The Hidden Dangers of Emotional Bias in Video Evidence Analysis

Video evidence is a cornerstone of modern investigations, particularly in law enforcement cases involving use-of-force incidents. Its visual clarity seems to promise objectivity, but as Jamie Borden and Danny King discuss in a recent conversation, this clarity can be a double-edged sword. Emotional biases, technical misunderstandings, and gaps in knowledge can transform video from a valuable tool into a source of significant investigative errors. Drawing from their extensive experience and recent work with Critical Incident Review (CIR), Borden and King highlight the critical need for proper training and awareness to navigate these challenges. This article expands on their insights, emphasizing the pitfalls of emotional conductivity and the importance of rigorous video analysis to ensure fair and accurate investigations.

The Context: CIR’s Mission and Recent Efforts

Critical Incident Review (CIR) is dedicated to advancing investigative standards through training, resources, and real-world insights. As Borden notes, CIR has been focused on developing its web platform and creating a four-hour online certification course, an introduction to their three-day enhanced Force Investigations course. Filming this interactive course took a month, as it was designed to replicate the hands-on experience of in-person classes. Alongside this, CIR produced a companion book for students, further deepening their educational offerings.

These efforts, combined with Borden and King’s involvement in major trials across the country, have kept them away from their blog. However, their work in the field—analyzing cases, conducting hindsight investigations, and testifying in court—has provided fresh perspectives on recurring issues in video evidence analysis. Their return to the blog coincides with upcoming courses, such as the forensic force analysis, video review, and examination course in Chandler, Arizona, where they aim to share these lessons with investigators, reviewers, and law enforcement professionals.

The Core Issue: Not Knowing What You Don’t Know

One of the most significant hurdles in video analysis is the gap between what investigators believe they understand and the actual complexities of the evidence. Borden emphasizes that many errors in the field stem not from deliberate mistakes but from a lack of awareness—a case of “not knowing what you don’t know.” This gap is particularly pronounced in video analysis, where the apparent simplicity of watching footage belies its technical and interpretive challenges.

Investigators often approach video evidence with confidence, assuming their training or experience equips them to interpret it accurately. However, as King points out, every case introduces new elements that challenge existing knowledge. A single class or a few case reviews is rarely sufficient to master the nuances of video evidence. Instead, each case becomes a “masterclass” in its own right, revealing previously unknown technical or contextual factors that can reshape an investigator’s understanding.

For example, frame rates, encoding processes, and lighting conditions can drastically alter what a video appears to show. Without specialized training, investigators may miss these factors, leading to flawed conclusions. This lack of awareness is compounded by cognitive biases, particularly emotional conductivity, which can distort even the most well-intentioned analysis.

Emotional Conductivity: The Silent Saboteur

Emotional conductivity, as Borden and King describe, is the process by which emotions shape an investigator’s interpretation of evidence. When watching a video, especially one involving a high-stakes incident like a police use-of-force event, investigators naturally bring their past experiences, expectations, and emotional reactions to the table. These factors can create a biased lens, leading to theories based on feelings rather than facts.

How Emotional Conductivity Works

The human brain processes information emotionally, even when we strive for objectivity. When an investigator watches a video, their initial reaction is often “emotionally flat,” meaning they observe the raw sequence of events. However, as they begin to interpret the footage—especially in light of external factors like headlines, public opinion, or a supervisor’s comments—emotions start to influence their conclusions. For instance, a video of a police officer using force may trigger tension or discomfort, particularly if the investigator is aware of media scrutiny or community backlash.

This emotional response is not inherently problematic; it’s a natural part of human perception. The danger lies in failing to recognize and manage it. As Borden notes, investigators may express concerns about how a video “looks” rather than focusing on what actually happened. This shift from facts to appearances can lead to a cascade of errors, as the brain prioritizes information that aligns with the initial emotional reaction—a phenomenon known as confirmation bias.

Real-World Impact

King illustrates this with a case from a Midwestern state. Upon first viewing the video, his gut reaction was that the use-of-force incident appeared indefensible. The footage seemed to show an unjustified action, and the emotional weight of that perception was immediate. However, after a thorough review, including frame-by-frame analysis and consideration of contextual factors, he determined that all three uses of force were reasonable. The difference between his initial reaction and final conclusion was emotional conductivity.

This case highlights a critical point: emotional reactions are universal, even among experienced investigators. The key is to acknowledge these reactions and counteract them with a structured, fact-based methodology. Borden emphasizes that investigators must ask themselves:

• What actually happened in this video?
• What are the verifiable facts?
• How does my investigative process guide my analysis?

By grounding their work in these questions, investigators can push past emotional triggers and maintain objectivity.

The Role of External Bias

Emotional conductivity is often exacerbated by external influences. As King points out, videos are rarely presented in a vacuum. An investigator might receive a video with a comment like, “Take a look at this—it looks bad.” This framing immediately biases the review process, predisposing the investigator to focus on negative aspects of the footage. Such comments are common in high-pressure environments, where supervisors, colleagues, or even media narratives shape the initial perception of a case.

Borden’s mantra—“I don’t care what you think. I don’t care what you feel. I care about what you KNOW”—is a direct response to this challenge. A video alone provides only surface-level information. To truly understand a case, investigators must dig deeper, interrogating the footage with the same rigor they would apply to a witness statement or physical evidence.

The Technical Challenges of Video Analysis

Beyond emotional biases, video evidence presents technical challenges that require specialized knowledge. Many investigators lack training in areas like frame rate variability, compression artifacts, or interval sampling, which can significantly distort a video’s depiction of events. For example, a video recorded at a low frame rate may miss critical moments, creating gaps that the human eye cannot detect without careful analysis.

In one case discussed by Borden in a previous CIR blog, a video captured at 8 frames per second was transcoded to 30 frames per second, giving the false impression of a smooth, complete record. This technical oversight led investigators to misinterpret the sequence of events, resulting in a flawed murder prosecution. Only through detailed analysis did the true timeline emerge, exonerating the defendant.

These technical complexities underscore the need for ongoing education. A single training course, while valuable, is not enough to prepare investigators for the diverse challenges of video evidence. Each case requires a willingness to learn and adapt, as new variables—such as unusual camera angles, poor lighting, or audio distortions—can alter the analysis.

The Path Forward: Training and Awareness

Borden and King stress that expertise in video analysis is a journey, not a destination. A single class or certification does not make someone an expert, but it does build awareness—the foundation for growth. CIR’s training programs, including the upcoming course in Chandler, are designed to equip investigators with the tools to recognize their knowledge gaps and approach video evidence methodically.

Key Principles for Effective Video Analysis

1. Treat Video as One Piece of Evidence: Video should never be the sole foundation of a case. Like fingerprints, witness statements, or physical measurements, it is a single data point that must be corroborated and contextualized.
2. Interrogate the Footage: Just as investigators challenge a witness’s reliability, they must scrutinize video for technical limitations and missing information. This includes examining frame rates, resolution, and potential distortions.
3. Manage Emotional Bias: Recognize emotional reactions as red flags and use a structured methodology to refocus on facts. Document initial impressions but prioritize verifiable data.
4. Seek Continuous Learning: Every case offers new lessons. Investigators should pursue advanced training, discuss cases with peers, and stay updated on emerging technologies like AI, which can both aid and complicate video analysis.

The Role of AI in Video Analysis

Borden’s recent presentation at an AI conference highlights the growing role of artificial intelligence in law enforcement. AI tools can assist with tasks like report writing, facial recognition, or pattern analysis, but they come with caveats. AI is not a magic bullet; it learns iteratively, much like humans, and can perpetuate biases if not carefully managed. In video analysis, AI may help identify key frames or enhance image quality, but it cannot replace human judgment or contextual understanding. Investigators must remain vigilant, ensuring AI complements rather than drives their work.

The Stakes: Protecting Rights and Freedoms

The consequences of mishandling video evidence are profound. Misinterpretations can lead to wrongful prosecutions, as seen in cases where hasty conclusions based on video sent innocent people to trial. Conversely, proper analysis can exonerate the wrongly accused, as demonstrated in the Midwestern case King reviewed. Beyond individual outcomes, flawed video analysis erodes public trust in law enforcement and the justice system.

Borden and King’s message is clear: video analysis is not just a technical skill—it’s a responsibility. Investigators are stewards of people’s rights and freedoms, and their work must reflect the highest standards of objectivity and diligence. This requires a commitment to learning, a willingness to challenge assumptions, and a recognition that no one has all the answers.

Join the Conversation

CIR’s mission is to foster a community of learning and improvement. Borden and King invite investigators, reviewers, and law enforcement professionals to share their experiences with emotional bias and video analysis. Whether through comments on CIR’s YouTube, Facebook, or LinkedIn pages or participation in upcoming courses, your insights can help refine best practices and prevent costly errors.

To learn more about CIR’s training programs, including the forensic force analysis, video review, and examination course in Chandler, visit criticalincidentreview.com. Explore the blog for additional resources on emotional conductivity, technical video analysis, and other critical topics. Together, we can transform video evidence from a potential pitfall into a reliable tool for justice.