Its not an age thing, its whether she can remember accurately over that time period.Respectfully
She's 40, not 95!
She's making a serious allegation which should be tested.
Its not an age thing, its whether she can remember accurately over that time period.Respectfully
She's 40, not 95!
Illustration of problems not having access to the full picture, so we can only guess.^ I wonder what that means? Who are these failed people? What does 'new appointments' mean? Is it referring to those yet to give evidence?
Its not an age thing, its whether she can remember accurately over that time period.
She's making a serious allegation which should be tested.
Its not an age thing, its whether she can remember accurately over that time period.
She's making a serious allegation which should be tested.
Considering she has seen CB’s eyes countless times in the media, I don’t think this is an effective test.I suppose it would depend upon her cognitive ability after nearly 20 years.
The test would be to present her with images of a couple of dozen sets of blue eyes to see if she could identify CB. Rather like looking at a book of mugshots.
Victim shaming is taking it too far. Any reasonable person understands that rape is a terrible ordeal for victims. However, does that mean we cannot share our views and question the evidence in such crimes?She said she recognised his eyes and has testified to that.
She said she recognised them in 2020.
She had an extreme visceral reaction when she saw them.
How much more 'eye recognition' do you require of HaB the female rape and torture victim?
The eye specialist has testified that it IS possible to recognise eyes and yet you persist, now questioning her 'cognitive' abilities.
There are numerous studies that back this up, one I posted around a week ago. Did you read it?
This covert victim shaming must end imo, it's very ugly.
What other object test could be applied ?Considering she has seen CB’s eyes countless times in the media, I don’t think this is an effective test.
Victim shaming is taking it too far. Any reasonable person understands that rape is a terrible ordeal for victims. However, does that mean we cannot share our views and question the evidence in such crimes?
From what I can see, @Davieson is asking if a positive identification of an individual by their eyes alone is possible after twenty years. Not if identifying someone by their eyes is possible but if it’s possible after two decades. If you have a source that tests these conditions i.e. identification of strangers by eyes alone over long time periods of time, please share it. In this case, it seems that this is the only way the attacker can be identified.
It’s not victim shaming, it’s a reasonable question which is fair to ask, even if the victim suffered a terrible experience - her experience and an objective analysis of the evidence should be separated. We should be allowed to ask questions without accusations of covert victim blaming or other unconscious fallacies.
The first link is recall of 40 subjects. Time is not a variable. Recognising people from there eyes with this small group and without a time delay is good but not as good as seeing the whole face.It wasn't after 20 years it was 16 and you have agreed that identifying someone by their eyes is possible. The time lapse is neither here nor there if identification is indeed, evolutionary.
BTW, does CB have an alibi for that night in June 2004?
"In the highly emotional contexts, participants made fewer errors in eye shape than in neutral contexts, and made the most errors in regard to nose shape.
Scientists believe that our brains take the information they need to identify a person primarily from their eyes.....![]()
Looking into someone's eyes 'the key to remembering their face'
Looking into someone's eyes is the key to remembering their face, a new study suggests.www.telegraph.co.uk
The reason we look where we look, said the researchers, is evolutionary
Face Identification Accuracy is in the Eye (and Brain) of the Beholder, UCSB Researchers Say
Their findings are in a recent issue of the journal Psychological Science.news.ucsb.edu
The first link is recall of 40 subjects. Time is not a variable. Recognising people from there eyes with this small group and without a time delay is good but not as good as seeing the whole face.
The second link compares the eyes, nose and mouth as the feature most reliable for recognising someone. The eyes are more reliable.
Third link behind paywall.
The argument in the last link is that people who primarily look at the nose or the mouth when trying to identify someone can do so as accurately as those who use the eyes.
These links demonstrate that the eyes are an important feature in identifying someone.
They do not show that the eyes, exclusively, can be used to identify someone after a long period - they don’t come close to doing that.
Based on this, the enquiry from @Davieson is valid: using memory alone, is it possible to accurately identify someone by their eyes alone from a still photograph after 16 years? I am extremely doubtful that it is.
It wasn't after 20 years it was 16 and you have agreed that identifying someone by their eyes is possible. The time lapse is neither here nor there if identification is indeed, evolutionary.
BTW, does CB have an alibi for that night in June 2004?
Back in the day predating pixilation or blurring technology of a photograph to prevent recognition, the chosen method of obscuring a person's identity from recognition was to superimpose a black bar over the eyes.Doesn't explain how you would determine that HaB was correct in her identification.
^ I don't think we know ie. I can't recall seeing any reporting of that being asked.
Not sure a lack of an alibi would be significant though. It would only really be significant if someone claimed to have seen him in the vicinity that night and as far as we know, that's not the case.
This covert victim shaming must end imo, it's very ugly.
Respectfully, the post that led to this comment was doubting HaB's recollection of the eyes of her attacker. This has nothing to do with the prosecution, but the post was doubting HaB's ability to remember what she saw. JmoI think that's an unfair charge at this stage of the trial. And also, respectfully, a subjective and emotion-led one that's unhelpful because it's failing to engage with the court's objective findings as to why all the charges against CB are now at risk of being dismissed.
Based on its current precarious state, people are perfectly entitled to question every last claim that the prosecution has made and that includes those of their witnesses. That's nothing to do with victim shaming or blaming and everything to do with trying to make sense of a trial that's not remotely gone in the direction it was expected to go.
If anyone should be shamed here, it's the prosecution. Both for its failure to deliver and the consequences of that failure.
FWIW, I don't doubt HaB's eye recollection, she was there, she was the one looking directly into the eyes of her attacker, I don't need an ophthalmologist to confirm anything to do with that.
I think that's an unfair charge at this stage of the trial. And also a subjective and emotion-led one that's failing to engage with the court's objective findings as to why all the charges are now at risk of being dismissed.
In the light of that, people are perfectly entitled at this stage to question every claim that the prosecution has made and that includes those of the witnesses.
But, FWIW, I don't doubt HaB's eye recollection, she was there, she was the one looking directly into the eyes of her attacker, I don't need an ophthalmologist to confirm anything to do with that. And I'm surprised that the DM and the unknown video victim MO evidence failed to land in her case.
I think that's an unfair charge at this stage of the trial. And also, respectfully, a subjective and emotion-led one that's unhelpful because it's failing to engage with the court's objective findings as to why all the charges against CB are now at risk of being dismissed.
Based on its current precarious state, people are perfectly entitled to question every last claim that the prosecution has made and that includes those of their witnesses. That's nothing to do with victim shaming or blaming and everything to do with trying to make sense of a trial that's not remotely gone in the direction it was expected to go.
If anyone should be shamed here, it's the prosecution. Both for its failure to deliver and the consequences of that failure.
FWIW, I don't doubt HaB's eye recollection, she was there, she was the one looking directly into the eyes of her attacker, I don't need an ophthalmologist to confirm anything to do with that.
AFAIK The Courts objective finding was that the ophthalmologist testified that only blue eyes can be seen in the dark and twilight, all other eye colours appear as black.
Engaging with the OP's deliberate or plain obtuseness is plain boring, nothing to do with the charges being dismissed, suggesting the victim does some kind of eye ID parade is ludicrous and degrading IMO and I stand by that.
I agree with your last para.