White’s appearance: (1) Dark suit and raincoat. (2) Bareheaded. (3) Hardly noticed him (nearly everyone said this).
Smith’s conduct: (1) Carried pistol and snapped it several times. (2) Came in last; went out second; said “Get out of here.” (3) Carried pistol, snapped it several times, and cried “Stop or I’ll shoot,” aiming at Jones. (4) Dropped umbrella on floor. (5) Came in last, stayed behind; yelled “Catch that man!”
Professor’s conduct: (1) Said: “What’s all this?” (2) Said: “What does all this mean?” (3) Said: “Here.” (4) Said: “Hullo, what’s going on here”? (5) Said: “Who are these men?”
These discrepancies illustrate how difficult it is for the eye and ear to record accurately the impressions received in a rapid succession of events, one of which may focus the attention to such an extent that events simultaneously occurring are only imperfectly or partially observed.
The fallibility of identification by eye-witnesses was strikingly demonstrated at the trial of Benjamin Bates and John Green at the Old Bailey in 1776, on the charge of burglary.
The house of James Penleage had been broken into, and plate to the value of four or five hundred pounds had been stolen.
Mrs. Penleage swore that four men had entered her bedroom, one of whom carried a dark lantern; that two of these men came, one on each side of the bed, and held pistols to her head, and that of these men of whom she had a perfect view, she recognised one as Green and the other as Bates.
Her husband testified as to the house having been entered, and as to his loss, but stated that as he was near-sighted he would not swear to the men, though he believed Bates had presented a pistol to his head.
Evidence was also given by a servant and by another woman, and notwithstanding the good character given to the prisoners by a number of witnesses, the jury brought in a verdict of “Guilty.”
The newspapers of the day called attention to the inconclusive evidence of identification, and as a result the prisoners were respited from month to month.