Final answer:
Physical characteristics from eye witness descriptions can include height, hair color, facial features, and other particular marks. Yet, the accuracy of these descriptions is often questionable due to the issues of eyewitness memory, suggestibility, and police influence. Cases like Jennifer Thompson's, Donald Thomson's mistaken identification, and the DC sniper emphasize the complexities in criminal identification.
Step-by-step explanation:
Based on an eye witness description, some of the physical characteristics of a possible suspect that can be identified are height, facial features, hair color, and other distinguishing marks. However, the reliability of these descriptions can vary greatly. Witnesses often describe suspects with vague terms such as "medium height," which highlights the uncertainty in eyewitness memory. For example, in the case of Jennifer Thompson, she tried to memorize her assailant's features but initially expressed uncertainty, later becoming sure of her identification after suggestive police procedures reinforced her choice.
In contrast, physical characteristics like tan lines, as illustrated by the character Venters in our fictional example, can provide more specific clues. Nevertheless, eyewitnesses can still be influenced by factors outside their control, notoriously leading to misidentifications as seen in the mistaken identification of Australian eyewitness expert Donald Thomson.
The case of the DC sniper illustrates how eyewitness reports can fixate on one aspect, like the color of a vehicle, leading to the exclusion of other potential leads. These stories underscore the challenges law enforcement faces when trying to identify criminals based solely on eyewitness accounts, which can be subject to suggestibility, misinformation, and the creation of false memories.