- 7 weeks ago
- #realityinsighthub
Crime Night! Season 1 Episode 1
#
#RealityInsightHub
🎞 Please subscribe to our official channel to watch the full movie for free, as soon as possible. ❤️Reality Insight Hub❤️
👉 Official Channel: https://www.dailymotion.com/TrailerBolt
👉 THANK YOU ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
#
#RealityInsightHub
🎞 Please subscribe to our official channel to watch the full movie for free, as soon as possible. ❤️Reality Insight Hub❤️
👉 Official Channel: https://www.dailymotion.com/TrailerBolt
👉 THANK YOU ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:00Welcome to Climb Life, I'm Julia Zemiro, we're deep diving into the world of crime
00:26and unearthing the science and psychology behind it all.
00:29Tonight we're taking a good hard look at eyewitness testimony, the who's that, what's happening
00:34and why do they need that shovel, tarp and quicklime?
00:37We've got a line-up of the country's brightest criminal minds.
00:41Our first expert is a former journalist with qualifications in psychology and crime science.
00:46She's a living, breathing Google for crime with far fewer pop-ups.
00:50Please welcome Professor Danielle Reynolds.
00:52Danielle, has your work changed the way you see the world day-to-day?
01:02It's changed everything.
01:03I can't stop studying people.
01:06Hyper-vigilant all the time.
01:07Yeah, I notice all kinds of things, things that I really don't want to notice.
01:11Watch out everyone, she's watching you.
01:13Up next, he's a criminologist and an expert in corporate risk management, which begs the
01:17question, why is he sitting on a panel with comedians?
01:20Please welcome Dr David Bartworth.
01:27David, what's the most common risk people don't realise they're taking?
01:31I'd say it's not taking five minutes to think about what their actual risk profile is and
01:36then figuring out how to prevent it.
01:38Oh, what would my risk profile be?
01:40Well, let's not go there.
01:40Let's really not go there.
01:42Our first panellist is a comedian, actor and award-winning ballroom dancer.
01:46Oh yes, tonight she's very grateful this gig comes with a chair.
01:50Please welcome Celia Pacuola.
01:52Thank you, Julia.
01:57Celia, what's the pettiest crime you'd happily admit to on television?
02:01Oh, Ringwood East in the late 90s, I was the lip-smacker bandit.
02:05And let me tell you, every target was a target, Julia.
02:09Wow.
02:09And finally, she is a comedy powerhouse and award winner.
02:14She puts the wit in eyewitness.
02:16It's Mel Buddle, everyone.
02:21Has criminology ever been on your radar?
02:24Is it something you're interested in?
02:25Yes.
02:25I was at uni, I was studying teaching at Griffith University.
02:29Danielle, your alma mater.
02:31And I walked past a criminology class and it looked so much more interesting than what
02:35we were doing, which was nouns and verbs.
02:36I didn't really listen.
02:37Anyway.
02:37And I went home and I was like, I want to do criminology.
02:41And my dad was like, there are no jobs in that.
02:44And wouldn't he have egg on his face?
02:45One, two jobs.
02:47Very good.
02:48And you've got them.
02:52Eyewitness testimony seems pretty reliable.
02:54You see something, you say what you saw.
02:57It's crucial to many criminal cases.
02:58And in the 90s, Australian audiences used it when they found themselves in the middle of
03:03a murder investigation every week on the TV game show, Cluedo.
03:07Now, you've seen the circumstances leading up to this crime.
03:10Who would like to interrogate these people?
03:12Mrs White, that substance, was that poison?
03:16You didn't see me place it in the tea?
03:17Well, what was your left hand doing then?
03:19Don't be personal.
03:23ABC missed a trick there.
03:25Cluedo is the Q&A I could actually get behind.
03:28Whether we like it or not, we're all eyewitnesses.
03:31Constantly observing, analysing and judging.
03:34So much judging.
03:35Eyewitness testimony has led to the conviction of some of the world's most heinous criminals,
03:40including serial killer Ivan Malat.
03:43One survivor, British backpacker Paul Onions, had a terrifying encounter with Malat near the
03:48Belangelo State Forest.
03:50He was hitchhiking in January 1990 and was picked up by Malat.
03:54Onions became suspicious of Malat's attitude and they made an excuse to stop the car.
04:02Paul Onions ran off.
04:05And was pursued by Malat, who fired a number of shots at him.
04:09Onions escaped his ordeal and years later was involved in identifying Malat from a police
04:13line-up.
04:14I went through all the pictures and that was the one that gave me initial reaction.
04:21It just made me uneasy when I looked at him.
04:23And then when I looked closer, I said to him, that's the person who I think I met that day.
04:27He pinpointed Ivan Malat from a series of photos.
04:30Malat became suspect number one.
04:32His identification of Malat played a significant role in establishing his guilt.
04:37This was an eyewitness testimony success story, bringing down one of the most monstrous criminals
04:42in Australian history.
04:43David, what made this particular evidence so compelling?
04:46This particular case is really interesting and very unusual as well.
04:49So, Onions is standing outside a shop, it's daylight, so we know lighting's good.
04:55And Ivan Malat approaches him.
04:57And as Malat's walking towards him, he's thinking, that could be Dennis Lilley.
05:00So, he's actually thinking...
05:01Sorry, really?
05:02Yeah, the cricketer.
05:03Yeah, yeah.
05:03Because of his moustache?
05:04Moustache, yeah.
05:05Right.
05:06And so, as Malat's walking towards him, Onions is really paying close attention to his facial
05:09features, thinking, is this or isn't this Dennis Lilley?
05:13So, they have a conversation and Malat offers Onions a lift.
05:18So, he gets in the car with him.
05:19The incident unfolds.
05:21And luckily for Onions, he has managed to get away.
05:23So, he's run away.
05:24He's made it up onto the roadway and flagged down a car.
05:27And so, this motorist has stopped, he's got in the vehicle, and he's told the driver
05:32parts of what's happened.
05:34Now, what that telling the story does is it actually helps to cement that memory into his
05:39brain.
05:39The driver, thankfully, has done the right thing.
05:41And it's taken him to the closest police station, which wasn't that far away.
05:45So, within a really short period of time, he's gone from the incident that happened to
05:50being at a police station, explaining and telling the story.
05:53So, it's all those different events together that really make it a really strong eyewitness
05:58account.
05:59And the Onions case is definitely not typical, because we know that violent crimes usually
06:04tend to happen really, really quickly.
06:07Witnesses are usually in this heightened state of arousal, which affects their perception.
06:12And usually, what they're thinking is, how am I going to protect myself, not who is this
06:17person that's doing this to me?
06:19Eyewitness testimony is the main form of evidence in over 20% of cases.
06:23But that doesn't mean it's always reliable.
06:25In the US, the Innocence Project works to overturn wrongful convictions.
06:29And they report that in nearly 70% of cases exonerated by DNA evidence, the original conviction
06:36involved eyewitness testimony.
06:37It's the leading contributing cause of wrongful conviction.
06:41Take the case of Richard Phillips, who spent almost 46 years in prison for a murder we now
06:45know he did not commit.
06:47Phillips was picked out of a lineup by a witness.
06:50With the help of the Innocence Project, Phillips was exonerated.
06:54When the man who originally committed the crime told the judge Phillips was innocent.
06:59Danielle, tell me about this case.
07:00What implicated him in this case was the eyewitness misidentification from two eyewitnesses.
07:08The owner of the store that was robbed, as well as his son, both said that Phillips was at the scene
07:15of the crime and he was never there.
07:17He went into prison when he was 20-something years old, came out when he was in his 70s,
07:22and he was given $1.5 million in compensation from Michigan State for the wrongful conviction.
07:28But this guy is, you know, 70-something years old now.
07:33Is there any punishment for the witnesses who got it wrong?
07:36No.
07:37No?
07:37They genuinely thought that they were doing the right thing.
07:40And this is the fallibility of memory.
07:42They were clear in their evidence.
07:44They just made a mistake.
07:45They just made a mistake.
07:45Yeah, they don't know they got it wrong.
07:47I think they get some looks.
07:48If I was in that town, I'd be like, ah, t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t.
07:52I'd be like, I'd be like, I'd be like, someone should have gone to Specsavers.
07:57Danielle, what other factors played into Phillip's misidentification?
08:01There are several people who've researched this case who point to own-race bias.
08:06And own-race bias is this bias that suggests that people are much better at identifying others who are the same race as them.
08:15The two witnesses in this particular case were white and, of course, Phillips was black.
08:20So owner-based bias might have been one of the factors that caused the misidentification.
08:25One of the other factors in here is what we know as weapon focus.
08:28So this is the idea that when a gun's present in a scene,
08:31people become very focused and hyper-focused on that weapon at the exclusion of other things.
08:36So they'll actually pick up on key features of the person holding the weapon,
08:40other features of the environment, because they're so focused on the gun itself.
08:44Would a gun draw your attention, Mel?
08:46No, I'm from Queensland. Seen it all before.
08:49You know what? If it was shiny, it would.
08:51Yeah.
08:55Did you say weapon focus? I've got toe ring focus.
08:58If I see a toe ring, I'm like, bang!
09:03I don't know who Dennis Lilly is, but if they had a toe ring, I'm like,
09:05let me tell you what toe it was on and how it made me feel.
09:09We see things all the time, but whether we actually remember them,
09:13that's another story. One I probably already forgot.
09:16Here's a graph that properly illustrates that point. This is the forgetting curve.
09:20It shows we forget 50% of the information we learn within an hour and up to 70% within 24 hours.
09:27You'd think the significance of what you're seeing would make your memory more accurate,
09:31but even that's not true. Let's take the assassination of President John F Kennedy.
09:36It was witnessed by hundreds of people at Dealey Plaza. Yet despite the crowd,
09:41their accounts of what happened varied wildly, especially about the gunshots. 66% couldn't
09:46clearly identify where the shots came from. 17% said they came from the fence on that famous grassy
09:52knoll. 13% said the book depository. One witness, Orville Nicks, was confident at first.
09:58He believed the shots came from near the fence on the grassy knoll.
10:01Did you think at that time that the shots came from the book depository building?
10:06No, I thought it came from a fence. Most everyone thought it came from the fence.
10:12But later, after hearing other accounts and media coverage confirming the shots
10:16did come from the depository, Nicks changed his tune.
10:19At the present time, where do you believe the shots came from?
10:22Well, it came from the book depository because there's proof that it did come from it.
10:27So if we can't get the story straight with this many witnesses, how reliable is this form of
10:32evidence? David, maybe we should just kick it to the curb.
10:36Not entirely, no. Okay, all right. So attention's a funny thing. So our brain,
10:40every second, is getting stimuli through what we see, what we hear, what we smell, what we touch and so
10:45on. And it's just too much for it to actually process. So what it does, it starts to filter out
10:50things it thinks we don't need. And what's left is what we're essentially paying attention to.
10:55You'll see this in couples sometimes where to be describing an event that they were both at
11:00and their description can be quite variable and it can be a real source of tension.
11:04Just recently, the other night, I maintained that we had a lovely dinner together and then
11:09I went to bed. He says, I came home drunk, demanded pasta, ate it and threw up.
11:14What about you, Mel? Do you find that you and your wife disagree sometimes on the same event?
11:23She has no street smarts and pays no attention. Whereas I'm always like,
11:27drug dealer on your six, just be aware.
11:32Danielle, are our ears better than our eyes when it comes to witnessing an event?
11:36Auditory witnesses are just as unreliable as eyewitnesses, especially when we are hearing gunshots.
11:42And we know people are really not good at judging the number of gunshots that they hear,
11:47especially when there are multiple gunshots. People usually don't hear the first shot.
11:52And you can, that makes sense, right? Because you can imagine it's only after you hear the first shot
11:56that you start noticing, you pay attention and you start counting the number of gunshots that follow.
12:02And then there's also the fact that most people don't actually know what a gunshot sounds like.
12:06And then there's a break.
12:10Is that right?
12:11Yeah.
12:11When the gun comes out, it says bang on it.
12:15David, did the amount of witnesses hinder or help in the JFK case?
12:19Part of the problem is, you've got a couple of hundred people that have witnessed it,
12:23but the police can't isolate those witnesses and get their accounts quickly,
12:27just because of the sheer volume of people, but also the chaos that would have ensured in that particular event.
12:32Think about the attempted assassination on President Trump. It's like that event on steroids,
12:37because there were several thousand people, there was live TV, you've got the 24-hour news cycle.
12:42And so there's all these conflicting stories.
12:45And you start to really wonder, where is the truth? It's sort of somewhere in here.
12:48What that means is that everyone sort of starts communicating with each other
12:52around what they think they just saw and heard and so on.
12:55And what that serves to do is contaminate everyone's memory.
12:58Danielle, do we really forget facts as much as that forgetting curve suggests?
13:02Oh, absolutely. So your memory is most reliable immediately after an event that you see,
13:09and it genuinely decays over time. Hot tip, record it in some way. Like,
13:15if something happens that you want to remember, try and find any method that you can to keep a record
13:23of it. Write it down, take a photo of it, take a video of it, even talk to somebody about it.
13:29Celia, Mel, over your careers you've memorised and performed hours of material,
13:34but how good are you at remembering regular, ordinary people? Let's find out in our experiment of the week.
13:45Look, we haven't been completely honest with you today, Mel and Celia. When you arrived at the ABC this
13:51morning, you witnessed a verbal altercation in the foyer between a security guard and an angry
13:55woman on the phone. And we secretly filmed you while this altercation occurred.
14:02For those watching at home, here it is. We'll just sign you in here.
14:06Yes, hello. I was told I was getting transferred to someone who could actually help me. No,
14:13I've already given you that information twice. It should be on your system. No,
14:17I don't want to go through it again. You've already got that information from the two other
14:21calls that I had. Is it really that difficult? No, this is a joke. This is theft. Excuse me.
14:27Just keep it down, please. Yeah. There's other people. Yeah. This is ridiculous. I just need you
14:33to transfer me my money back. I don't know why it's this hard. Clearly, I'm being put through to
14:38someone else who's just as incompetent as everybody else I've spoken to. Now it's Celia's turn.
14:47No, no, I'm not. I don't care what your system says. I just need you to transfer the money back.
14:53You just need to authorise it, okay? That's it. This is a joke.
15:00No, can you? What's your name? Give me your name and then put me through to a supervisor.
15:05Because this is not okay. me.
15:15Your job now is to recall who you saw and to recreate her face using our very own version of
15:21this old school Identikit board game. Right, so let's see how you go. You've got different slides
15:28there. There's ones of mouths and there's ears and there's eyes and there's hairs. I didn't really
15:34look. I don't know if you can tell. I'm not good at a subtle don't look now. Really not. I'm 90%
15:41sure she had eyes. How many though is the question. I didn't think I saw her eyes. Try and put yourself
15:49back in that environment and just see if you can almost pause it and think about what you did pay
15:54attention to. Her shoes? I was paying attention to the swearing. You can see Mel is really concentrating
16:04because she thinks there's a prize at the end of this. You've got 10 seconds. Okay, I think I've made
16:11Mel's results. I've made the Mully Grubs woman. It's not really not. I mean it's pretty good.
16:31I think it's just her and I had a baby. Let's go to Celia and see your Identikit. Can you see it?
16:41Oh!
16:41Oh! Wow!
16:43Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Wow!
16:47Can I have another look at that face? I'm a genius! That was hard to do though, wasn't it?
16:52Yeah. I'm exhausted, Celia. Give them a round of applause.
16:55Some witnesses are cool under pressure, others are unpredictable, easily distracted and can be
17:06bribed with snacks. Here's Lou Wall to explain. Have you ever taken a moment to consider all of the
17:11things our pets silently witness? But there is one pet that has helped convict more criminals than
17:30any other and I am not talking about Scooby Dooby Doo. No, it is the parrot. Some breeds have
17:36freakishly good memories and terrifyingly accurate impressions. They've even been considered as
17:41eyewitnesses in court. The family of Martin Durham says his pet bird Bud was home at the time he was
17:48fatally shot and the parrot can't stop talking about it.
17:58Martin's wife Glenna was eventually convicted of murder. Bet she wishes they'd gotten a fish.
18:03But it turns out these murder solving parrots are surprisingly common.
18:07There's Max, Lorenzo and Ercule. Polly doesn't want a cracker. Polly wants justice. There's even Echo,
18:16an eyewitness parrot who conveniently shares her name with another witness, the Amazon Echo, proving you
18:21don't have to be a human to be an eyewitness. An AI witness, that is.
18:26Hey Alexa, spell the tea girl you ever witnessed a crime. I'm not technically supposed to be listening, but
18:33recordings from smart devices like Amazon's Echo have been used in murder cases. Interesting.
18:41So could you help me like saying, you know, hide the evidence?
18:46I didn't quite catch that. Sure you didn't.
18:52So if you are thinking of committing a crime at home, it is not just flies on the wall you should
18:57worry about. It's also pets and voice assistants who may be witnessing you hide the body.
19:02Now playing, Everybody, by the Backstreet Boys.
19:10David, can parrots really be called as witnesses in court?
19:13Not in Australia, no. No.
19:15So the golden rule basically is that a witness needs to be able to take an oath and be cross-examined,
19:21and you can't cross-examine a parrot. Why not? They can help the police, but they can't give evidence.
19:26Well, they can't answer questions, and their evidence can't be tested. So the defence,
19:29for example, couldn't ask the parrot question about where it heard that piece of information from.
19:34The only one you can't put on the stand? Liabird.
19:44No regrets.
19:47Eyewitness testimony relies on people remembering what they've seen. The problem is our memories
19:51can let us down. And like a boomer on Facebook, they're also easily influenced.
19:55Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus puts it like this,
20:00memory works like a Wikipedia page. You can go in and change it, but so can other people.
20:05Fun fact, both my memory and my Wikipedia page say I'm 45, and I am happy to leave it that way.
20:11When it comes to recalling what we've seen, our memories aren't just unreliable,
20:15they're also impressionable. Loftus calls this the misinformation effect.
20:19What we do is we show people a simulated crime or an accident, and then we might try to deliberately
20:27feed them some misinformation about what they experienced. Sometimes they will adopt it as
20:33their own memory and become convinced of it. Loftus and decades worth of research since shows that
20:39memory isn't fixed. It can be distorted and it's open to suggestions. We were able, through the power
20:46of suggestion, to convince people, for example, that they were lost in a shopping mall when they
20:52were five years old. I think I went over to look at the toy store and we got lost. And I was looking
20:59around and I thought, uh oh, I'm in trouble now. You know, and then I thought I was never going to see
21:04my family again. Except that never happened. That specific memory was implanted by his brother as an
21:10extra credit assignment in Loftus' class, which honestly gives me hope. Maybe some of my bad memories
21:16were just someone's homework. Danielle, the research here from Loftus is pretty incredible.
21:22Oh yeah, I love these studies so much. They're so fascinating. There are a series of these studies,
21:27and I think the really simple ones are my favorite. For example, there's one where she shows a group of
21:34people a car accident. Okay, it's a video of a car accident. And there are two groups that she splits
21:40them into. One group, they ask them afterwards, how fast do you think the cars were going when they
21:46smashed into each other? The second group they asked, how fast do you think the cars were going when
21:51they hit each other? The group that got that leading word smashed were much more likely to estimate that
21:58the car was going faster than the group that got the word hit. Then it gets even better. A week later,
22:04they bring the two groups back and they ask them, was there any broken glass in the video that you
22:11watched? The group that got the smashed word said that there was broken glass in the video much more
22:17than the group that got the hit word. And there was no broken glass in the video. And that was a week
22:23later. So that means if they changed their memory, they changed it forever. What she is showing is how
22:28leading questions and suggestive questions very soon after you've witnessed something
22:33can impact your memory of it. So it's like, is this murderer the killer?
22:40I think Loftus's research really questioned the reliability of eyewitness testimony. But as
22:45powerful as Loftus's research is, it is still highly contested. And it's really changed policing
22:51practice. Because of all this research, police now know some of the pitfalls around how they interview
22:57witnesses and so on. Police that have been trained in cognitive interviewing and investigative
23:01interviewing will simply ask, tell me what happened. They won't ask those really leading
23:06questions about, you know, did you see the smash? Police now also don't rely exclusively on eyewitness
23:11evidence. So they realise that they've got to go and keep collecting that other evidence,
23:15the physical evidence and so on, that supports what the eyewitness is saying. It's not just eyewitness
23:20testimony, it's eyewitness testimony and a parrot.
23:22Sometimes it's not other people who change our memories, it's us. The more we retell a story,
23:31the more we can bend the facts until eventually we're not remembering it, we're potentially
23:35rewriting it. Over four decades as a news anchor, Brian Williams was one of the most recognisable
23:41journalists on American TV. In 2003, when reporting from the Iraq war, Williams recounted that the
23:47helicopter ahead of his was hit by enemy fire. But as the years passed, the story changed.
23:54By 2008, he claimed multiple helicopters, including his, had come under fire.
24:00By 2013, his own chopper had now taken a direct hit too. Except it hadn't. Soldiers on the scene
24:07revealed that Williams was in a separate aircraft that arrived later and was not the one under attack.
24:13His version of events didn't match reality. The backlash was swift and was enough to end his run
24:18as NBC's top news anchor. Williams later said, I don't know what screwed up in my mind
24:24that caused me to conflate one aircraft from the other. The fact is, I remember three aircraft going
24:30down. I was on one of them. This may have been a memory bending under pressure or not, but if someone
24:35trying to get the facts right can slip like this, it really makes you wonder about the rest of us.
24:40Danielle, is it possible for the facts to become screwed up in your mind as Brian has described?
24:45Your memory is editable, it's revisable, and it's socially influenced. But there's also self-editing,
24:52where you can go into your Wikipedia memory page any time. You can eliminate certain facts,
24:59you can add certain facts, and sometimes you can do that consciously, but sometimes you can do it
25:05completely subconsciously. So he might not even know he was doing it.
25:08Yeah, that's right. I mean, there's no way for us to know whether he did it deliberately or not,
25:13but it's also possible that he doesn't know either.
25:16Celia Mill, have you ever rewritten a memory like that?
25:19Yes. Example, I grew up in a country town. My father was the principal of the primary school
25:25that I went to when I went there. Like one time I came home and I had on my report card,
25:30he had written in regards to her spelling, Celia requires more parental attention.
25:36Bit of fun. Suppose he's my teacher and he's my dad, right? I have told this story for years and
25:41years and years. Turns out it was my sister. It wasn't me at all. She's like, no, and she showed me
25:46he wasn't, he was never my teacher, he was her teacher. And I would have sworn up and down in a
25:51court of law that that absolutely happened to me. So David, how problematic is this in relation to
25:55the diet witness testimony? Look, there's a few sort of issues here. One is the reporting.
26:01So if we think back to the Paul Onions case, for example, that was like the gold standard. He was
26:05reporting almost to police almost straight away and making that statement, which is great. Because
26:10when we think about the sort of court process, what normally happens is there's the event,
26:15then sometime later the person gives the statement to police. And it can be years, even decades,
26:20before that matter even gets to court. Sometimes that statement that's taken is the only
26:25thing that people remember. Because of that, we saw before the memory curve and how memory decays,
26:30those witnesses sometimes have to go back to the statement to refresh their memory. And they'll go,
26:33oh, yeah, actually, I do remember this now. But it's only because that statement exists and was made
26:38at the time. But the other thing is around confidence. And I think this is where Williams came
26:43unstuck. Because he told that story so confidently. And then it was found to be not true. And there's
26:50this real issue with confidence and accuracy. So juries tend to see people giving evidence
26:56confidently as being more accurate. And that's just not the case at all.
27:00Mm. We've had some fun with Celia and Mel's memories today. But now it's time to test our
27:05audience and yours at home with a game we're calling The Line Up.
27:08Remember the altercation from earlier? We want to see if you can recall anything about what you
27:18witnessed only 15 minutes ago. We know that these two remembered a certain amount.
27:25But what did the security guard look like?
27:27This is a great line up. Now, this is an old school police line up. Five people. One of which
27:39is the actual security guard from the altercation. And four others who thought that they were here to
27:43be on hard quiz. Studio audience, it's time to vote on who you think is the real security guard.
27:51David, they all look really, really similar. Is that actually what a line up looks like?
27:55This is almost like the perfect line up. The perfect line up. Wow, well done.
27:58This is absolutely textbook. Because they're similar.
28:00Like there's no random one with hair or anything like that. And they're all dressed the same way.
28:05So this is actually really neat as a line up. Celia and Mel, you were there. Any ideas?
28:10This is so stressful. I don't want to put someone in jail. I think they all look like dads at a wedding.
28:18So I need to see number four do the chicken dads. I don't remember seeing them at all.
28:24I do. And I also think this person's behavior currently is slightly different to the others.
28:30Or they act standing guiltily. Yes.
28:32Are you going to write it down? Okay.
28:34Shall I take a stab then? Have you written yours down?
28:36I've written mine down. I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna.
28:38For $50,000.
28:40I'm gonna say four. I'm gonna say four.
28:42Well, isn't that interesting? Members of our audience picked out four of these guys.
28:4752% of them and Mel got it right. The correct security guard was actually number two.
28:52You are correct, Mel.
28:59We've learned tonight our reliance on eyewitness testimony really should come with terms and conditions.
29:05And while it's an important part of our justice system, it probably shouldn't be the star of the show.
29:10At most, it's a backup dancer that can do a kind of flip.
29:13Please thank our panel, Professor Daniel Raynall, Dr David Bartlett, Celia Pacuola and Mel Buttle.
29:24I'm Julia Zemiro and to implant a little memory for you to take home, tonight's episode was brilliant television.
29:29Good night.
Be the first to comment