There are many variables that will influence the accuracy and/or completeness of the testimony of a witness.

These variables are estimator variables and therefore not under the control of legal professionals. Knowing their potential influence does help us judge how much weight to place on the information provided by a witness, and also helps us to evaluate whether one witness might be more accurate than another.

Later, you will hear the initial statements provided by our two witnesses to both DI Bullet and DS Sund. When you listen to the evidence, see if you can apply the knowledge you have gained here in order to evaluate it.

Below is a list of some of the key factors that you might want to keep in mind:

Confidence does not necessarily mean accuracy. Despite her best efforts and being sure she was correct, identified the wrong person.Actions may be remembered better than details.Variables such as how far the witness was from the crime, what the illumination was and how long the witness was exposed to the event and the perpetrator(s) can all have an effect on the accuracy of witness testimony.People are generally not good at judging either time or distance - we often overestimate the duration of short events, particularly if the event is complex.We tend to be poor at dating events - forward telescoping means we often assign a date that is too recent.Estimates of height and weight are not accurate - we have a tendency to underestimate above-average characteristics and overestimate below-average characteristics. The witness' own height and weight might be used as an anchor against which the height or weight of others are estimated. This means it is a good idea to ask for relative judgements, e.g. how tall was the perpetrator in relation to the doorway?The gender of the witness may impact upon the evidence provided, but its influence is by no means clear-cut.Age can have an effect. Over the age of 70, hearing, vision and attention decline, and children will generally provide less information and be less accurate than adults.

You also heard about the potential problems of co-witnessing. This does not fit the estimator/system variable distinction very well, as it is partly, but not entirely, under the control of the police:

Co-witnessing: allowing witnesses to talk to one another, including interviewing them together, will lead to considerable convergence in their testimonies. Witnesses can form a memory of something happening from listening and talking to another witness. So, consistency in testimony is to be expected if the witnesses have had a chance to share memories. Such consistency should not be seen as confirming the facts reported.

In addition, remember that the way in which a question is asked can have a dramatic effect on the response of a witness. We'll look at questioning later on, but for now remember that the question 'Who is it?' tends to make a witness select someone from an identity parade because the question implies the perpetrator is present, and therefore, that the witness should choose someone. When evaluating the witness statements, consider how the detectives ask their questions. Are they giving the witness the opportunity to respond based on their own memories, or are they suggesting the answer to the witness?