posted on July 26, 2000 05:11:42 PM new
Interesting site, Sarge, but I think I'll pass on the test. I know I'd do poorly. It amazes me how some of my colleagues can recognize a guy from a ten year old mug shot. If I actually see a person I can later pick them out of a crowd, but I'm terrible with photos.
Years ago I was trained on the S&W Identi-kit. I hated the thing. I always thought of it as a sort of two-dimensional Mr. Potatohead. It did get me quite a bit of court OT, though.
I recall a rape case where I used the kit to get an almost photographic likeness of the bad guy. The complainant described the male as having a stubble. If you're familiar with the kit you know that you can't do stubble. You either have a beard or you don't. In order to achieve the desired look I took a pencil and shaded the facial area. The defense attorney was able to get the composite removed from evidence because he demonstrated that I did not follow S&W's procedure. Other evidence included a signed gas station receipt the guy dropped at the scene, positive clothing ID, eyewitness ID's from neighbors who saw him fleeing from the victim's house, and incriminating statements from his wife and co-workers. The defendant was acquitted. If you ever need an excellent attorney, I've got a name for you.
I do know the S&W kit although it was not the one I was trained on and used. You are right, the S&W was not too impressive. The one I used was developed in the UK. It was comprised of (actual) photo segments. The problem was the clothing and hairstyle selections.
Must have been an incompetent prosecutor up against the defense. Regardless of mfg suggested procedures, a composite (is) technically a system of construction and altering until the witness states the composite resemble the suspect(s). You, as you know, could build a face in accordance with (your) preferences, but if the finished product does not resemble the suspect(s), the victim(s) should not be able to say the composite is a likeness or resemblance...unless you had an idea who the suspect was and saved time. Would that be considered a single suspect photo lineup?
I used hand-applied art on almost all my composites, using an overlay system. Nothing is routine, is it?
The DA's prosecutor later became a judge. You called that one right! I kept expecting an objection to the request to throw out the composite. None was presented.
Defense counsel was an ex-WWII fighter pilot...flew a Mustang in Europe. Charmed the jury brilliantly. Brought in a little fan to show how the flimsy paper of the receipt could have blown down the victim's street and in her front door. Hired an eye Doctor, armed with charts, diagrams and a magic marker to cast doubt on the visual accuity of the elderly witnesses. Dumped a box full of shirts on the courtroom floor to demonstrate the ready availabilty of clothing similar to the defendants. He even got the guy's estranged wife to claim that she was confused when she made her initial statement incriminating her husband.
The guy was guilty as sin but he walked. He wasn't even rich, paid for his defense on the installment plan.
I learned a lot about court proceedings in that case....It's more about show business than it is about justice.
I'm not entirely certain that nothing is routine. Everything is routine seems an equally valid statement, at times.
Would that be considered a single suspect photo lineup?