The Pitfalls of Video Evidence in Investigations
Video evidence can be a powerful tool in investigations, offering a visual record of events that seems clear and conclusive. However, as Jamie Borden and Danny King discuss in a recent conversation, this apparent clarity can be deceptive. Misinterpreting video evidence can lead to disastrous outcomes, including wrongful prosecutions. Here, we explore why video is not the “definitive” evidence it appears to be and why proper analysis is critical.
The Illusion of Conclusivity
Video often presents itself as a complete and accurate depiction of an event. Investigators may watch a clip and feel confident they understand what happened. However, this confidence can be dangerous. As Borden and King point out, cognitive biases—such as hindsight bias and emotional conductivity—can cloud judgment. These biases lead investigators to impose their understanding of the outcome onto the video, ignoring critical details.
In one case Borden worked on, investigators relied heavily on a video to build a murder case. They watched the footage for just 12 to 15 seconds before concluding it depicted a crime. The prosecution used this video as foundational evidence, but a detailed analysis later revealed it supported the defense, leading to an acquittal. This case underscores a key point: video is just one piece of the puzzle, no more or less significant than a witness statement, fingerprint, or other evidence.
Technical Limitations of Video
Video evidence comes with significant technical limitations that are often overlooked. For example, frame rates can drastically affect what a video captures. In a case discussed by King, a video was recorded at 8 frames per second but transcoded to appear as 30 frames per second, creating a misleading impression of smoothness and completeness. To the untrained eye, it looked like any other video, but critical moments were missing due to the low frame rate.
In this case, which occurred in a bar parking lot, the low frame rate obscured the sequence of events. The video appeared to show a suspect shooting an attacker after the attacker had stopped and raised his hands. However, a frame-by-frame analysis revealed the attacker’s hands were raised in response to being shot—a reaction that occurred in just 232 milliseconds, faster than a blink. The video’s limitations created a false narrative, which only became clear through meticulous analysis.
The Need for Expertise
A common refrain in investigations is, “I don’t need an expert to tell me what I see with my own eyes.” Borden and King strongly challenge this mindset. Without understanding the technical aspects of video—such as frame rates, encoding processes, and interval sampling—investigators risk misinterpreting what they see.
Proper video analysis requires training and awareness. Investigators must interrogate video evidence with the same rigor as a witness statement. This means understanding what the video does not show, such as missing frames or distorted timing. In the bar parking lot case, the prosecution’s reliance on a single freeze-frame led to an inaccurate conclusion. When the jury was shown a detailed breakdown of the video’s limitations, they grasped the true sequence of events and acquitted the defendant.
Building Awareness Through Training
Borden and King emphasize that expertise in video analysis doesn’t come from a single class or from watching footage repeatedly. It starts with awareness—learning what you don’t know. Training courses, like those offered through Critical Incident Review, provide investigators with the tools to approach video evidence methodically. These classes don’t instantly make someone an expert but spark conversations that build knowledge over time.
The stakes are high. Misinterpreting video evidence can lead to wrongful convictions, as seen in cases where innocent people faced charges due to hasty conclusions. Borden recounts a case involving a state trooper who was nearly charged for doing his job, all because of errors in video analysis. Even experienced investigators can make mistakes—King admits to missing a critical detail in a video due to time constraints, only catching it upon a second review.
A Call for Objectivity
Video analysis is about more than just watching footage; it’s about protecting people’s rights and freedoms. Investigators must approach video evidence with objectivity, challenging their assumptions and seeking out missing information. As Borden and King note, overlooking data is the biggest threat to an objective investigation.
Their advice? Don’t assume you know what you’re looking at. Seek training from certified experts who have applied video analysis in real-world cases. Understand the mechanical aspects of video, from frame rates to encoding. And most importantly, treat video as one piece of evidence among many, not as the sole foundation of a case.
For more insights on video analysis and other investigative techniques, check out the training resources and blog series on the Critical Incident Review website. These tools can help you transform video from a potential pitfall into a reliable piece of evidence.
