So let’s talk about video in a case.
Unfortunately, video is one of those things that is very, very helpful. Fortunately, it is very helpful in cases. But when it’s not good, it can be very disastrous. It’s not because of the video itself but because of how we interpret that video. Would you agree or disagree?
A hundred percent agree. The problem with video is that it presents itself in a conclusive manner. Meaning, we look at video, we have an understanding of the event, and we say, “Ah, this is what happened.” And that’s dangerous. In our last couple of episodes, we’ve talked about emotional conductivity, hindsight bias, and hindsight attribution, and how they can affect an investigation.
There are some very important cases. One of the cases I was on just before the new year involved investigators who fell victim to all these biases wrapped into one. They made conclusions based on the video, and it was ultimately that same video that got the person acquitted. The prosecution used the video as the foundational evidence to prove that it was a murder. However, when presented from an analytical standpoint, the same video led to the acquittal.
In every contested case, one side claims the video definitively shows one thing, while the other side argues it definitively shows something else. From an investigative standpoint, we have to be ultra-clear that you can’t just watch a video and immediately reach a conclusion.
It’s been said many times, “I don’t need an expert to tell me what I see on video,” but nothing could be further from the truth.
You’re absolutely right. When you hear those words, you need to plant your feet and challenge that statement. I’ve heard it more times than I can count: “I don’t need an expert to tell me what I can see with my own eyes.”
The problem is, you don’t know what you’re looking at. You have no idea about the encoding process in video and the significant limitations video imposes as evidence.
There are numerous technical issues. I’m not going to get into the inner workings here, as that is more suited for a class, but let’s take a surface-level look. Frame rates, for example, can be variable. People don’t understand how much information is missing from a scene due to frame rate limitations.
In a recent case, the video evidence was presented at 30 frames per second, but it was actually captured at only 8 frames per second. It was then transcoded into what was called “best evidence” at 30 frames per second.
That didn’t change how the video looked to the human eye. At a glance, it seemed like every other video. The problem is that when a human being views a video at 8 frames per second, they assume it is capturing everything at the same rate as a video recorded at 30 frames per second. They have no knowledge of interval sampling or the obstacles that come into play with video analysis.
In this particular case, which took place in a bar parking lot, the video was filmed at 8 frames per second. The entire investigation lasted four hours. Investigators gathered statements at the scene and, by their own admission, watched the video for about 12 to 15 seconds before determining that it was a murder. This determination was forwarded to the Attorney General’s office, which prosecuted the case at the state level for murder. Their foundational piece of evidence was that video.
The point of this awareness video is to understand that video is not foundational as evidence. It is a piece of evidence—just like a statement, a fingerprint, a boot print, a measurement, or a vehicle description. It is just one piece of the puzzle. You cannot give video any more weight than any other piece of evidence. Just as we interrogate a witness statement to assess its validity, we must interrogate video evidence in the same way.
Video is no different than an unreliable witness on the street. We cannot take it at face value. There is a lot of understanding required to properly interpret video. From a law enforcement perspective, it is crucial to know what we are looking for. Many investigators lack this knowledge—not due to incompetence, but because they don’t know what they don’t know about video analysis. It’s not magic, but there are key mechanical aspects of video that must be understood in order to transform it into reliable evidence.
In the case I mentioned earlier, the subject was attacked by a bar patron. He stepped back between two parked cars while the attacker continued to lunge forward. The subject drew a weapon and fired one round. In the video, it appeared that the attacker stopped, raised his hands, and then was shot and killed. Watching the video multiple times, this is what it seemed to show. But when analyzing what was missing from the video, it became clear that the subject was actually responding to being shot by raising his hands—a visceral response to being struck by a round. The sequence of events in the video appeared to happen in reverse compared to real-time.
All of this happened in approximately 232 milliseconds—faster than the time it takes to blink an eye. When we analyze video in increments of milliseconds, we often impose our knowledge of the outcome onto our interpretation.
The attorney prosecuting the case paused the video at a key moment and asked, “Do you see the subject moving backward right now?” The answer was yes. “So you’re saying he is no longer charging the person with the weapon?” The answer: “Not in that frame, but that is the final frame theory. That is not how the subject was making decisions.”
This is a critical point. The frame rate had dropped to nearly two frames per second, meaning there was significant missing information. The video showed a freeze-frame that did not capture the moment when the shot was fired. This missing data created an inaccurate perception of the event.
The jury fully understood the concept when it was explained. Juries are not ignorant; they grasp technical components when they are laid out clearly. When comparing the timing of the frame to the blink of an eye, I explained that this was an example of the final frame theory. That is not how the event should be analyzed, and it was not how I analyzed it. The video was misinterpreted, but when broken down frame by frame, the true sequence of events became clear.
This is why proper video analysis is crucial. The three blogs Danny and I have done over the last few weeks provide a small portion of the available training on this topic. If you have the opportunity to attend one of these training sessions, do so. There is a lot to understand about video analysis, even if you think you already know it.
Classes like these do not make you an expert. They make you aware. Awareness creates conversations that lead to applying this knowledge, which then builds expertise. We do not become experts from a single class. We become experts by learning what we don’t know, discussing it, and applying it.
Video analysis is about more than just looking at footage. As investigators, we are dealing with people’s rights and freedoms. A detective using video for their case must truly understand what they are looking at. That level of understanding does not come from simply watching a video multiple times. It requires classroom training from a certified and experienced expert who has applied these principles in real-world cases.
If we don’t take the time to understand video analysis properly, innocent people can be put on trial for crimes they did not commit. If you had asked me 10 years ago, I would have thought reviewing video was as simple as stepping through frames. That was before I encountered a case where a state trooper was nearly charged for simply doing his job. The errors in that case were staggering.
These mistakes are not limited to others; we have made them ourselves. I recently worked on a video analysis case in the Midwest. Reviewing the footage at 2 AM with a time constraint, I completely missed one of the shots fired. The next morning, I went through the case again and realized my mistake. Video analysis requires a careful and methodical approach.
Gathering data is the foundation of an objective investigation. If the evidence does not fit into our pre-existing narrative, we must be willing to challenge our assumptions. Overlooking information is the biggest threat to objectivity in an investigation.
Keep this in mind: you may not be aware of what you don’t know. The mistakes Danny and I have discussed are not theoretical—they are ones we have made and learned from. We are sharing this knowledge with you so that it may guide you in your future investigations.
With that, we’ll see you next time. Thanks for joining us.
