Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Displaying the Bomb on the Train: The Challenge of Preparing Visual Evidence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Juries, Science and Popular Culture in the Age of Terror

  • 703 Accesses

Abstract

Courtroom environments, which have been one of the last bastions of the oral tradition, are slowly morphing into cinematic display environments. The persuasive oral rhetoric of lawyers is increasingly being replaced by compelling visual media displays presenting a range of digital evidence in a convincing and credible manner. The types of visual media being introduced into courtrooms around the world pose challenges to those using and viewing such evidence. Fundamental implications inherent in the shift from oral to visual mediation and the multiple facets of contemporary evidence presentation technology need to be investigated and analysed. Interactive virtual environments need to be accurate and presented in a form that jury members and other triers of fact can trust. Projects such as the Sydney Bomber study are moving towards providing useful guidelines for developers of such reconstructions and ensuring that in the future, this technology is used appropriately.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Heintz, M. E. (2002). The digital divide and courtroom technology: Can David keep up with Goliath? Federal Communications Law Journal, 54(3), 567–590.

  2. 2.

    Lederer, F. I. (2004). Courtroom technology: For trial lawyers the future is now. Criminal Justice, 19(1), 15–21.

  3. 3.

    Schofield, D. (2007, August). Animating and interacting with graphical evidence: Bringing courtrooms to life with virtual reconstructions. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Graphics, Imaging and Visualisation, Bangkok, Thailand. Abstract retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4293692

  4. 4.

    Schofield. D. (2011). Playing with evidence: Using video games in the courtroom. Entertainment Computing, 2(1), 47–58.

  5. 5.

    Schofield, D., & Mason, S. (2010). Using graphical technology to present evidence. In S. Mason (Ed.), Electronic evidence (pp. 101–121). UK: LexisNexis Butterworths.

  6. 6.

    Girvan, R. (2001). An overview of the use of computer-generated displays in the courtroom. Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 7(1), 1.

  7. 7.

    Sherwin, R.K. (2009). Visual literacy in action: “Law in the age of images.” In J. Elkins (Ed.), Visual literacy (pp. 179–195). New York: Routledge.

  8. 8.

    Feigenson, N., & Spiesel, C. (2009). Law on display: The digital transformation of legal persuasion and judgement. New York: New York University Press.

  9. 9.

    Burton, A.M., Schofield, D., & Goodwin, L.M. (2005). Gates of global perception: Forensic graphics for evidence presentation. Proceedings of the 13 th Annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Singapore (pp. 103–111). doi: 10.1145/1101149.1101165.

  10. 10.

    Schofield & Goodwin, 2007.

  11. 11.

    Burton, Schofield & Goodwin, 2005.

  12. 12.

    Tufte, E.R. (1985). The visual display of quantitative information. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1117–1118.

  13. 13.

    Mervis, J. (1999). Court views engineers as scientists. Science 284 (5411), 21. doi: 10.1126/science.284.5411.21a.

  14. 14.

    Burgoon, J.K., Bonito, J.A., Bengtsson, B., Cederberg, C., Lundeberg, M., & Allspach, L. (2000). Interactivity in human-computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behaviour 16, 553–574.

  15. 15.

    Shapiro, M. A., & McDonald, D. G. (1992). I’m not a real doctor, but I play one in virtual reality: Implications of virtual reality for judgements about reality. Journal of Communications, 42(4), 94–114. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00813.x.

  16. 16.

    Speisel & Feigenson, 2009.

  17. 17.

    Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119.

  18. 18.

    Schofield, 2007.

  19. 19.

    Rubin, C.B. (1993). A paperless trial. Litigation Magazine, 19(3), 5.

  20. 20.

    Loftus, E. F., & Loftus, G. R. (1980). On the permanence of stored information in the brain. American Psychologist 35(5), 409–420.

  21. 21.

    Leader, L., & Schofield, D. (2006). Madness in the method? Potential pitfalls in handling expert evidence. Journal of Personal Injury Law, 6(1), 68–86.

  22. 22.

    Kuehn, P. F. (1999). Maximizing your persuasiveness: Effective computer generated exhibits. Journal of the DuPage Country Bar Association, 12. Retrieved from http://www.dcba.org/mpage/vol121099art4

  23. 23.

    Dunn, M. A., Salovey, P., & Feigenson, N. (2006). The jury persuaded (and not): Computer animation in the courtroom. Law & Policy, 28(2), 228–248.

  24. 24.

    Speisel & Feigenson, 2009.

  25. 25.

    Jones, I. S., Muir, D. W., & Groo, S. W. (1991). Computer animation: Admissibility in the courtroom. SAE Technical Paper 910366. doi:10.4271/910366. Retrieved from http://papers.sae.org/910366/

  26. 26.

    Marcotte, P. (1989). Animated evidence: Delta 191 crash recreated through computer simulations at trial. American Bar Association Journal, 52–56.

  27. 27.

    Schofield & Goodwin, 2007.

  28. 28.

    Fiedler, B.S. (2003). Are your eyes deceiving you?: The evidentiary crisis regarding the admissibility of computer generated evidence. New York Law School Law Review, 48, 295–321.

  29. 29.

    Girvan, 2001.

  30. 30.

    O’Flaherty, 1996.

  31. 31.

    Fielder, B. (2003). Are your eyes deceiving you? The evidential crisis regarding the admissibility of computer generated evidence. New York Law School Review, 48(1–2), 295–321.

  32. 32.

    Bailenson, J.N., Blaschovich, J., Beall, A.C., & Noveck, B. (2006). Courtroom applications of virtual environments, immersive virtual environments and collaborative virtual environments. Law and Policy, 28(2), 249–270.

  33. 33.

    Galves, F. (2000). Where the not so wild things are: Computer in the courtroom, the federal rules of evidence, and the need for institutional reform and more judicial acceptance. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 13(2), 161–302.

  34. 34.

    Kassin, S. M., & Dunn, M. A. (1997). Computer animated displays and the jury: Facilitative and prejudicial effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21(3), 269–281.

  35. 35.

    Bohan, T.L. (1991). Computer aided accident reconstruction: Its role in court (Report No. 910370). Retrieved from SAE International website: http://papers.sae.org/910370/

  36. 36.

    Noond, J., Schofield, D., & Evison, M. (2002). Visualising the scene: Computer graphics and evidence presentation. Scientific and Technical 42(2), 89–95. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(02)71804-2.

  37. 37.

    Ware, C., & Osborne, S. (1990). Exploration and virtual camera control in virtual three dimensional environments. Proceedings of the 1990 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, Utah, USA, 175–183. doi: 10.1145/91385.91442.

  38. 38.

    Bryce, J., & Rutter, J. (2002). Spectacle of the deathmatch: Character and narrative in first-person shooters. In G. King & T. Krzywinska (Eds.), ScreenPlay: Cinema/videogames/interfaces (pp. 66–80). London: Wallflower Press.

  39. 39.

    Feigenson & Spiesel, 2009.

  40. 40.

    Schofield, 2011.

  41. 41.

    Noond et al., 2002.

  42. 42.

    Ware & Osborne, 1990.

  43. 43.

    Montello, D. R., Hegarty, M., Richardson, A. E., & Waller, D. (2004). Spatial memory of real environments, virtual environments, and maps. In G.L. Allen (Eds.), Human spatial memory: Remembering where (pp. 251–287). NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  44. 44.

    Arthur, E.J., Hancock, P.A., & Chrysler, S.T. (1997). The perceptions of spatial layout in real and virtual worlds. Ergonomics, 40(1), 69–77.

  45. 45.

    MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). Opening Pandora’s uncanny box. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 361–368.

  46. 46.

    Schofield, 2011.

  47. 47.

    Feigenson & Spiesel, 2009.

  48. 48.

    Schofield, D. (2009). Animating evidence: Computer game technology in the courtroom. Journal of Information Law & Technology, 1, 1–21.

  49. 49.

    Schofield, 2007.

  50. 50.

    Ibid.

  51. 51.

    Galves, 2000.

  52. 52.

    Speisel & Feigenson, 2009.

  53. 53.

    O’Flaherty, 1996.

  54. 54.

    Fielder, 2003.

  55. 55.

    Galves, 2000.

  56. 56.

    Wilson, J.R., Eastgate, R.M., & D’Cruz, M. (2002). Structured development of virtual environments. In K.M. Stanney (Eds.), Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications (pp. 353–379). NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  57. 57.

    Ravet, S., & Layte, M. (1997). Technology based training: A comprehensive guide to choosing, implementing, managing, and developing new technologies in training. TX, USA: Gulf Professional Publishing.

  58. 58.

    Fielder, 2003.

  59. 59.

    Brooks, F.P. (1999). What’s real about virtual reality? IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 19(6), 16–27.

  60. 60.

    Kanade, T., Rander, P., & Narayanan, P.J. (1997). Virtualized reality: Constructing virtual world from scenes. IEEE Multimedia, 4(1), 34–47.

  61. 61.

    Bracken, C.C., & Botta, R.A. (2002). Presence: The debate between content and form. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Meeting of the Presence Workshop, Porto, Portugal, 353–363.

  62. 62.

    Reeves, B., Lang, A., Kim, E.Y., & Tatar, D. (1999). The effects of screen size and message content on attention and arousal. Media Psychology, 1(1), 49–67. doi: 10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_4.

  63. 63.

    Noond et al., 2002.

  64. 64.

    Ware & Osborne, 1990.

  65. 65.

    Lawrence, C., & Richardson, J. (2005). Gender based judgements of traffic violations: The moderating of influence of car type. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(8), 1755–1773. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02194.x.

  66. 66.

    Speisel & Feigenson, 2009.

  67. 67.

    Kassin & Dunn, 1997.

  68. 68.

    Burns, D.C. (2001). When used in the criminal legal process forensic science shows a bias in favour of the prosecution. Discuss. Science & Justice, 41(4), 271–277. doi: 10.1016/S1355-0306(01)71910-7.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State University of New York, 7060 Route 104, Oswego, 13126-3599, NY, USA

    Damian Schofield (Professor and Director of Human Computer Interaction)

Authors
  1. Damian Schofield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Western Sydney University, Australia, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia

    David Tait

  2. Charles Sturt University, Australia, Manly, New South Wales, Australia

    Jane Goodman-Delahunty

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schofield, D. (2017). Displaying the Bomb on the Train: The Challenge of Preparing Visual Evidence. In: Tait, D., Goodman-Delahunty, J. (eds) Juries, Science and Popular Culture in the Age of Terror. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55475-8_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation