Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups

By T. Valentine, Alan Pickering, Stephen Darling. 2003

144 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The prevalence of co-witnesses and co-witness discussions in real eyewitnesses (2008, result): “categories are roughly in line with large surveys of the London Identification Suites (Valentine et al., 2003; Wright & McDaid, 1996) where 40% of the time the suspect is identified, 20% of the time a filler is chosen, and 40% of the time no identification is made.”
Of guns and geese: a meta-analytic review of the ‘weapon focus’ literature (2013, methodology): “This was also true of a study conducted by Valentine et al. (2003) employing a very similar questionnaire approach within the Greater London area between January and September 2000: Weapon presence had no impact on the probability of selecting the police suspect in a live line-up, and even…”