The Undisclosed Addendum is brought to you this week by Squarespace.

Build it beautiful at Squarespace.com.

You can learn all about how Squarespace can help you build a beautiful website during

Squarespace's spot later in the Addendum.

In this Addendum, I'll delve deeper into some of the legal issues raised by the episode

and answer some of your social media questions.

Part 1.

I witness identifications.

In episode 3, I played a clip from my interview of Elena Beatty in which she explained the

Neil versus Bigger's factors, a court assesses to determine whether an identification is

reliable enough to be admitted at trial, including the amount of attention paid to the perpetrator

and the amount of time between the crime and the identification.

As she went on to explain though,

these are all actually poor indicators of the reliability of a witness.

They're all self-reporting and they're based on the individual not on the actual process

of interviewing the eyewitness.

They're also not based on empirical evidence and they're not really related to accuracy.

Moreover, Beatty went on to note that the Supreme Court compounded this issue and its

subsequent opinion in Manson vs. Brathway.

And it found that an identification that satisfied these reliability factors is admissible

and reaches the jury even if the procedure used by the police was unduly suggestive.

Right, so that really comes home in Manson vs. Brathway where the court a couple years

...