oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,714
Eye witness identification can be incorrect including the description given, and I think most people understand why it can be.
Two different people could be seeing the same event happening, and each could come away with totally different interpretations........such as the description given of the person they saw at the time.
As we all know, faulty eye witness identification is the number one reason cases are overturned, and the cause of many being convicted that were innocent.
Imo, that is why direct evidence is never as credible as all forms of circumstantial evidence. Eye witness testimony can be highly inaccurate,. and faulty and there are various logical reasons for that occurring.
The human mind wants to rationalize what they are seeing. Clint didn't get up that day knowing Holly was going to be kidnapped. He had no reason to even think about it.
When he did see Holly, and the perp when they both were kneeling down in the carport the most reasonable conclusion to Clint at the time was she was with her boyfriend. He thought they were in deep conversation making him think they may have been talking about breaking up. He felt at the time his assumption was the most reasonable conclusion based on what he saw., And though wrong, it was reasonable for no one goes around thinking beforehand their family member is going to be kidnapped by a lowlife.
Even the camo jacket Adam's wore that day convinced Clint even more she was with her boyfriend since he actually did go hunting that morning. The camo jacket can hide the person's true weight. They aren't tight fitting attire and are made to fit loose so that layers of clothing can be worn underneath them unrestricted. People who wear them easily could appear larger than they actually are.
As far as the description about weight and height it reminds me of other cases where an eye witness/es to a crime was/were sure the suspect was of a certain height,weight, build, and hair color,(etc) but when arrested the suspect did not even slightly fit the description given in good faith at the time. Even when eye witnesses help an artist make a composite sketch of a suspect often they did not look anything like the defendant.
Unfortunately at the time Clint truly believe Holly was with Drew so he already had his image in his mind even though Drew was not even close to where Holly lived, and was in the woods hunting on another property owned by someone else miles away during her kidnapping.
Imo, the identification description given by Clint that day will be explained. The only time he saw Adams again that morning was from afar, and he said he could only see part of the back of one of his hands. Drew never knew at the time he would later have to give the description of the camo man.
The defendants have much more serious issues to deal with than taking up time about the description given by Clint. They better be working on what they are going to do once all of the witnesses come forward to testify for the state including one of their very own co-conspirators who was with them, and took part in all of the crimes that happened to Holly. Clint will testify as to why he thought it was Drew and imo, the jury will understand his assumptions that day. No biggy.
