The murder happened a little over 21 years ago, January the 18th, 1991, in a small bedroom community of Lynwood, California, just a few miles southeast of Los Angeles. A father came out of his house to tell his teenage son and his five friends that it was time for them to stop horsing around on the front lawn and on the sidewalk, to get home, finish their schoolwork, and prepare themselves for bed. And as the father was administering these instructions, a car drove by, slowly, and just after it passed the father and the teenagers, a hand went out from the front passenger window, and -- "Bam, Bam!" -- killing the father. And the car sped off.
一件大約發生21年多前的謀殺, 1991年1月18日 有個小小的 住宅區 加州林伍市,位於洛杉磯(Los Angeles) 沒幾里的西南郊外 一個父親步出自家大門 告訴他十幾歲的兒子及五個朋友 別再在門前和人行道玩鬧了, 別再在門前和人行道玩鬧了, 該回家寫功課, 準備睡覺了 就在說這些話的時候 一部車緩緩駛過, 車子經過父親和這些孩子們身邊, 有隻手從前座乘客邊窗口伸出來, 然後 「砰,砰」兩聲槍響,殺了那位父親。 車子隨即疾駛而去
The police, investigating officers, were amazingly efficient. They considered all the usual culprits, and in less than 24 hours, they had selected their suspect: Francisco Carrillo, a 17-year-old kid who lived about two or three blocks away from where the shooting occurred. They found photos of him. They prepared a photo array, and the day after the shooting, they showed it to one of the teenagers, and he said, "That's the picture. That's the shooter I saw that killed the father."
警方 負責調查的員警,超有效率 他們就當地不良分子裡, 不到24小時,就挑出了嫌犯︰ 佛藍西司科.卡瑞羅(Francisco Carrillo),一個17歲大的小伙子 他家離槍擊現場 不過2、3個巷子 警方拿他的照片,準備照片指認。 案發隔天, 拿給案發現場的青少年之一指認,他說: 「就是這照片上的人!」 「這就是我看到的殺了我朋友父親的槍手!」
That was all a preliminary hearing judge had to listen to, to bind Mr. Carrillo over to stand trial for a first-degree murder. In the investigation that followed before the actual trial, each of the other five teenagers was shown photographs, the same photo array. The picture that we best can determine was probably the one that they were shown in the photo array is in your bottom left hand corner of these mug shots. The reason we're not sure absolutely is because of the nature of evidence preservation in our judicial system, but that's another whole TEDx talk for later. (Laughter)
審前指控聽證庭的法官就憑這句話 判定卡瑞羅先生應受審判 罪名為一級謀殺。 正式庭審前的偵查裡, 在場的五個青少年都看了同一組照片。 在場的五個青少年都看了同一組照片。 這組大頭照裡,你們看到的左下角那張,最可能就是警方放進指認照片組那張 這組大頭照裡,你們看到的左下角那張,最可能就是警方放進指認照片組那張 這組大頭照裡,你們看到的左下角那張,最可能就是警方放進指認照片組那張 我們之所以無法絕對肯定 源自於我們司法體系 保存證據的方式, 但這可以是日後另一個TEDx 演說題目。(笑聲)
So at the actual trial, all six of the teenagers testified, and indicated the identifications they had made in the photo array. He was convicted. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, and transported to Folsom Prison.
實際審判的時候 6個孩子都上台作證, 並由指認相片中指出兇嫌。 並由指認相片中指出兇嫌。 卡瑞羅先生被定罪,被判終身監禁 並送到佛森(Folsom)監獄服刑。
So what's wrong? Straightforward, fair trial, full investigation. Oh yes, no gun was ever found. No vehicle was ever identified as being the one in which the shooter had extended his arm, and no person was ever charged with being the driver of the shooter's vehicle. And Mr. Carrillo's alibi? Which of those parents here in the room might not lie concerning the whereabouts of your son or daughter in an investigation of a killing?
有問題嗎? 一切直截了當,公平審判,完整的調查。 對了,沒找到凶槍。 沒找到那輛手伸出窗外的兇車, 沒找到那輛手伸出窗外的兇車, 也沒找到兇車的駕駛。 也沒找到兇車的駕駛。 至於卡瑞羅先生的不在場證明呢? 你們當中哪一位身為父母的 在涉嫌凶殺案件的調查中 不會為兒女案發當時行蹤說謊?
Sent to prison, adamantly insisting on his innocence, which he has consistently for 21 years.
他被送到監獄服刑 一直強烈堅持自己無辜 一直堅持了21年
So what's the problem? The problems, actually, for this kind of case come manyfold from decades of scientific research involving human memory. First of all, we have all the statistical analyses from the Innocence Project work, where we know that we have, what, 250, 280 documented cases now where people have been wrongfully convicted and subsequently exonerated, some from death row, on the basis of later DNA analysis, and you know that over three quarters of all of those cases of exoneration involved only eyewitness identification testimony during the trial that convicted them. We know that eyewitness identifications are fallible.
怎麼回事? 這個問題,實際上,這類型的案件, 有問題都是因為數十年來的科學研究 關於人類記憶的研究的挑戰。 首先,我們有詳盡的統計資料 來自「拯救錯判」計畫(Innocence Project) 從中,我們記錄了,多少件? 25萬又280件案件,都是錯誤判決 而在事後被平反的案件, 有些人由於後續的DNA證據,自死刑邊緣被救回 而我們發現,所有翻案案件,有四分之三, 在受審時僅是根據目擊者的指證 就遭定罪。 我們知道目擊者的指證並不可靠。
The other comes from an interesting aspect of human memory that's related to various brain functions but I can sum up for the sake of brevity here in a simple line: The brain abhors a vacuum. Under the best of observation conditions, the absolute best, we only detect, encode and store in our brains bits and pieces of the entire experience in front of us, and they're stored in different parts of the brain. So now, when it's important for us to be able to recall what it was that we experienced, we have an incomplete, we have a partial store, and what happens? Below awareness, with no requirement for any kind of motivated processing, the brain fills in information that was not there, not originally stored, from inference, from speculation, from sources of information that came to you, as the observer, after the observation. But it happens without awareness such that you don't, aren't even cognizant of it occurring. It's called reconstructed memories. It happens to us in all the aspects of our life, all the time. It was those two considerations, among others -- reconstructed memory, the fact about the eyewitness fallibility -- that was part of the instigation for a group of appeal attorneys led by an amazing lawyer named Ellen Eggers to pool their experience and their talents together and petition a superior court for a retrial for Francisco Carrillo. They retained me, as a forensic neurophysiologist, because I had expertise in eyewitness memory identification, which obviously makes sense for this case, right? But also because I have expertise and testify about the nature of human night vision.
其他(非DNA)都來自於 和不同大腦的功能都有關 ,但相關記憶的一個有趣面向 但為了簡潔起見, 我可以用一句話來概括 - 「腦子痛恨空白」 最棒的觀察條件下 絕對的最清晰狀況 我們對眼前的經歷經察覺,編排,然後記錄在大腦裡的 只有支離破碎的片段, 而這些片段儲存在大腦中不同部位。 所以,當我們必須要回憶 我們所經歷的事件時, 我們記得並不完全, 我們只記得一部份, 然後呢? 不知不覺地,不必有任何動機 大腦就會自行對記憶空白處 補白, 原來並未儲存的記憶, 只是透過推理,猜想, 來自於其他源頭的片段, 在事後,就當時立場。 但這一切都是不知不覺 你根本就不知道有這回事。 我們稱之為「記憶重建」。 我們一輩子,任何事,任何時間,都受記憶重建影響 就是因為記憶重建以及易產生錯誤的目擊者 這兩個理由以及其他因素, 引發了一群上訴律師採取行動 引發了一群上訴律師採取行動 由一名很棒的律師愛倫愛格兒(Ellen Eggers)帶領 集合他們的才幹及經驗,向高等上訴法院申請 集合他們的才幹及經驗,向高等上訴法院申請 重審佛藍西司科.卡瑞羅的案子 他們聘我為該案的神經醫學專家證人, 因為我有處理有關目擊者指認和記憶有關問題 的專業知識。 處理這個案子很合理,對吧? 但也因為我也對人類夜視能力本質很孰悉 也就此做過法庭專家證人。
Well, what's that got to do with this? Well, when you read through the case materials in this Carrillo case, one of the things that suddenly strikes you is that the investigating officers said the lighting was good at the crime scene, at the shooting. All the teenagers testified during the trial that they could see very well. But this occurred in mid-January, in the Northern Hemisphere, at 7 p.m. at night. So when I did the calculations for the lunar data and the solar data at that location on Earth at the time of the incident of the shooting, all right, it was well past the end of civil twilight and there was no moon up that night. So all the light in this area from the sun and the moon is what you see on the screen right here. The only lighting in that area had to come from artificial sources, and that's where I go out and I do the actual reconstruction of the scene with photometers, with various measures of illumination and various other measures of color perception, along with special cameras and high-speed film, right? Take all the measurements and record them, right? And then take photographs, and this is what the scene looked like at the time of the shooting from the position of the teenagers looking at the car going by and shooting. This is looking directly across the street from where they were standing. Remember, the investigating officers' report said the lighting was good. The teenagers said they could see very well. This is looking down to the east, where the shooting vehicle sped off, and this is the lighting directly behind the father and the teenagers. As you can see, it is at best poor. No one's going to call this well-lit, good lighting, and in fact, as nice as these pictures are, and the reason we take them is I knew I was going to have to testify in court, and a picture is worth more than a thousand words when you're trying to communicate numbers, abstract concepts like lux, the international measurement of illumination, the Ishihara color perception test values. When you present those to people who are not well-versed in those aspects of science and that, they become salamanders in the noonday sun. It's like talking about the tangent of the visual angle, all right? Their eyes just glaze over, all right? A good forensic expert also has to be a good educator, a good communicator, and that's part of the reason why we take the pictures, to show not only where the light sources are, and what we call the spill, the distribution, but also so that it's easier for the trier of fact to understand the circumstances. So these are some of the pictures that, in fact, I used when I testified, but more importantly were, to me as a scientist, are those readings, the photometer readings, which I can then convert into actual predictions of the visual capability of the human eye under those circumstances, and from my readings that I recorded at the scene under the same solar and lunar conditions at the same time, so on and so forth, right, I could predict that there would be no reliable color perception, which is crucial for face recognition, and that there would be only scotopic vision, which means there would be very little resolution, what we call boundary or edge detection, and that furthermore, because the eyes would have been totally dilated under this light, the depth of field, the distance at which you can focus and see details, would have been less than 18 inches away.
咦,這案子和夜視有關? 對,只要你詳讀有關 卡瑞羅案的檔案 有件事該會引起你注意 調查員警說 凶案發生時,現場光線充足。 審判時,所有作證的孩子們 都說他們當晚能看的清楚。 但這兇殺發生於一月中旬, 這可是北半球,晚上7點。 所以我仔細計算, 當時地球上的案發現場相關的太陽及月球的資料。 當時地球上的案發現場相關的太陽及月球的資料。 當時地球上的案發現場相關的太陽及月球的資料。 早就過了民用曙暮光(civil twilight)的時分 當晚也沒有月光。 所以在該區當時所有來自太陽或月亮折射的光線 差不多就像你在銀幕上看到的一樣。 當場所有的光線 應該全部來自人工光源, 所以我回到現場,用感光表,及其他儀器 合成不同亮度,以及顏色色溫 以重建現場光亮情形 使用特殊照相機 高速底片,記錄這些重建的結果 各種數據下,重建現場,然後記錄這些組合. 我照了一堆相片, 這張照片顯示槍擊當時 從這些少年的位置看起來的樣子 看著車子,以及開槍的人的方向 這是直接看到對街的情況 從他們所在地看過去。 記住,調查員警的報告上說 現場光線良好。 孩子們也說他們可以看的很清楚。 這張向東邊看過去, 犯案車輛逃逸的方向, 這是來自被槍擊父親,那些孩子們 身後的光線。 你們可以看到,最多只能說光線昏暗。 沒人會說這是光線充足,明亮, 而實際上這些照片都很清楚, 我拍這些照片是為了要用在法庭上作證時使用, 一張照片比1000個字還有用, 當你要傳達一大堆的數字, 以及抽象概念 - 亮度,國際標準亮度值 衣胥哈拉顏色認知表測試值等。 當你對這些非專業的人講這些東西時 又是科學又是什麼的等等, 他們就變成正午陽光下的蠑螈。 這好像是討論視角的斜切值, 他們就只會翻白眼。 一個好的法庭證據專家也該是個好教育家 好的溝通者,這也是為什麼, 我們照這些相片,好讓他們 可以親眼看見當時的光源,以及我們說的漏光, 光線分布等,也是為了方便 讓那些陪審團的人容易了解狀況。 這些就是我在審判時, 實際使用的照片, 但更重要的,就一個科學家來說, 這些測得的數值,感光表讀數, 我可以把這些數值轉換成實際預測 來反映當時人類眼睛視覺能力 在那些狀況下 以及利用當時太陽及月亮資料數值,重建現場的 重建現場的不同的照片 在同樣時間,同樣的暮光,月光情形等等 我可以預測 當時不可能有可靠的辨色能力, 這對臉孔辨識非常重要, 當時只可能有暗視覺, 也就是說在那時對於任何形狀,只有非常低的解析度, 無法辨別形狀,東西的邊緣 此外,因為在那種光線下 瞳孔已經完全放大,人眼的景深, 也就是我們能聚焦看清楚的距離, 只有18英吋不到。(約46公分)
I testified to that to the court, and while the judge was very attentive, it had been a very, very long hearing for this petition for a retrial, and as a result, I noticed out of the corner of my eye that I thought that maybe the judge was going to need a little more of a nudge than just more numbers.
作證時我說明這些, 法官聽的很仔細, 儘管當時申請重審聽證會已經進行很久, 結果呢, 我注意到, 可能還得再多拱法官一下 可能還得再多拱法官一下 而非引用更多的數據。
And here I became a bit audacious, and I turned and I asked the judge, I said, "Your Honor, I think you should go out and look at the scene yourself."
我膽子變大了, 我轉身對法官說, 我轉身對法官說, 「法官大人,我想你該去 實地現場勘查。」
Now I may have used a tone which was more like a dare than a request — (Laughter) — but nonetheless, it's to this man's credit and his courage that he said, "Yes, I will." A shocker in American jurisprudence.
我大概當時聽起來應該是挑戰法官 而不是請求他 -- (笑聲)-- 但這個法官真有他的,有膽識 他說:「好,我會去!」 這是美國司法一大震驚。
So in fact, we found the same identical conditions, we reconstructed the entire thing again, he came out with an entire brigade of sheriff's officers to protect him in this community, all right? (Laughter) We had him stand actually slightly in the street, so closer to the suspect vehicle, the shooter vehicle, than the actual teenagers were, so he stood a few feet from the curb toward the middle of the street. We had a car that came by, same identical car as described by the teenagers, right? It had a driver and a passenger, and after the car had passed the judge by, the passenger extended his hand, pointed it back to the judge as the car continued on, just as the teenagers had described it, right? Now, he didn't use a real gun in his hand, so he had a black object in his hand that was similar to the gun that was described. He pointed by, and this is what the judge saw.
所以,我們找了和案發時同樣情形的時候, 重建整個現場, 他在重重警力戒護下來到現場 因為當地治安不好,不是嗎? (笑聲) 我們讓他站在街上, 離嫌犯車輛,槍手坐的車的軌跡近些, 比那些孩子們當時站在的地方還要近, 所以他站在街邊幾尺處 面向街道。 我們安排一輛車駛過, 和孩子們的描述的一模一樣的車, 有司機,還有一名乘客, 車子經過法官身旁後, 乘客伸出手來, 車子一邊走,他一邊回指法官, 就如同孩子們描述的現場狀況, 當然,他手上沒真槍, 他用一個與孩子們形容的槍一樣黑物件。 他用一個與孩子們形容的槍一樣黑物件。 車子邊走,槍一邊對著法官,這是法官看到的
This is the car 30 feet away from the judge. There's an arm sticking out of the passenger side and pointed back at you. That's 30 feet away. Some of the teenagers said that in fact the car was 15 feet away when it shot. Okay. There's 15 feet.
離他30英尺遠。 一隻手從車前乘客邊伸出 回指向你。 這是30英尺外。 有些孩子說槍擊時 應該是15英尺。 好,這是15英尺。
At this point, I became a little concerned. This judge is someone you'd never want to play poker with. He was totally stoic. I couldn't see a twitch of his eyebrow. I couldn't see the slightest bend of his head. I had no sense of how he was reacting to this, and after he looked at this reenactment, he turned to me and he says, "Is there anything else you want me to look at?"
此時,我有些許擔心了。 你絕不想和這法官一起打撲克牌。 他動都不動,眉毛一下也不揚。 他的頭連輕微的彎一下都沒有。 我完全無法判斷他的反應, 他看完了現場重現後, 他轉過來問我, 「還要我看什麼?」
I said, "Your honor," and I don't know whether I was emboldened by the scientific measurements that I had in my pocket and my knowledge that they are accurate, or whether it was just sheer stupidity, which is what the defense lawyers thought — (Laughter) — when they heard me say, "Yes, Your Honor, I want you stand right there and I want the car to go around the block again and I want it to come and I want it to stop right in front of you, three to four feet away, and I want the passenger to extend his hand with a black object and point it right at you, and you can look at it as long as you want." And that's what he saw. (Laughter)
我說:「法官大人」,也不知道是因為 這些在我口袋裡精確的科學數據讓我變大膽了, 這些在我口袋裡精確的科學數據讓我變大膽了, 還是我只是就是蠢 其他辯護律師都認為我蠢 --(笑聲)-- 當他們聽到我說什麼的時候 「對,法官大人,我要你站在這兒 我會讓車子再轉回來 我會讓車子開過來,然後停下來 就停在你面前,3或4英尺外 然後我要乘客伸出手 用那個黑色假槍指著你, 你可以盯著看,看多久都好」 這是他所看到的 (笑聲)
You'll notice, which was also in my test report, all the dominant lighting is coming from the north side, which means that the shooter's face would have been photo-occluded. It would have been backlit. Furthermore, the roof of the car is causing what we call a shadow cloud inside the car which is making it darker. And this is three to four feet away.
你會注意到,我也在我的報告中指出, 所有較亮的光線都來自北邊, 也就是說槍手的臉, 在視覺中會光線不足,也就是背光。 此外,車頂會形成所謂的陰影雲,使得車內更暗。 此外,車頂會形成所謂的陰影雲,使得車內更暗。 此外,車頂會形成所謂的陰影雲,使得車內更暗。 這是3,4英尺外。
Why did I take the risk? I knew that the depth of field was 18 inches or less. Three to four feet, it might as well have been a football field away. This is what he saw. He went back, there was a few more days of evidence that was heard. At the end of it, he made the judgment that he was going to grant the petition for a retrial. And furthermore, he released Mr. Carrillo so that he could aid in the preparation of his own defense if the prosecution decided to retry him.
我為什麼冒險? 我知道在當時狀態下人眼景深不到18英吋。 3 或 4 英尺,和從足球場一端看到另一端沒什麼兩樣。 3 或 4 英尺,和從足球場一端看到另一端沒什麼兩樣。 這是他所見到的。 他回去了,證據聽證會又開了幾天 在結束的時候, 他批准了 重審的申請。 此外,他還釋放了卡瑞羅先生, 若檢察官決定要重審,也好讓他能回家準備這個案件, 若檢察官決定要重審,也好讓他能回家準備這個案件,
Which they decided not to. He is now a freed man. (Applause)
結果檢察官決定不重審 他被釋放了(掌聲)
(Applause)
(掌聲)
This is him embracing his grandmother-in-law. He -- His girlfriend was pregnant when he went to trial, right? And she had a little baby boy. He and his son are both attending Cal State, Long Beach right now taking classes. (Applause)
這張照片裡,他擁抱他太太的祖母。 他的女友在他受審時已懷孕, 生下了小男生。 他和他兒子現在都就讀於加州大學(Cal State)長灘(Long Beach)校區 兩個現在都在上課(掌聲)。
And what does this example -- what's important to keep in mind for ourselves?
這個例子 - 教我們什麼寶貴的教訓?
First of all, there's a long history of antipathy between science and the law in American jurisprudence. I could regale you with horror stories of ignorance over decades of experience as a forensic expert of just trying to get science into the courtroom. The opposing council always fight it and oppose it.
首先,長久以來在美國的司法環境 科學與法律一直不相容。 科學與法律一直不相容。 我可以告訴你很多很多出於無知的恐怖故事, 全都來自於我幾十年來從事法庭專家證人 嘗試把科學帶進法庭的經驗。 對方律師總是反對,百般阻撓。
One suggestion is that all of us become much more attuned to the necessity, through policy, through procedures, to get more science in the courtroom, and I think one large step toward that is more requirements, with all due respect to the law schools, of science, technology, engineering, mathematics for anyone going into the law, because they become the judges. Think about how we select our judges in this country. It's very different than most other cultures. All right?
有個建議,就是我們全都應該 接受更多的科學進入法律領域 這是必要的,透過政策, 透過恰當程序, 完成做這件事的一大步。 就是增加要求 讓法學院把科學, 科技,工程,數學納入必修課程 要求每個法律學生修習 因為這些學生將來會成為法官。 想想在美國我們如何選擇法官? 和其他多數文化大不相同,不是嗎?
The other one that I want to suggest, the caution that all of us have to have, I constantly have to remind myself, about just how accurate are the memories that we know are true, that we believe in? There is decades of research, examples and examples of cases like this, where individuals really, really believe. None of those teenagers who identified him thought that they were picking the wrong person. None of them thought they couldn't see the person's face. We all have to be very careful. All our memories are reconstructed memories. They are the product of what we originally experienced and everything that's happened afterwards. They're dynamic. They're malleable. They're volatile, and as a result, we all need to remember to be cautious, that the accuracy of our memories is not measured in how vivid they are nor how certain you are that they're correct.
另一件我建議的事: 我們全部都得小心 我一直提醒自己 記憶並不精確, 不管是那些我們認為是真的,或是我們信任的記憶。 幾十年來的研究, 無數與此相似的案例, 正都是人們都是這麼信任自己的記憶。 這些孩子們。 指認兇嫌時 沒人會認為自己會認錯人。 沒有一個認為自己會看不清楚那個人的臉 我們都得非常小心 我們所有的記憶都經過重建 它們來自我們的原始經驗 以及事後所有的經驗。 這些記憶是動態的。 可以不斷修改,不穩定, 結果呢,我們都要記得對於我們的經驗精確度 要謹慎小心, 不在於我們記得多清晰 也不在我們多確定它們有多正確。
Thank you. (Applause)
謝謝。 (掌聲)