Well, of course the "factors [that] can reduce the accuracy of eyewitness identifications" are "not applicable" in the case of the 11 witnesses. They are totally irrelevant - and were possibly chosen for that reason.
The
square hole factors are laughably not applicable because they apply to a witness to a crime who is asked to identify a possible perpetrator. The 11
round peg witnesses were people who claimed to have had a voluntary (and, in some cases, sought after) experience of viewing an object. For example:
- there's no lineup where the witnesses are asked to pick out, from a set of similar objects, the gold plates that they claim to have seen
- there's no suspect to identify
- there's no possible racial disparity between the witness and the gold plates
- there's no crime scene at which the witnesses might have felt stress
- the gold plates do not have characteristics such as tattoos or extreme height
Imagine, however, if the witnesses could be tested on relevant factors from their experience, for example:
- their ability to distinguish gold from other substances
- their ability to read and interpret/translate the characters on the plates
At best, they were witnesses to something that could possibly have been a set of gold plates, but could not eliminate other possibilities. In addition, they were hearsay witnesses to the contents of the plates,
having been told what the engravings on the plates were translated into. (not sure if this fits the legal definition)