suspects and the only one of these five men that were in that group of photos
men that were in that group of photos was Jerome white in the middle so the
was Jerome white in the middle so the next day when she came in and she looked
next day when she came in and she looked at these five individuals she
at these five individuals she immediately jumped out and recognized
immediately jumped out and recognized Jerome white it had been suggested to
Jerome white it had been suggested to her the day before it might be the
her the day before it might be the perpetrator and it caused her memory to
perpetrator and it caused her memory to get mixed up so much that she identified
get mixed up so much that she identified him as the perpetrator and couldn’t even
him as the perpetrator and couldn’t even see the real rapist who was standing
see the real rapist who was standing right in front of her and this happens
right in front of her and this happens all the time
all the time if you watch making a murder you saw
if you watch making a murder you saw that penny Bernstein did the same thing
that penny Bernstein did the same thing after police suggestion that it might
after police suggestion that it might have been Steven Avery who raped her she
have been Steven Avery who raped her she identified Steven Avery and later when
identified Steven Avery and later when DNA testing proved it was someone else
DNA testing proved it was someone else she said on Dateline NBC even today when
she said on Dateline NBC even today when I look at the guy who I know raped me
I look at the guy who I know raped me I still see Steven Avery’s face it also
I still see Steven Avery’s face it also comes up in false confessions and in
comes up in false confessions and in about a third of the cases of the people
about a third of the cases of the people who have been exonerated they confess to
who have been exonerated they confess to a crime they didn’t commit and I know
a crime they didn’t commit and I know everybody’s sitting here it would say I
everybody’s sitting here it would say I would never in a million years confess
would never in a million years confess to a murder I didn’t commit or a rape I
to a murder I didn’t commit or a rape I didn’t commit but you when you study
didn’t commit but you when you study this issue you would be surprised how
this issue you would be surprised how often it happens after hours and hours
often it happens after hours and hours of police interrogation where they’re
of police interrogation where they’re telling you you did it and suggesting
telling you you did it and suggesting you might have blacked out or you’re
you might have blacked out or you’re suppressing the memory and through their
suppressing the memory and through their questioning you can learn facts about
questioning you can learn facts about the case and you start to picture it in
the case and you start to picture it in your mind and then here’s a dirty little
your mind and then here’s a dirty little secret most people don’t know that
secret most people don’t know that police officers are allowed to lie to
police officers are allowed to lie to suspects in the interrogation room so
suspects in the interrogation room so they do these things they come in and
they do these things they come in and they go oh just got a call from the lab
they go oh just got a call from the lab your DNA is at the crime scene buddy
your DNA is at the crime scene buddy oh we just got your fingerprint and many
oh we just got your fingerprint and many people through time begin to question
people through time begin to question their own memory and then get confused
their own memory and then get confused on the images they’re seeing whether
on the images they’re seeing whether that’s real memory or that’s what was
that’s real memory or that’s what was put there by the police questioning and
put there by the police questioning and if you think it wouldn’t happen to you
if you think it wouldn’t happen to you look at a recent study that just came
look at a recent study that just came out of Canada where they employed real
out of Canada where they employed real interrogation techniques on students
interrogation techniques on students college students and got 70 percent of
college students and got 70 percent of them to confess to committing a serious
them to confess to committing a serious felony before college and in these
felony before college and in these studies where they implant these
studies where they implant these memories on people it’s often the case
memories on people it’s often the case that after they tell the subjects that
that after they tell the subjects that didn’t really happen we were just
didn’t really happen we were just involved in an experiment they still
involved in an experiment they still believed it did they call it their
believed it did they call it their family and they say is it true that I
family and they say is it true that I
family and they say is it true that I really didn’t commit that armed robbery
the third thing I want to talk about is lie deception deficits most people in
lie deception deficits most people in this country believe that human beings
this country believe that human beings can listen to another person and watch
can listen to another person and watch another person telling their story and
another person telling their story and determine with accuracy while they’re
determine with accuracy while they’re telling the truth or not and police
telling the truth or not and police officers believe this even more because
officers believe this even more because they’ve been trained on this psychology
they’ve been trained on this psychology since the 1950s that they’re perfect lie
since the 1950s that they’re perfect lie detectors in fact in one of our cases
detectors in fact in one of our cases David Ayers who spent 11 years in
David Ayers who spent 11 years in in prison for a murder he didn’t commit
in prison for a murder he didn’t commit later when he sued the state the
later when he sued the state the detective who arrested him was on the
detective who arrested him was on the stand and she was being questioned about
stand and she was being questioned about why she began focusing on David Ayers he
why she began focusing on David Ayers he said because I can tell immediately when
said because I can tell immediately when somebody’s telling the truth or not from
somebody’s telling the truth or not from all my experience and I could tell that
all my experience and I could tell that he was lying from the first second I
he was lying from the first second I started interviewing him and that led
started interviewing him and that led her to latch on to him as a suspect and
her to latch on to him as a suspect and the investigation went astray we now
the investigation went astray we now know through advances in psychology
know through advances in psychology however that this is not true at all in
however that this is not true at all in fact human beings are about 54% accurate
fact human beings are about 54% accurate at telling when somebody else is telling
at telling when somebody else is telling the truth or not
the truth or not barely better than a coin flip they do
barely better than a coin flip they do these studies for example where they’ll
these studies for example where they’ll take nursing students and they’ll say to
take nursing students and they’ll say to the nursing students lying is an
the nursing students lying is an important part of your job because
important part of your job because there’s many situations where you’ve got
there’s many situations where you’ve got to keep painting a rosy picture to the
to keep painting a rosy picture to the patient until the doctor determines it’s
patient until the doctor determines it’s the right time to tell them the bad news
the right time to tell them the bad news and so we’re going to test how well you
and so we’re going to test how well you can lie and you’re going to be graded on
can lie and you’re going to be graded on it and they divided the nursing students
it and they divided the nursing students into two groups the first group watches
into two groups the first group watches a video of a pleasant ocean scene and
a video of a pleasant ocean scene and then they’re videotaped talking about
then they’re videotaped talking about what they just saw an answer quest
what they just saw an answer quest answering questions about it the second
answering questions about it the second group is shown a bloody gory disgusting
group is shown a bloody gory disgusting video but they’re told to lie and say
video but they’re told to lie and say they saw a filled with you know flowers
they saw a filled with you know flowers and puppies running around and things
and puppies running around and things like that and they’re videotaped
like that and they’re videotaped answering questions about what they saw
answering questions about what they saw and then human subjects watch the two
and then human subjects watch the two groups and have to determine which group
groups and have to determine which group of nursing students is lying and they’re
of nursing students is lying and they’re about 54 percent accurate this is over
about 54 percent accurate this is over more than 200 studies with more than
more than 200 studies with more than 20,000 human subjects police officers go
20,000 human subjects police officers go through the same type of testing and
through the same type of testing and they’re barely better than regular
they’re barely better than regular citizens still in the 50s in terms of
citizens still in the 50s in terms of accuracy and they perform these with
accuracy and they perform these with videos of interrogations where suspects
videos of interrogations where suspects we now know are lying because of the
we now know are lying because of the evidence that came out later like DNA
evidence that came out later like DNA testing and some interrogations where we
testing and some interrogations where we know the person was telling the truth
know the person was telling the truth
know the person was telling the truth and police officers are also barely
and police officers are also barely better than a coin flip at telling the
better than a coin flip at telling the truth so all of this and many other
truth so all of this and many other things together lead to tunnel vision
things together lead to tunnel vision where something early on the
where something early on the investigation happens detective believes
investigation happens detective believes that this person’s lying to me so they
that this person’s lying to me so they become dead set on they know what
become dead set on they know what happened in this case and they have
happened in this case and they have their theory or a forensic analyst makes
their theory or a forensic analyst makes an error
an error or there’s a false confession and then
or there’s a false confession and then through the rest of the investigation it
through the rest of the investigation it becomes a matter of trying to fit
becomes a matter of trying to fit everything into their theory while
everything into their theory while ignoring all other evidence that
ignoring all other evidence that contradicts it my client Clarence Elkins
contradicts it my client Clarence Elkins like all of these individuals was a
like all of these individuals was a victim of tunnel vision he was convicted
victim of tunnel vision he was convicted of murdering his mother-in-law and the
of murdering his mother-in-law and the only witness was a child the
only witness was a child the granddaughter of his mother-in-law who
granddaughter of his mother-in-law who was spending the night at her
was spending the night at her grandmother’s house that night and she
grandmother’s house that night and she saw the perpetrator for a few seconds in
saw the perpetrator for a few seconds in the dark and as soon as the police rived
the dark and as soon as the police rived there after it happened she said it
there after it happened she said it looks like my uncle Clarence and with
looks like my uncle Clarence and with some questioning from the police after a
some questioning from the police after a
some questioning from the police after a few hours is starting to become it is my
few hours is starting to become it is my uncle Clarence and then they went out
uncle Clarence and then they went out and arrested Clarence went on television
and arrested Clarence went on television
and arrested Clarence went on television and patted themselves on the back for
and patted themselves on the back for solving the crime from that point on
solving the crime from that point on every piece of evidence that surfaced
every piece of evidence that surfaced during the investigation pointed to
during the investigation pointed to Elkins his innocence but they completely
Elkins his innocence but they completely ignored it
ignored it this included alibi testimony yet people
this included alibi testimony yet people saying he was 45 minutes away from the
saying he was 45 minutes away from the crime scene they’re lying and they told
crime scene they’re lying and they told the jury they were lying and forensic
the jury they were lying and forensic evidence which suggested Clarence was
evidence which suggested Clarence was innocent they explained it away our team
innocent they explained it away our team at the Innocence Project working with
at the Innocence Project working with others were able to do DNA testing that
others were able to do DNA testing that not only proved Clarence innocent but
not only proved Clarence innocent but identified someone who had just been
identified someone who had just been released from prison who was a sex
released from prison who was a sex offender living two doors down from the
offender living two doors down from the crime scene as the true perpetrator and
crime scene as the true perpetrator and he’s now serving life in prison the
he’s now serving life in prison the police department that we’re
police department that we’re investigating this murder were
investigating this murder were investigating that guy Earl Mann at the
investigating that guy Earl Mann at the very same time but they became so hey
very same time but they became so hey tunnel vision they settled on Clarence
tunnel vision they settled on Clarence so quickly that they did not see Earl
so quickly that they did not see Earl Mann and what’s even worse is it came
Mann and what’s even worse is it came out later during the civil suit that
out later during the civil suit that before Clarence is trial Earl Mann had
before Clarence is trial Earl Mann had been picked up for another crime and had
been picked up for another crime and had confessed to killing Clarence his
confessed to killing Clarence his mother-in-law but the police were so
mother-in-law but the police were so dead-set in their theory that they sort
dead-set in their theory that they sort of discounted that as the ramblings of a
of discounted that as the ramblings of a derelict I’ve just scratched the surface
derelict I’ve just scratched the surface here but I have a book coming out in
here but I have a book coming out in September that talks about all these
September that talks about all these psychological problems and it makes the
psychological problems and it makes the point that we’re still living in the
point that we’re still living in the 1950s in a criminal investigation and
1950s in a criminal investigation and there are very simple things we can do
there are very simple things we can do to reduce human error in the process but
to reduce human error in the process but we’re
we’re not doing them I want to leave you with
not doing them I want to leave you with one final point this is not just the
one final point this is not just the criminal justice system where all this
criminal justice system where all this psychological stuff comes into play I
psychological stuff comes into play I mean the next time you’re like you know
mean the next time you’re like you know in an argument with a family member or
in an argument with a family member or your roommate and you’re saying hey
your roommate and you’re saying hey somebody lost the remote control
somebody lost the remote control somebody walked off with it where is it
somebody walked off with it where is it and your roommate says you’re the last
and your roommate says you’re the last one that was watching TV and you say nah
one that was watching TV and you say nah you were watching TV last night and you
you were watching TV last night and you start arguing back and forth these same
start arguing back and forth these same psychological phenomenons are kicking in
psychological phenomenons are kicking in and sometimes it’s better to just step
and sometimes it’s better to just step back and search for the remote control
back and search for the remote control thank you
thank you [Applause]
Please follow and like us: