Honestly, if we didn’t know for a fact they had the wrong guy, this argument would be a lot more effective.
We don’t know for a fact that they have the wrong guy. We never saw the culprit’s face at all. We only know that the methods used to “identify” the suspect are likely to turn up the wrong guy: the police arrested the first random person they saw who had matching clothes. Everything after that is memory tampering and argument about whether the memory was really tampered. Nonetheless, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that the suspect was in fact the culprit.
Gah, you beat me to it! Yeah, it’d be kind of funny if despite all the questionable methodology they still got the right guy. (But even if they found the bloody knife on him, that doesn’t seem like it should excuse the unreliable ID – the knife would just have to stand on its own, I would imagine?)
I don’t find the argument effective for the simple reason that all of the photos were wearing different clothes.
You know, I could have sworn it was definitively established that the police picked up the wrong guy, but I just looked back, and we never did see the actual guy’s face either. Just that the attacker and the guy they picked up have the same hair and same outfit.
So what’s that lesson we’re learning about memory again?
Don’t you remember?
It isn’t even necessarily unlikely that this suspect was the culprit. There were a finite number of people in that exact outfit in the area. The problem is that we only have the clothing and that is situational evidence which cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt. “Likely” isn’t good enough. We need proof.
Didn’t they already argue all of this about the photo array?
That was about admitting the showup ID into court. This is about admitting the photo array ID and allowing an in-court ID. DC’s arguments on all of them are similar.
She’s about to say, “Because he said he was sure!” isn’t she. *Sigh*
Also: Semantics (First ID vs Thinking out loud)