Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma: 
Video Evidence of Violent Crime in the Criminal Justice System 

Abstract 

In today’s technologically mediated society, video is increasingly relied upon as an objective and 
reliable source of evidence in the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes. The now 
pervasive presence of violent video in the criminal justice system, however, presents new 
challenges for understanding repeated work-related exposure to and witnessing of potentially 
traumatic material and its impacts. Thus, this project seeks to qualitatively examine the 
relational affective processes that occur among criminal justice professionals when violent 
crimes are captured on video. We present four key categories organized around the 
circumstances of exposure and its impacts: 1) playback in the investigative and pre-trial 
process; 2) sharing videos among colleagues; 3) playing videos for victims, witnesses, and 
families and; 4) transmission in the broader public. Findings suggest this work involves deeply 
embodied processes where video evidence of violent crime enables a virtual presence at scenes 
and an emotional proximity to events through new forms of witnessing. These affective 
experiences are one relational dynamic that keeps witnessing active, thus expanding the 
mobility of trauma, its reach and potential impacts. 
Key Words: traumatic exposure, video evidence of violent crime, criminal justice professionals, 
affective witnessing, mobility of trauma, embodied traumas 


conviction of violent offenders (Brookman & Jones, 2021; Cook et al., 2021; Westera & Powell, 
2017) as well as contributed to the advancement of research and understanding of violent 
offender behaviours (Lindegaard & Bernasco, 2018; Philpot et al., 2019), its potential to 
traumatize and re-traumatize viewers has rarely been considered. Nevertheless, the circulation 
and viewing of traumatic events captured on video, have led to new forms of witnessing (Hjorth 
& Cumiskey, 2018), and consequently to new forms of workplace-based trauma (Birze, Regehr, 
et al., 2022b) and victim re-traumatization (Regehr et al., 2021). The now pervasive presence of 
video evidence throughout the criminal justice system, raises new moral, psychological, ethical, 
and social concerns, and presents new challenges for the consideration of repeated work-
related exposure to and witnessing of potentially traumatic material, its transmission, and the 
associated impacts. 
A timely reconceptualization of “witnessing” has centred the relational aspects of 
witnessing that better account for the affective experiences related to the witnessing and re-
witnessing of videoed events among individuals and groups across time and place (Richardson 
& Schankweiler, 2020). Arising from studies of vicarious witnessing through photographs, 
conviction of violent offenders (Brookman & Jones, 2021; Cook et al., 2021; Westera & Powell, 
2017) as well as contributed to the advancement of research and understanding of violent 
offender behaviours (Lindegaard & Bernasco, 2018; Philpot et al., 2019), its potential to 
traumatize and re-traumatize viewers has rarely been considered. Nevertheless, the circulation 
and viewing of traumatic events captured on video, have led to new forms of witnessing (Hjorth 
& Cumiskey, 2018), and consequently to new forms of workplace-based trauma (Birze, Regehr, 
et al., 2022b) and victim re-traumatization (Regehr et al., 2021). The now pervasive presence of 
video evidence throughout the criminal justice system, raises new moral, psychological, ethical, 
and social concerns, and presents new challenges for the consideration of repeated work-
related exposure to and witnessing of potentially traumatic material, its transmission, and the 
associated impacts. 
A timely reconceptualization of “witnessing” has centred the relational aspects of 
witnessing that better account for the affective experiences related to the witnessing and re-
witnessing of videoed events among individuals and groups across time and place (Richardson 
& Schankweiler, 2020). Arising from studies of vicarious witnessing through photographs, 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

Introduction 

In today’s technologically mediated society, video evidence is increasingly relied upon in 
the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes. While its ubiquity may have realized new 
benefits for criminal justice processes such as improved investigative tools, rates of arrest, and 

survivor stories and artifacts of the Holocaust, the mind reconstructs the experiences of others 
creating a “powerful experience, whereby people…[live] imaginatively through the experiences 
of others” (Keats, 2005, p. 171). This initial conceptualization of vicarious witnessing involved 


experience, including human suffering, and the sharing of these images through visual media 
creates a new sense of immediacy and presence for a much wider range of viewers (Ellis, 2009; 
Hjorth & Cumiskey, 2018). Recorded events, according to Ellis (2009), create a sense of 
“thereness” that has the effect of generating emotional reactions that “feel similar to direct 
encounters, even as we know them to be distanced and observed encounters” (p. 71). Video 
capabilities can communicate both experience and affect in a manner that is both intimate and 
public. This “affective witnessing” is “unbounded by space and time”, that is, it can be newly 
experienced and re-experienced indefinitely (Hjorth & Cumiskey, 2018, p. 168). 
Richardson and Schankweiler (2020, p. 242) have recently argued, “Whether an event is 
inscribed in the bodily memory of the witness or recorded on a smartphone, its registering as 
an event is necessarily a mediation that enables the potential transmission of the event to 
others elsewhere.” Accordingly, affective witnessing attends to the moments and relational 
dynamics that allow for the repetition and endurance of the witnessing experience that 
“centres encounter, embodiment, affect and intensities of experience” (Richardson & 
Schankweiler, 2020, p. 237). For instance, when mobile phones are used to document violent 
experience, including human suffering, and the sharing of these images through visual media 
creates a new sense of immediacy and presence for a much wider range of viewers (Ellis, 2009; 
Hjorth & Cumiskey, 2018). Recorded events, according to Ellis (2009), create a sense of 
“thereness” that has the effect of generating emotional reactions that “feel similar to direct 
encounters, even as we know them to be distanced and observed encounters” (p. 71). Video 
capabilities can communicate both experience and affect in a manner that is both intimate and 
public. This “affective witnessing” is “unbounded by space and time”, that is, it can be newly 
experienced and re-experienced indefinitely (Hjorth & Cumiskey, 2018, p. 168). 
Richardson and Schankweiler (2020, p. 242) have recently argued, “Whether an event is 
inscribed in the bodily memory of the witness or recorded on a smartphone, its registering as 
an event is necessarily a mediation that enables the potential transmission of the event to 
others elsewhere.” Accordingly, affective witnessing attends to the moments and relational 
dynamics that allow for the repetition and endurance of the witnessing experience that 
“centres encounter, embodiment, affect and intensities of experience” (Richardson & 
Schankweiler, 2020, p. 237). For instance, when mobile phones are used to document violent 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

deliberate acts in which individuals purposively sought to immerse themselves in various 
sources of information related to a tragic event in an effort to gain deep knowledge of the 
suffering of distant others. In recent years however, the availability of devices to record human 

deaths, such as in mass shooting incidents, actual scenes and the associated traumatic 

experiences of others are brought into view, giving rise to both individual and collective 
affective witnessing, often blurring the distinction between survivors and vicarious witnesses 
(Cumiskey & Hjorth, 2019; McGrane et al., 2021). Further, as the viewer is connected to the 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

emotions of the sufferer, this painful knowledge acquired through witnessing and through 
being virtually present at the scene of the suffering, implies a kind of participation on the part 
of the viewer, and a sense of responsibility to act on the suffering (Kyriakidou, 2015). That is, to 
witness an event means becoming “responsible to it” (Peters, 2001, p. 708). This adds to the 
potential of witnessing to become a life changing experience. 

In a parallel development, recent efforts to reconceptualize trauma have also brought to 
the fore the relational aspects of traumatization that enable its transmission or travel among 
and between individuals, what has been described as “trauma contagion” (Coddington, 2017; 
Coddington & Micieli-Voutsinas, 2017). When working to conceptualize the transmissibility of 
traumatic incidents from person to person, examining the travel and impact of video evidence 
of violent crimes provides rich material for analysis. As Hjorth and Cumiskey (2018, p. 175) 
suggest, video evidence of violent crime is a “vehicle for understanding the textures of tragedy, 
trauma and horror through affective witnessing”, suggesting new implications for the 
collection, storage, viewing, and sharing of this content in the workplace and beyond. Such 
affective witnessing through mobile media and other sources of video evidence brings into 
sharp relief the potential for unique forms of trauma realized through new forms of witnessing 
trauma (seeing and hearing events from another place and time). For instance, in the 
courtroom, such videos may be conceptualized as non-human witnesses and are often 
deployed precisely because of their propensity to evoke intense emotional responses and 

manipulate the emotional dynamics among viewers, the courtroom actors (Bens, 2020). Given 
potentially traumatic video evidence of this sort is increasingly mobilized as an aspect of the 
day-to-day mechanics of the criminal justice system (Kimpel, 2021), an approach that considers 


Thus, in this paper we qualitatively examine the mobility of trauma as an emergent relational 
affective process that occurs among criminal justice professionals, victims, witness, and 
families, and the broader public, when violent crimes are captured on video. 
Methods 
This research adopted a discovery-oriented qualitative design, using constructivist 
grounded theory method. Originally developed by Glaser and Strauss (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), 
grounded theory involves an iterative process of data collection and analysis that helps 
researchers to systematically interrogate their data and generate new concepts that work to 
foster the growth of theory in understudied areas (Charmaz, 2008; Charmaz & Thornberg, 
2021). Further developing their earlier work, Charmaz (2000; 2014) proposed an adaptation – 
constructivist grounded theory (CGT) – which underpins a grounded theory approach with a 
constructivist paradigm. That is, CGT asserts that data and meaning, rather than emerging as an 
objective truth, are co-constructed through the relationship between the researchers and the 
participants (Birks & Mills, 2015). 
Thus, in this paper we qualitatively examine the mobility of trauma as an emergent relational 
affective process that occurs among criminal justice professionals, victims, witness, and 
families, and the broader public, when violent crimes are captured on video. 
Methods 
This research adopted a discovery-oriented qualitative design, using constructivist 
grounded theory method. Originally developed by Glaser and Strauss (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), 
grounded theory involves an iterative process of data collection and analysis that helps 
researchers to systematically interrogate their data and generate new concepts that work to 
foster the growth of theory in understudied areas (Charmaz, 2008; Charmaz & Thornberg, 
2021). Further developing their earlier work, Charmaz (2000; 2014) proposed an adaptation – 
constructivist grounded theory (CGT) – which underpins a grounded theory approach with a 
constructivist paradigm. That is, CGT asserts that data and meaning, rather than emerging as an 
objective truth, are co-constructed through the relationship between the researchers and the 
participants (Birks & Mills, 2015). 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

these encounters and the embodied traumas of this work is warranted (Birze, Regehr, et al., 
2022b). Importantly, almost no research has specifically addressed what might now be 
considered an avalanche of potentially traumatic, obscene and gruesome video evidence of 
violent crimes for many criminal justice actors (Kimpel, 2021). Furthermore, no research to the 
best of our knowledge has considered the new mobility of mediated trauma in this context. 

In support of maximal variation for information-rich sampling, this research engaged in 
dialogues with police officers, civilian crime analysts, legal professionals (e.g. court reporters, 
lawyers and judges), and forensic mental health professionals, using the long-interview method 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

of data collection (McCracken, 1988) for thick description and credibility (Lietz & Zayas, 2010). 
The long-interview method uses open-ended questions to foster the exploration of experiences 
and elicit relevant stories (McCracken, 1988), in this case related to workplace exposure to and 
use of video evidence of violent crime. Ongoing informed consent for interviews was gained 
though detailed discussion and review of the consent form with participants. Prior to beginning 
interviews, one member of the research team explained the purpose of the project, the 
potential risks involved with discussing the sensitive material and revisiting its traumatic 
impacts. Participants were reassured that they could determine the pace and length of the 
interview, break, quit, or withdraw at any time, and that what they shared in the recorded 
interview would be protected as an anonymous contribution. The proposal was approved by 
the Human Subjects Research Ethics Board at the University of Toronto. 

As researchers we remain vigilant to the profoundly emotional nature of our research 
with the trauma of others, the understanding that we each occupy privileged places of access 
to the experiences of these professionals, and how this access and research shapes our own 
emotional responses and outcomes (Drozdzewski & Dominey-Howes, 2015). A psychologically 
safe and trauma-aware working context and affordance for slow scholarship worked to mitigate 
the potential impacts. In fact, for each of us, it is because of our positionalities through both 
personal and professional experiences with potentially traumatic video that we have come to 
recognize the gravity of this work for ourselves, our families, as well as our participants (Regehr 

et al., 2019). Further, as researchers, not viewing the videos described in this research has 
afforded us the privilege of self-protection by maintaining some level of emotional distance 
from the recorded images. Necessarily, we continually pursue meaningful examination and 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

better understanding so that our work might serve as a source of advocacy, informing policy 
change, not only for those whose professional work places them at greater risk through 
viewing, but for those who appear in the images as well. 

Participants 

Data Analysis 
Recruited through the extensive professional networks of the authors, as well as 
subsequent snowball sampling, a purposive yet convenient sample of sixteen criminal justice 
professionals (11 women and 5 men) participated in interviews ranging from approximately 45 

– 120 minutes in length. Inclusion criteria were employment in the criminal justice system and 
experience engaging with video evidence of violent crimes. Seven participants were members 
of large urban or national policing organizations, six of whom were detectives, supervising, or 
senior officers with investigative experience and one of whom was a civilian analyst (coded P###). 
Eight participants were members of the legal profession including prosecuting attorneys, 
defense counsel, a law clerk, a court reporter and a judge (coded LP-###). One individual was a 
forensic mental health professional (coded FMH-###). Years of practice ranged from 4.5 years 
to over 50, with all participants suggesting that recent technological advances and the 
accompanying ubiquitous use of recording devices had radically altered the landscape of the 
criminal justice system with significant increases in exposure to potentially traumatic content. 
We documented experiences with videoed violence drawing on an affective-discursive 

psychosocial approach (Wetherell, 2012) to understand affecting episodes, embodied 
experiences and emergent relational patterns of practice in the transmission of affect 
(Wetherell, 2013, 2015), in this case, the trauma of others. Through our interviews, we 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

captured salient affective processes of viewing, listening, and sharing videoed violence. For 
instance, given the detail, atmosphere, and intimacy transmitted through the audio-visual 
(Kyriakidou, 2015), we considered how image, sound, repetition, and transmission are all 
affective dynamics that can help us understand how video creates an embodied sense of 
thereness with potentially traumatic ripple effects for professionals, victims and survivors, as 
well as the general public. 

The interviews were professionally transcribed verbatim for line-by-line micro-analysis. 
Open, axial and selective coding as typically used in grounded theory was employed to further 
determine germane categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Once interviewing and transcribing 
had begun, constant comparison method was used throughout coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). 
Each author individually coded a portion of the interviews to establish preliminary analytic 
focuses and categories such as the ubiquity, sources, quality, and importance of video evidence, 
how it is managed throughout the criminal justice system, the nature and context of viewing, 
symptoms, effects, and reactions to viewing. We then together examined the coded interviews 
which both established agreement and provided opportunity to discuss and revise differences. 
Axial coding was then used to determine the inter-relationships between categories and 
selective coding built and clarified concepts and helped to integrate and refine the emerging 
theory according to the perspectives of criminal justice professionals (Birks & Mills, 2015; 
Corbin & Strauss, 2008). As an iterative and reflexive practice, coding is context dependent, 

never complete and never reaches a fixed endpoint (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Nevertheless, we 
aimed to demonstrate saturation and conceptual rigor through our emergent conceptual 
development and theoretical explanations of the current data (Low, 2019). 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

Results 

Video evidence of violent crime is highly valued by criminal justice professionals due to 
its perceived objective, reliable, predictable, and compelling nature. As a result, it is often 

preferred over victim or witness testimony and other more traditional forms of evidence. For 
instance, participants generally believed – as exemplified by the statement of this judge – that 
“[victim and witness] perceptions might not be accurate and their memories might not be 
accurate. Occasionally, they might actually not be telling the truth” (LP-208). Whereas video 
evidence is perceived as “more real, because it shows you exactly what happened…and it’s 
certainly different than a witness recounting what happened, because if you’re the trier of fact, 
whether a juror or judge, you don’t have to sort of picture it in your mind as you’re listening to 
the witness describe it. You can actually see it with your own eyes...And it’s fixed in time” (LP-
208). One police investigator stated, “video was obviously the best evidence…How can you 
dispute what you’re actually seeing being recreated?” (P-104). Lawyers concurred that video 
evidence is now preferred over written statements and witness testimony because it is viewed 
as a “much less biased or less fallible source of testimony” (LP-206). This lawyer adds “[V]ideo 
evidence…can be incredibly powerful evidence. Just filling in gaps where a person either 
because of perception, they just simply couldn’t see something, or because of memory, they 
might not be able to remember something, it can fill in those gaps.” Further, video evidence is 
seen to be effective precisely because of its ability to evoke affective witnessing as one lawyer 
stated: “We rely on it … to sort of put you in the shoes of the participants” (LP-206). 
Nevertheless, while video evidence may be viewed to serve the interests of justice, 
participants in this study also noted risks associated with the repeated transmission of these 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

“profoundly, emotionally generating” sounds and images (FMH-301) in terms of their potential 
for trauma contagion or the spread and expansion of trauma from individual to individual 
across time and place (Coddington, 2017). Categories arising from our discussions with 

participants are generally organized by circumstances of exposure over time, paying particular 
attention to the relational aspects of the affecting episodes, including whether they were 
occasions of individual or collective witnessing, and the associated impacts: playback in the 
investigative and pre-trial process; sharing videos among colleagues; playing videos for victims, 
witnesses, and families; and transmission in the broader public. 
Figure 1 visually represents the mobility and transmission of trauma through the 
reverberations of each playback. Video is created at the time of the crime, enters the justice 
system, is viewed and analyzed by criminal justice professionals, is potentially shared with 
colleagues for various reasons, is reviewed with victims, witnesses and families as part of the 
justice process, and is eventually broadcast in open court and/or to the broader public. 
[insert figure 1 about here] 

Figure 1: The relational dynamics that keep affective witnessing active and how they support 
the mobility of trauma through repeated exposures in criminal justice processes involving 
violent video evidence 
Affective witnessing during investigative and criminal justice processes 
According to participants, there were unique elements to engaging with videos 
compared to other forms of evidence, including whether they were viewing the video alone or 
with others. The close and repeated playback of videos, throughout their mobilization within 
the criminal justice system, was seen as increasing the risks associated with the work. For 
Figure 1: The relational dynamics that keep affective witnessing active and how they support 
the mobility of trauma through repeated exposures in criminal justice processes involving 
violent video evidence 
Affective witnessing during investigative and criminal justice processes 
According to participants, there were unique elements to engaging with videos 
compared to other forms of evidence, including whether they were viewing the video alone or 
with others. The close and repeated playback of videos, throughout their mobilization within 
the criminal justice system, was seen as increasing the risks associated with the work. For 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

instance, an officer reflects “You could flip through a dozen pictures really easily and get a 

sense of what’s going on. But the video, you have to immerse yourself in and sit there 
and watch it…and you have to be more attentive to viewing it.” (P-104). A senior officer 
describes the work of those in the forensic video analysis unit who “highlights it, cuts it, pastes 

11 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

it, looks at it, dissects it, sees if they can clean it up…they’ll look at it over and over and over 
again...” and later continues to describe a similar level of engagement with video evidence in 
other units; “The same with child exploitation, they watch images. I can’t tell you how many 
times they watch it over and over and over and over again.” (P-101). 

Regardless of the content and volumes of video evidence, those responsible for its 
investigative and legal analysis often spoke of intimately engaging with the images and sounds 
so that the scenes unfolding in front of them might become “second nature”. A senior officer 
suggests “if you have a shooting and you have two people that walk up to the person and shoot 
them, then you’re going to watch it over and over and over again to pick out dress, maybe a 
limp. You’re going to watch it so that it becomes sort of second nature to you,” (P-101). 
Similarly, an assistant crown attorney notes “the reality of the situation is, to pick up on key 
details which you need to use at trial, you have to watch it numerous times frame by 
frame…and in slow motion and intently…then you want to pick up on even maybe the stickers 
on the shoes…where somebody is getting kicked in the head, you’ve got to look at that frame a 
number of times and you want it to be really detailed. So, you’re really, really focused in on 
it.” (LP-205). While an assistant crown attorney suggests that “the first initial reaction is 
probably the worst one…[because] you know that this image is going to be captured in your 
brain” (LP-205), an analyst in national security believes the experiences and associated risks 
shift with each viewing. “There is some risk associated to watching repeated violent 

videos…something could result that maybe watching something for the tenth time hits you a bit 
differently.” (P-105). Whereas the “vicarious witnessing” of traumatic events discussed by Keats 
(2005) is “pieced together from images, stories, and physical artifacts” (p. 175) that encourage 


(Doughty & Drozdzewski, 2022; Hemsworth, 2016), in addition to repeatedly viewing moving 
images, participants also spoke of the combination of image and sound as a cumulative 
element of risk. First, a senior officer suggests of videos that don’t include sound; “we’re almost 
vicarious, looking at it in a video. It’s kind of fishbowl-ish”, acknowledging the missing 
information when you cannot hear what is happening inside. This officer then adds “But when 
you’re listening to somebody and you’re listening to their voice, you assign it to an actual 
human…[and]…You don’t have to guess at what it sounded like as that person was dying” (P-
101). An investigator, in discussing videoed violence also suggests, “or even hearing it on a 
phone is far more impactful...because of course it’s the emotion, it’s the words that are used, 
it’s the state of the victim” (IDP106). A legal professional concurs; “But videos, they’re moving 
pictures…and voices, and all the dots are connected. When you look at a photo, there’s no 
voice” and notably adds, “You can’t treat it like every other case that doesn’t have that element 
in it…I really think our brains just process it so differently” (LP-207). A number of participants 
suggested that when image and sound were combined, sound is what had the most lasting 
impacts. For instance, a forensic mental health professional tasked with analysing video of 
(Doughty & Drozdzewski, 2022; Hemsworth, 2016), in addition to repeatedly viewing moving 
images, participants also spoke of the combination of image and sound as a cumulative 
element of risk. First, a senior officer suggests of videos that don’t include sound; “we’re almost 
vicarious, looking at it in a video. It’s kind of fishbowl-ish”, acknowledging the missing 
information when you cannot hear what is happening inside. This officer then adds “But when 
you’re listening to somebody and you’re listening to their voice, you assign it to an actual 
human…[and]…You don’t have to guess at what it sounded like as that person was dying” (P-
101). An investigator, in discussing videoed violence also suggests, “or even hearing it on a 
phone is far more impactful...because of course it’s the emotion, it’s the words that are used, 
it’s the state of the victim” (IDP106). A legal professional concurs; “But videos, they’re moving 
pictures…and voices, and all the dots are connected. When you look at a photo, there’s no 
voice” and notably adds, “You can’t treat it like every other case that doesn’t have that element 
in it…I really think our brains just process it so differently” (LP-207). A number of participants 
suggested that when image and sound were combined, sound is what had the most lasting 
impacts. For instance, a forensic mental health professional tasked with analysing video of 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

viewers to imaginatively reconstruct the experiences of others, participants in this study spoke 
of immersing themselves in videoed events as less vicarious, more tenable and embodied 
“affecting episodes” (Wetherell, 2015). 

As sound also enables emotional connection with other individuals and contexts 

repeated sexual assault and torture found; “The worst thing for me was the audio…it was either 
the despair in their voice and sometimes the audio combined with the emotional distress…that 
I just couldn’t tolerate” (FMH-301). A law clerk similarly finds, “It was the sounds. The sounds, 


was also evident in participant descriptions and inevitably led to collective acts of witnessing in 
this criminal justice context. For example, an investigator describes the initially individual 
recurrent viewing of video in a violent sexual assault and continues to eventually describe it’s 
collective viewing; “[I] watched it at the time, and then a few years later once it came to court, 
and then it resurfacing again, I had to watch it all over again just to refresh my memory and be 
ready for trial, at which time then I sat down with the jury and watched it with them again” (P-
102). Similarly, other legal professionals also described repeated viewing across extended 
periods of time, including during the court proceedings. One crown attorney noted “because of 
the issues in a case, unfortunately you just have to review the video multiple times even in that 
sort of a public forum...you might view…the video a dozen times with one witness on the stand 
in a day, going back and forth and back and forth.” (LP-206). 
While the potential trauma associated with repeated viewing for those employed in the 
criminal justice system was at times recognized by participants, others focussed on new risks to 
jurors and the public and wondered to what extent, if any, precautions were possible. For 
instance, the proliferation of video evidence of violent crime has added new forms of collective 
was also evident in participant descriptions and inevitably led to collective acts of witnessing in 
this criminal justice context. For example, an investigator describes the initially individual 
recurrent viewing of video in a violent sexual assault and continues to eventually describe it’s 
collective viewing; “[I] watched it at the time, and then a few years later once it came to court, 
and then it resurfacing again, I had to watch it all over again just to refresh my memory and be 
ready for trial, at which time then I sat down with the jury and watched it with them again” (P-
102). Similarly, other legal professionals also described repeated viewing across extended 
periods of time, including during the court proceedings. One crown attorney noted “because of 
the issues in a case, unfortunately you just have to review the video multiple times even in that 
sort of a public forum...you might view…the video a dozen times with one witness on the stand 
in a day, going back and forth and back and forth.” (LP-206). 
While the potential trauma associated with repeated viewing for those employed in the 
criminal justice system was at times recognized by participants, others focussed on new risks to 
jurors and the public and wondered to what extent, if any, precautions were possible. For 
instance, the proliferation of video evidence of violent crime has added new forms of collective 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

the voices, are what stayed with me the longest. The voices…it was there for you and you could 
not get rid of it” (IDLP204). 

In addition to repeated listening and viewing during initial investigations or case 

preparation – which was often an intimate individual act of witnessing –, protracted reviewing 

affective witnessing of events for jurors. An assistant crown attorney suggests “for a jury who is 
not trained in doing that, they come in and see stuff...I do think that people are generally naïve 
as to what actually happens on the streets of the city. Unless you’re somehow connected to 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

the criminal justice system, I don’t think people know how bad things actually can be.” (LP-203). 
Nevertheless, an attorney suggests, “Where the video was relevant, it has to be played in court 
no matter what because, it’s relevant evidence and the jury needs to see it in order to make a 
proper determination of the case.” 
open.” (IDLPLP-206). 
(LP-201). Further, a judge acknowledges “the general 
proposition is we do things in public. I’m sorry that that causes distress, but it’s inherent in our 
system.” (LP-208). 

Further, the investment in technological advances designed to magnify public 
engagement in an open court system extends collective affective witnessing beyond the 
courtroom and into the realm of the public. A judge states “almost never is anything shown in a 
trial to a jury that isn’t seen by the public…a lot of our courtrooms…have huge screens mounted 
on the walls just so members of the public can watch the same video that all the jurors and 
counsel and judge are watching on their individual monitors. And that’s all because they’re just 
as much entitled to see it as we are. As I say, there is that clash between the openness 
principle and trying to protect people from seeing things that are highly disturbing.” (LP-208). A 
prosecuting attorney concurs and adds “[I]t’s played in an open courtroom…and I’ve never had 
a case where I’ve had a courtroom that’s sealed, so in my experience the courtroom is always 

Participants’ descriptions of the collective affective witnessing that is inherent to open 
justice processes exemplified the relational aspects of traumatization. For example, an 

investigator describes “the jury also watched the numerous hours of video while I sat on the 
stand quietly just taking in their reaction too. That also stayed with me. It had a lingering 
effect, I think, more so than me actually watching the video itself, only because they’re not 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

privy, or they’re not exposed to these sorts of things. And I just really felt for the whole jury 
sitting there also having to watch this for the court process. Yeah, that bit was challenging” (P102). 
This type of trauma “meta-witnessing” by the investigator and others who had previously 
viewed the video becomes a “self-reflexive practice of witnessing the affects involved in 
witnessing itself” (Schankweiler, 2020, p. 254), where the reaction of naïve jurors intensifies the 
impact of the original recording, in an affective feedback loop including the mediated event and 
courtroom actors. 

Uncritical and extraneous affective witnessing with colleagues 

Criminal justice professionals shared a number of workplace circumstances that worked 
to motivate the sharing of potentially traumatic video evidence outside the general bounds of 
investigative and legal practices. Whether out of curiosity, shock, or support, participants spoke 
of indiscriminate viewing and sharing of violent videos as a common occurrence, often not 
without consequences. A supervising officer suggests a potentially harmful “morbid curiosity” 
within the profession of policing. “I think when presented with an opportunity to look at 
something that could be very bothersome or troublesome, I think 99% of police officers are 
going to have a look, even if they don’t need to…assault, aggravated assault, stabbings, 
sometimes shootings. Is anybody going to say, oh, I think it’s better I don’t look at 
that? No. Everybody’s looking.” (P-107). Another investigator suggests a similar curiosity with 
potentially harmful effects; “people are curious sometimes. Sometimes they catch wind of a 
case or something that happened in a certain division, and they have no association to it…And 
they’ll go into the case and take a look at it, or try to view the video which is, of course, 
oftentimes the most impactful thing to look at.” (P-102). 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

At times the motivation to share and seek out videos was to “assist” with investigations 
for which other officers or legal professionals were responsible. A senior officer asserts “I can 
tell you people watch stuff all the time. Share it, watch it...Can I see that?...You will see a group 
of 15 people sitting around a desk watching it...And they don’t do it to watch gore...It’s 
different for us...It’s to inform…They want to consume it to see if they can assist the 
investigation” (P-101). This same senior officer then states “There is no governance on who 
sees what” (P-101). A supervising officer also notes the unrestricted travel of images across 
investigative units. For example, “there was this kid, a teenager, that was…attacked brutally 
here in the city. And it was being investigated by the [investigative unit] that worked right next 
to us. And so, we saw the videos…it might just be whoever happens to be in the office, who 
hears it playing. It’s like, oh, I heard you’ve got a video, let me see if I can recognise anybody” 
(P-107). An attorney similarly suggests “we rely on each other for colleagues’ opinions. I am 
a fairly junior Crown…so I frequently am having people view exactly what I’m viewing to try and 
assist me in assessing a case or assessing a particular issue...So you have colleagues there to 
assist you when you’re looking at something that might be disturbing” (LP-206). Notably, at 
times participants also reported being encouraged to view particularly difficult video evidence 
with colleagues as a means of mitigating or diffusing the potentially traumatic effects. For 
example, a legal professional describes “this is more to do with the child pornography 
element...There was talk within our team, watch it with someone else if you can…It was pretty 

much, look at it as little as possible, watching it with someone else can make it easier, and don’t 
eat while you’re doing it” (LP-205). 


where people say, hey, come over, you’ve got to see this, it’s really bad…And it may be that the 
person calls you over to view it because they’re so taken aback by it that they maybe just want 
to see somebody else’s reaction to it” (P-104). An assistant crown attorney similarly suggests 
the desire to share the experience of shock that occurs with some novel videos. “There are just 
times where we see things that are just pretty shocking, I guess, and generally 
speaking, when you see something, you usually call over a colleague where it’s really something 
that you haven’t seen before” (LP-206). Such “meta-witnessing” can again be understood as a 
self-reflexive practice of observing the affective reactions of colleagues, thereby potentially 
intensifying the traumatic impact of the video and expanding trauma’s contagion. 
These forms of collective affective witnessing came with consequences for 
professionals. For example, an attorney explains “when somebody tells you about a case, you 
visualize it or you watch the video, so you take it on...It’s definitely vicarious from talking to 
your colleagues...now a fatigue has set in where I’ve become very apprehensive about viewing 
anything unnecessarily…for the most part, I won’t look at their videos, just because I have no 
interest and I just don’t want to be exposed to it anymore” (LP-205). Here, uncritical and 
where people say, hey, come over, you’ve got to see this, it’s really bad…And it may be that the 
person calls you over to view it because they’re so taken aback by it that they maybe just want 
to see somebody else’s reaction to it” (P-104). An assistant crown attorney similarly suggests 
the desire to share the experience of shock that occurs with some novel videos. “There are just 
times where we see things that are just pretty shocking, I guess, and generally 
speaking, when you see something, you usually call over a colleague where it’s really something 
that you haven’t seen before” (LP-206). Such “meta-witnessing” can again be understood as a 
self-reflexive practice of observing the affective reactions of colleagues, thereby potentially 
intensifying the traumatic impact of the video and expanding trauma’s contagion. 
These forms of collective affective witnessing came with consequences for 
professionals. For example, an attorney explains “when somebody tells you about a case, you 
visualize it or you watch the video, so you take it on...It’s definitely vicarious from talking to 
your colleagues...now a fatigue has set in where I’ve become very apprehensive about viewing 
anything unnecessarily…for the most part, I won’t look at their videos, just because I have no 
interest and I just don’t want to be exposed to it anymore” (LP-205). Here, uncritical and 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

Others demonstrated a motivation for seeing the reactions of unsuspecting viewers in 
their seeking out collective affective witnessing episodes. A senior officer explains “sometimes 
there’s a thought that you want to show people that video. I know that I’ve had the experience 

unnecessary exposures can be seen as “compounding and binding together sometimes 

unrelated life traumas” (Coddington, 2017, p. 66), where multiple affective episodes are 
interpolated in the bodies of workers (Wetherell, 2015). 

Affective witnessing of the retraumatization of victims 


of the events, and impending case resolutions, but were always episodes of collective 
witnessing. In many cases, however, playing the video evidence provided new information for 
victims and witnesses, creating new potentially traumatic experiences and memories. For 
example, a senior officer explains “we have the women [who] are intoxicated at the time of the 
sexual assault, have no memory of the sexual assault because they’ve ingested something else, 
a narcotic, and then we have to actually play it for them and have them adopt that that in fact 
is them. So, those are really hard things.” (P-101). This same officer then provides a specific 
example and the difficulty with this decision during the investigative process. “We have a 
victim, we found her sexual assault on his phone. She has no memory of it. So, the ethical 
dilemma is when do you show this to them?” An attorney similarly suggests “I’ve had 
people who have been really terribly assaulted and it’s captured on video…I think for 
both witnesses and victims, there are always things on the video that they didn’t notice or they 
didn’t remember until they see the video. So, it can be triggering and it may very well be 
negative.” (LP-206). This attorney also suggests “I can imagine that for complainants and 
witnesses who have to constantly be re-exposed to violent video evidence while they’re 
of the events, and impending case resolutions, but were always episodes of collective 
witnessing. In many cases, however, playing the video evidence provided new information for 
victims and witnesses, creating new potentially traumatic experiences and memories. For 
example, a senior officer explains “we have the women [who] are intoxicated at the time of the 
sexual assault, have no memory of the sexual assault because they’ve ingested something else, 
a narcotic, and then we have to actually play it for them and have them adopt that that in fact 
is them. So, those are really hard things.” (P-101). This same officer then provides a specific 
example and the difficulty with this decision during the investigative process. “We have a 
victim, we found her sexual assault on his phone. She has no memory of it. So, the ethical 
dilemma is when do you show this to them?” An attorney similarly suggests “I’ve had 
people who have been really terribly assaulted and it’s captured on video…I think for 
both witnesses and victims, there are always things on the video that they didn’t notice or they 
didn’t remember until they see the video. So, it can be triggering and it may very well be 
negative.” (LP-206). This attorney also suggests “I can imagine that for complainants and 
witnesses who have to constantly be re-exposed to violent video evidence while they’re 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

For various reasons, victims, witnesses, and family members may be presented with the 
video evidence of the victimization in question at any point throughout the criminal justice 
process. Investigative and legal decisions to show victims were sometimes predicated on video 
ownership, identification practices, ethical considerations related to the victims’ age or memory 

testifying, I know that that can be very retraumatizing. Even if they only have to view it once 
when you’re preparing them for trial and then it winds up being a guilty plea, it’s still very 
traumatizing” (LP-206). 


usually stay with them, with the officer, and we’re usually in a room sometimes with a 
victim witness worker…So, in those contexts we sit, we all watch the video, and sometimes I’ll 
have to play it multiple times to be able to identify areas where a witness is going to be 
expected to have questions asked of them” (LP-206). This meta-witnessing with those involved 
in the original trauma further reverberates the suffering captured on video as victims 
(re)experience events. For example, an assistant crown attorney recalls of these moments and 
cases as “the ones that stayed” (LP-203). She recalls, “I have the videos of...the sexual violence 
and then I have the real witness that I have to show that to and have her describe what 
happened…Those kinds of cases are the ones that stayed” and then adds “for the homicide 
type cases, those videos were always hard because I knew I had to show the family…no one 
prepares you to sit down and have to show a family their child or the family member on a video 
either being killed or have their body there…It’s just having to deal with a live witness or a 
family and then having to explain that to them and deal with that with them.” This attorney 
speaks extensively about the idea that viewing video evidence of violent crimes with victims 
and witnesses is central to the traumatic impact that cases have. “[T]he very first homicide I 
usually stay with them, with the officer, and we’re usually in a room sometimes with a 
victim witness worker…So, in those contexts we sit, we all watch the video, and sometimes I’ll 
have to play it multiple times to be able to identify areas where a witness is going to be 
expected to have questions asked of them” (LP-206). This meta-witnessing with those involved 
in the original trauma further reverberates the suffering captured on video as victims 
(re)experience events. For example, an assistant crown attorney recalls of these moments and 
cases as “the ones that stayed” (LP-203). She recalls, “I have the videos of...the sexual violence 
and then I have the real witness that I have to show that to and have her describe what 
happened…Those kinds of cases are the ones that stayed” and then adds “for the homicide 
type cases, those videos were always hard because I knew I had to show the family…no one 
prepares you to sit down and have to show a family their child or the family member on a video 
either being killed or have their body there…It’s just having to deal with a live witness or a 
family and then having to explain that to them and deal with that with them.” This attorney 
speaks extensively about the idea that viewing video evidence of violent crimes with victims 
and witnesses is central to the traumatic impact that cases have. “[T]he very first homicide I 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

An assistant crown attorney explicitly reminds us of the collective affective witnessing 
that occurs during this process and the eventual embodied trauma. “When I show those videos 
to a witness…it’s usually myself, the witness and a police officer…I try to prepare people 
for what it is that they’re about to see…just telling them that it’s a video that captures…Then I 

did…I had the responsibility of showing family the videos of her body in the apartment…I have 
another case…where he filmed every sexual act with his victim and those sorts of things 
sometimes rear their ugly head in your memory…And I think a part of that was because I was 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

the one that had to show them the videos with the officer” (LP-203). From this attorney, we can 
see that the experience of trauma and its mobility are profoundly relational, very much a 
process of the shared affecting episode and the collective witnessing and re-witnessing with the 
survivors of the original traumatic event. 

Uncontrolled mobility of trauma and affective witnessing in the broader public 

Not all video evidence of violent crime is originally created with private devices for 
private storage. Videos may immediately be shared on social media, other online platforms, 
from person to person, the media may gain access to video at any point, and others yet are 
produced precisely for mass distribution and collective public consumption. The occurrence or 
possibility of wider dissemination was of concern for those working directly with horrifically 
violent material. An analyst in national security well versed in extremist propaganda, suggested 
it wasn’t only the improved production quality of video that was concerning for its traumatic 
impact but also the “ability to make it accessible to people in a variety of countries in a variety 
of languages almost instantaneously” (P-105). Another senior officer in national security also 
noted the significance of video and its mobility; “his video was a really, really significant 
piece…he intended to go out and thought he was going to blow himself up and die, and this 
video would then be broadcast around the world for all the supporters” (P-103). 

Cases involving graphic video evidence draw further public and media attention to 
investigations and court proceedings. A senior officer suggests, “we’re very careful with what 
we show to the public…It’s to either have the public assist us in our case or to inform 
them…We’re not looking for secondary trauma, vicarious trauma. We talk about ethical 
decision-making all the time when it comes to what we release” (P-101). This same officer then 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

recalls a case involving hours of video concerning a violent sexual assault and efforts to limit 
access; “I asked to see a portion of it so I could articulate to the Crown attorney what…we 
needed…But other than that, nobody else was allowed to look at it, until of course the 

newspapers were able to gain access. The court allowed them to watch it. We had actually 
lobbied not to have them watch it.” (P-101). A legal professional similarly recalls of a 
particularly heinous case involving rape, torture and murder, that the media “lobbied heavily 
for access to the videotape” and then adds “I don’t know if that was necessary, to be honest...I 
feel like a written transcript would have been sufficient.” (LP-202). Another legal professional 
voices dismay for a victim whose image was shared by the media. “I don’t even know 
which media outlet it was that released this…before the trial even started it was out 
there…ultimately, very upsetting for this young girl” (LP-204). A judge suggests, however, 
“nowadays we rely to, I think, a larger extent on the discretion of the media that even if they 
want a copy of something, they won’t generally publish it because they also recognize that it’s 
not the thing to do…So, I think if there’s a graphic video of a murder for example, even if 
the media were to get a copy of it, I don’t think you would ever turn on the 6:00 news and see it 
played” (LP-208). 
Criminal justice professionals often voiced distress and their inherited sense of 
responsibility to act on the suffering of victims when discussing victims, survivors, and 
witnesses involved with the images, both throughout and beyond investigations and court 
proceedings. A legal professional explains “I was completely empathetic to families in that case 
who didn’t want a possibility that those videotapes would get in the hands of the media…they 
were worried that somehow it would get out.” (LP-202). A senior officer recalls “what she was 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

really worried about was that video was still going to be out there…she can never get that 
video off the internet. And that’s the struggle for us. And it’s difficult because you do want to 
protect her and see that this gets closure” (P-104). A legal professional involved with creating 
“laws to try to avoid that, to make sure that the people that disseminated that kind 
of information were not outside the boundaries of the law”, believed “that’s an evolving area 
that has to really be aware of the impact of those videotapes on the person who is videotaped.” 
(LP-202). 

Notably, media access and broader public dissemination of videos in general was 
challenging for participants – also limiting their ability to disconnect. A senior officer believes 
“when it was just part of our world, it was probably more manageable. But now it’s part of 
everybody’s world…now when I leave work, it’s there again…It’s on TV. It’s on the internet. It’s 
on the web. It’s everywhere.” (P-101). An investigator, singularly privy to the video evidence in 
a sexual assault investigation similarly describes how media access to the graphic video 
evidence during the trial came as an additional source of distress, because of its public release. 
“[O]nce the media who were also able to view some portions of it, or all of it…when they 
reported on some of the instances or some of the scenes, it was kind of strange because for so 
long, I’m pretty sure I was the only one that watched it from start to finish…So, it was almost 
like just something that I knew about…and then once the media started putting up portions of 
it…It was almost like other people were let in on the horrors of it…it was just so graphic.” (P


102). Here, the painful and embodied knowledge acquired through individually witnessing, 
analyzing, and becoming responsible to another’s trauma is at first experienced as an intimate 
and private affecting episode by the investigator, but then becomes a “profoundly 


reliable, those who work with it are now engaging with evidence of violent crime in novel ways. 
Findings from this qualitative examination suggest new forms of affective witnessing and an 
unprecedented emotional proximity to the traumatic experiences of others. In attending to the 
affective-discursive moments in interviews with criminal justice professionals as they described 
their encounters with video evidence of violent crime, we have identified several key categories 
that both serve to outline the varying circumstances of their encounters with video evidence, as 
well as the ways in which the mobility of trauma is supported through relational practices: 
playback in the investigative and pre-trial process; sharing videos among colleagues; playing 
videos for victims, witnesses, and families; and transmission in the broader public. The 
transmission of traumas captured on video have provided trauma with new mobility, thereby 
amplifying affective episodes and intensifying trauma contagion with each playback, whether 
an individual or collective act of witnessing. While the key categories are explicitly derived from 
the affective-discursive moments that arose from engaging with violent video evidence in a 
criminal justice context, we imagine the processes of viewing, analyzing, sharing, and 
witnessing the reactions of other viewers, are all affecting episodes that may occur in common 
reliable, those who work with it are now engaging with evidence of violent crime in novel ways. 
Findings from this qualitative examination suggest new forms of affective witnessing and an 
unprecedented emotional proximity to the traumatic experiences of others. In attending to the 
affective-discursive moments in interviews with criminal justice professionals as they described 
their encounters with video evidence of violent crime, we have identified several key categories 
that both serve to outline the varying circumstances of their encounters with video evidence, as 
well as the ways in which the mobility of trauma is supported through relational practices: 
playback in the investigative and pre-trial process; sharing videos among colleagues; playing 
videos for victims, witnesses, and families; and transmission in the broader public. The 
transmission of traumas captured on video have provided trauma with new mobility, thereby 
amplifying affective episodes and intensifying trauma contagion with each playback, whether 
an individual or collective act of witnessing. While the key categories are explicitly derived from 
the affective-discursive moments that arose from engaging with violent video evidence in a 
criminal justice context, we imagine the processes of viewing, analyzing, sharing, and 
witnessing the reactions of other viewers, are all affecting episodes that may occur in common 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 
intersubjective experience” through a painfully public and revealing collective encounter as the 
event is transmitted and witnessed en masse (Rossmanith, 2015, p. 172). 

Discussion 

Given the increasing pervasiveness and dependence on video as highly objective and 

in other contexts. Human rights abuse workers, social media or online content moderators, and 
journalists, for example, may practice and experience the witnessing of recorded traumatic 


embodying events as “second nature”. Whereas “vicarious witnessing” traditionally 
conceptualizes the witnessing of events as occurring through the imagination – by assembling 
abstract information such as stories and physical artifacts to create a representation of the 
event (Keats, 2005) – we found video evidence of violent crime may prevent viewers from 
experiencing safer, more abstract semblances of past events. These videos do represent real 
events and possess “the unique tangibility of a real moment captured in material form” (Biber, 
2013, p. 1040). Accordingly, rather than “imagining what it would be like to be in their shoes” 
(Coddington, 2017, p. 68), video evidence of violent crime immortalizes actual events and 
amplifies aspects of trauma that might have otherwise been fleeting, imperceptible or 
unknowable, by “put[ting] you in the shoes of the participants”. The experience of trauma 
through affective witnessing of video evidence of violent crime is one relational dynamic that 
keeps witnessing active, thus expanding the mobility of trauma, its reach and potential impacts. 
Within psychology, the trauma film paradigm provides several lines of evidence of the 
posttraumatic effects of watching distressing films (Arnaudova & Hagenaars, 2017; Holmes & 
Bourne, 2008; James et al., 2016) that are relevant for the criminal justice context. For instance, 
embodying events as “second nature”. Whereas “vicarious witnessing” traditionally 
conceptualizes the witnessing of events as occurring through the imagination – by assembling 
abstract information such as stories and physical artifacts to create a representation of the 
event (Keats, 2005) – we found video evidence of violent crime may prevent viewers from 
experiencing safer, more abstract semblances of past events. These videos do represent real 
events and possess “the unique tangibility of a real moment captured in material form” (Biber, 
2013, p. 1040). Accordingly, rather than “imagining what it would be like to be in their shoes” 
(Coddington, 2017, p. 68), video evidence of violent crime immortalizes actual events and 
amplifies aspects of trauma that might have otherwise been fleeting, imperceptible or 
unknowable, by “put[ting] you in the shoes of the participants”. The experience of trauma 
through affective witnessing of video evidence of violent crime is one relational dynamic that 
keeps witnessing active, thus expanding the mobility of trauma, its reach and potential impacts. 
Within psychology, the trauma film paradigm provides several lines of evidence of the 
posttraumatic effects of watching distressing films (Arnaudova & Hagenaars, 2017; Holmes & 
Bourne, 2008; James et al., 2016) that are relevant for the criminal justice context. For instance, 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

events in similar ways (Baker et al., 2020; Breslow, 2018; Pinchevski, 2022; Weidmann & 
Papsdorf, 2010). 

The processes of investigative and pre-trial analysis of video reported by participants 

centred on close examination and repeated viewing to notice and memorize details, eventually 

repeated exposures to trauma videos (Badawi et al., 2020; James et al., 2015) as well as very 
close viewing for critical information gathering using local – rather than general global – 
processing of intricate details (Hagenaars et al., 2016) may both lead to greater posttraumatic 


2022; Streb et al., 2017), increasing the risk for secondary trauma when the audio content 
involves the traumatic experiences of others (Etherington, 2007; Kiyimba & O’Reilly, 2016). For 
instance, previous research on the stressful aspects of 911 communications (emergency call-
taking and dispatch) suggests that voice work in high trauma exposure settings may also lead to 
the embodiment of distant others’ trauma, even without the presence of moving images (Birze, 
Paradis, et al., 2022). As has been previously reported by our team, the repeated viewing of 
video evidence of violent crimes can, not only re-victimize the actual victim(s) depicted in the 
images (Regehr et al., 2021), but it can also result in profound traumatic responses as the 
experiences of others are embodied by the viewer(Birze, Regehr, et al., 2022b). 
The inclination to share video among colleagues not directly involved in cases was also 
apparent. Whereas talking about and sharing experiences of vicarious affective witnessing may 
lead to a diffusion or dispersion of posttraumatic stress responses among groups (Keats, 2005), 
regular exposure to videos from colleagues was at times experienced as distressing. 
Accordingly, in some situations there was only so much trauma dispersion that could occur 
before teams and individuals could no longer “take it on”. Indeed, and in line with the trauma 
2022; Streb et al., 2017), increasing the risk for secondary trauma when the audio content 
involves the traumatic experiences of others (Etherington, 2007; Kiyimba & O’Reilly, 2016). For 
instance, previous research on the stressful aspects of 911 communications (emergency call-
taking and dispatch) suggests that voice work in high trauma exposure settings may also lead to 
the embodiment of distant others’ trauma, even without the presence of moving images (Birze, 
Paradis, et al., 2022). As has been previously reported by our team, the repeated viewing of 
video evidence of violent crimes can, not only re-victimize the actual victim(s) depicted in the 
images (Regehr et al., 2021), but it can also result in profound traumatic responses as the 
experiences of others are embodied by the viewer(Birze, Regehr, et al., 2022b). 
The inclination to share video among colleagues not directly involved in cases was also 
apparent. Whereas talking about and sharing experiences of vicarious affective witnessing may 
lead to a diffusion or dispersion of posttraumatic stress responses among groups (Keats, 2005), 
regular exposure to videos from colleagues was at times experienced as distressing. 
Accordingly, in some situations there was only so much trauma dispersion that could occur 
before teams and individuals could no longer “take it on”. Indeed, and in line with the trauma 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

impacts such as higher levels of re-experiencing videoed images, or flashbacks. Furthermore, 
motion in facial expressions provides more emotional information to viewers, thus activating 
more emotion-specific brain regions (Trautmann et al., 2009), while the emotional information 
in audio recordings likely adds another layer of affective activation (Doughty & Drozdzewski, 

contagion work of Coddington (2017), viewing videos from colleagues’ potentially traumatic 
cases appeared to compound and bind together the multiple and persistent unrelated traumas, 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

thereby spreading and expanding “trauma’s mobility as it travels in and through bodies” 
(Coddington & Micieli-Voutsinas, 2017, p. 52). 

The affective witnessing our participants experienced was at times also accompanied by 

close and real encounters with those who bore witness to the original event and suffering. This 
additional direct encounter with once-distant sufferers appeared to amplify the magnitude of 
affective witnessing and its traumatic repercussions, through what might be considered an 
affective meta-witnessing episode. Having a “real” or “live” witness or naïve jury to review 
video with, proved to be a profoundly distressing experience where participants both watched 
the affective episode on video while simultaneously watching victims and witnesses live or 
“relive” their traumas in real-time. Their co-presence in the direct encounter, alongside their 
co-presence in a distant place of suffering presented a double bill for participants that then 
became “the ones that stayed”. 
Perhaps the sense of “thereness” described by Ellis (2009) as “an almost involuntary 
response to seeing lifelike moving images with synchronized sound” in part reflects the material 
changes that occur in the brain as we view emotionally charged audiovisual images or affecting 
episodes. The neurophysiology of vicarious stress and trauma offers insight into how the 
physiological resonance or contagion of trauma in each of the above circumstances might 
occur, at least in part (Dimitroff et al., 2017; Engert et al., 2019; White & Buchanan, 2016). 
Visual and auditory representations of another’s experiences may be transmitted between 
individuals and reproduced in witnesses via the mirror neuron system; neurons that discharge 
during both first-person execution of an action and when observing that action executed by 
another, leading to an embodied simulation of another’s experience (Engert et al., 2019; 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

Iacoboni, 2009). In other words, “we might empathically share the states of others because 
seeing their states triggers representations of corresponding states in our brain” (Keysers & 
Gazzola, 2009, p. 666). Thus, through the triggering of the mirror neuron system across multiple 
brain regions, when immersed in others’ traumatic experiences, observers are suggested to 
“explicitly share the target’s stress response”, including the emotional bodily states of victims 
captured on video (Engert et al., 2019, p. 139; Keysers & Gazzola, 2009). This mechanism of 
trauma contagion has been proposed for mental health clinicians experiencing vicarious 
traumatization and secondary traumatic stress as a result of their empathically engaged work 
with victims of trauma (Isobel & Angus-Leppan, 2018; Rasmussen & Bliss, 2014). 

Conclusion 

The “perpetual visibility” and audibility of these real moments are what allow trauma to 
travel in, through, and between bodies, across space and time with alarming ease (Biber, 2017, 

p. 19). Indeed, the rapid pace of technological advance and exponential production and 
transmissibility of video has far outpaced organizational awareness, preparedness and response 
(Dodge et al., 2019; Kimpel, 2021), suggesting the need for improved understanding of safety 
measures (Birze, Regehr, et al., 2022a; Regehr et al., 2022). Furthermore, while the criminal 
justice system has no control over the sharing of videos released under freedom of information 
applications and other forms of public transmission, an emerging jurisprudence of sensitivity 
(Biber, 2013; Birze, Regehr, et al., 2022b; Regehr et al., 2022) appeals to criminal justice actors 
to consider the mobility of trauma in a way that recognizes both the short and long-term 
impact of every playback for every viewer. As Katherine Biber has described in her analysis of 

Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

technological advances in visual evidence in the context of justice, “[t]his new visibility, the 
ability to see [and hear] secrets, demands a sensitive response” (Biber, 2015, p. 237). 



Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

References 

Arnaudova, I., & Hagenaars, M. A. (2017). Lights… action: Comparison of trauma films for use in 
the trauma film paradigm. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 93, 67-77. 

Badawi, A., Berle, D., Rogers, K., & Steel, Z. (2020). Do cognitive tasks reduce intrusive-memory 
frequency after exposure to analogue trauma? An experimental replication. Clinical 
Psychological Science, 8(3), 569-583. 

Baker, E., Stover, E., Haar, R., Lampros, A., & Koenig, A. (2020). Safer Viewing: A Study of 
Secondary Trauma Mitigation Techniques in Open Source Investigations. Health and 
Human Rights, 22(1), 293. 

Bens, J. (2020). Affective Witnessing in the Courtroom. Parallax, 26(3), 271-285. 

Biber, K. (2013). In Crime’s Archive: The Cultural Afterlife of Criminal Evidence. The British 
journal of criminology, 53, 1033-1049. 

Biber, K. (2015). Open secrets, open justice. In Secrecy, Law and Society (pp. 234-250). 
Routledge. 

Biber, K. (2017). Law, evidence and representation. In M. Brown & E. Carrabine (Eds.), 

Routledge International Handbook of Visual Criminology (pp. 13-22). Routledge. 

Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Sage. 

Birze, A., Paradis, E., LeBlanc, V., Regehr, C., & Einstein, G. (2022). Gender in the Flesh: 

Emotional Labour, Gender Conformity, and Allostatic Load in Police Communicators. 

Work, employment and society. 

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170221080388 

Birze, A., Regehr, C., & Regehr, K. (2022a). Organizational support for the potentially traumatic 
impact of video evidence of violent crime in the criminal justice system: ‘We’re almost 
making more victims’. International Review of Victimology, OnlineFirst. 

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/02697580221112436 

Birze, A., Regehr, K., & Regehr, C. (2022b). Workplace trauma in a digital age: the impact of 
video evidence of violent crime on criminal justice professionals. Journal of 
interpersonal violence, 08862605221090571. 

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a 
useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative research in 
sport, exercise and health, 13(2), 201-216. 

Breslow, J. (2018). Moderating the ‘worst of humanity’: sexuality, witnessing, and the digital life 
of coloniality. Porn Studies, 5(3), 225-240. 

Brookman, F., & Jones, H. (2021). Capturing killers: the construction of CCTV evidence during 
homicide investigations. Policing and Society, 1-20. 

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and Constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. 
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 523-544). Sage. 

Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. Handbook of emergent methods, 
155, 172. 

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Sage. 

Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative 
Research in Psychology, 18(3), 305-327. 


Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 
Coddington, K. (2017). Contagious trauma: Reframing the spatial mobility of trauma within 
advocacy work. Emotion, Space and Society, 24, 66-73. 
Coddington, K., & Micieli-Voutsinas, J. (2017). On trauma, geography, and mobility: towards 
geographies of trauma. Emotion, space and society., 24, 52-56. 
Cook, P. J., Berglund, A., & Triano, M. (2021). More and better video evidence for police 
investigations of shootings: Chicago's area technology centers. Policing: An International 
Journal. 
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for 
developing grounded theory. Sage Publications Inc. 
Cumiskey, K. M., & Hjorth, L. (2019). “I wish they could have answered their phones”: Mobile 
communication in mass shootings. Death studies, 43(7), 414-425. 
Dimitroff, S. J., Kardan, O., Necka, E. A., Decety, J., Berman, M. G., & Norman, G. J. (2017, 
2017/07/21). Physiological dynamics of stress contagion. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 6168. 
Dodge, A., Spencer, D., Ricciardelli, R., & Ballucci, D. (2019). “This isn’t your father’s police 
force”: Digital evidence in sexual assault investigations. Australian & New Zealand 
Journal of Criminology, 52(4), 499-515. 
Doughty, K., & Drozdzewski, D. (2022). Sonic methods, sonic affects. Emotion, Space and 
Society, 42. 
Drozdzewski, D., & Dominey-Howes, D. (2015). Research and trauma: Understanding the impact 
of traumatic content and places on the researcher. Emotion, Space and Society, 17, 17-
21. 
Ellis, J. (2009). What are we expected to feel? Witness, textuality and the audiovisual. Screen, 
50(1), 67-76. 
Engert, V., Linz, R., & Grant, J. A. (2019). Embodied stress: The physiological resonance of 
psychosocial stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 105, 138-146. 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 
Coddington, K. (2017). Contagious trauma: Reframing the spatial mobility of trauma within 
advocacy work. Emotion, Space and Society, 24, 66-73. 
Coddington, K., & Micieli-Voutsinas, J. (2017). On trauma, geography, and mobility: towards 
geographies of trauma. Emotion, space and society., 24, 52-56. 
Cook, P. J., Berglund, A., & Triano, M. (2021). More and better video evidence for police 
investigations of shootings: Chicago's area technology centers. Policing: An International 
Journal. 
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for 
developing grounded theory. Sage Publications Inc. 
Cumiskey, K. M., & Hjorth, L. (2019). “I wish they could have answered their phones”: Mobile 
communication in mass shootings. Death studies, 43(7), 414-425. 
Dimitroff, S. J., Kardan, O., Necka, E. A., Decety, J., Berman, M. G., & Norman, G. J. (2017, 
2017/07/21). Physiological dynamics of stress contagion. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 6168. 
Dodge, A., Spencer, D., Ricciardelli, R., & Ballucci, D. (2019). “This isn’t your father’s police 
force”: Digital evidence in sexual assault investigations. Australian & New Zealand 
Journal of Criminology, 52(4), 499-515. 
Doughty, K., & Drozdzewski, D. (2022). Sonic methods, sonic affects. Emotion, Space and 
Society, 42. 
Drozdzewski, D., & Dominey-Howes, D. (2015). Research and trauma: Understanding the impact 
of traumatic content and places on the researcher. Emotion, Space and Society, 17, 17-
21. 
Ellis, J. (2009). What are we expected to feel? Witness, textuality and the audiovisual. Screen, 
50(1), 67-76. 
Engert, V., Linz, R., & Grant, J. A. (2019). Embodied stress: The physiological resonance of 
psychosocial stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 105, 138-146. 
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.12.221 
Etherington, K. (2007). Working with traumatic stories: From transcriber to witness. 
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(2), 85-97. 
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative 
Research. Aldine de Gruyter. 
Hagenaars, M. A., Engelhard, I. M., & Putman, P. (2016). Eye for Detail: Local versus Global 
Visual Processing Style Predicts the Development of Re-experiencing after Analogue 
Trauma. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 7(3), 391-403. 
Hemsworth, K. (2016). ‘Feeling the range’: Emotional geographies of sound in prisons. Emotion, 
Space and Society, 20, 90-97. 
Hjorth, L., & Cumiskey, K. M. (2018). Mobiles facing death: Affective witnessing and the 
intimate companionship of devices. Cultural Studies Review, 24(2), 166-180. 
Holmes, E. A., & Bourne, C. (2008). Inducing and modulating intrusive emotional memories: A 
review of the trauma film paradigm. Acta psychologica, 127(3), 553-566. 
Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 
653-670. 
Isobel, S., & Angus-Leppan, G. (2018). Neuro-reciprocity and vicarious trauma in psychiatrists. 
Australasian Psychiatry, 26(4), 388-390. 

Kimpel, A. (2021). Violent Videos: Criminal Defense in a Digital Age. Georgia State University 
Law Review, 37(2), 1-68. 
Kiyimba, N., & O’Reilly, M. (2016). The risk of secondary traumatic stress in the qualitative 
transcription process: A research note. Qualitative Research, 16(4), 468-476. 
Kyriakidou, M. (2015). Media witnessing: Exploring the audience of distant suffering. Media, 
Culture & Society, 37(2), 215-231. 
Lietz, C. A., & Zayas, L. E. (2010). Evaluating qualitative research for social work practitioners. 
Advances in Social Work, 11(2), 188-202. 
Lindegaard, M. R., & Bernasco, W. (2018). Lessons learned from crime caught on camera. 
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55(1), 155-186. 
Low, J. (2019). A pragmatic definition of the concept of theoretical saturation. Sociological 
Focus, 52(2), 131-139. 
McCracken, G. (1988). The Long Interview. Sage Publications, Inc. 
McGrane, C., Hjorth, L., & Akama, Y. (2021). Careful attunements: the choreographing of care 
and affective witnessing through media practices during, and after, crisis. Media, Culture 
& Society, 01634437211040952. 
Peters, J. D. (2001). Witnessing. Media, Culture & Society, 23, 707-723. 
Philpot, R., Liebst, L. S., Møller, K. K., Lindegaard, M. R., & Levine, M. (2019). Capturing violence 
in the night-time economy: A review of established and emerging methodologies. 
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 46, 56-65. 
Pinchevski, A. (2022). Social media’s canaries: content moderators between digital labor and 
mediated trauma. Media, Culture & Society, 01634437221122226. 
Rasmussen, B., & Bliss, S. (2014). Beneath the surface: An exploration of neurobiological 
alterations in therapists working with trauma. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 
84(2-3), 332-349. 
Regehr, C., Regehr, K., & Birze, A. (2022). Traumatic residue, mediated remembering and video 
evidence of sexual violence: A case study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 
81, 101778. 
Kimpel, A. (2021). Violent Videos: Criminal Defense in a Digital Age. Georgia State University 
Law Review, 37(2), 1-68. 
Kiyimba, N., & O’Reilly, M. (2016). The risk of secondary traumatic stress in the qualitative 
transcription process: A research note. Qualitative Research, 16(4), 468-476. 
Kyriakidou, M. (2015). Media witnessing: Exploring the audience of distant suffering. Media, 
Culture & Society, 37(2), 215-231. 
Lietz, C. A., & Zayas, L. E. (2010). Evaluating qualitative research for social work practitioners. 
Advances in Social Work, 11(2), 188-202. 
Lindegaard, M. R., & Bernasco, W. (2018). Lessons learned from crime caught on camera. 
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55(1), 155-186. 
Low, J. (2019). A pragmatic definition of the concept of theoretical saturation. Sociological 
Focus, 52(2), 131-139. 
McCracken, G. (1988). The Long Interview. Sage Publications, Inc. 
McGrane, C., Hjorth, L., & Akama, Y. (2021). Careful attunements: the choreographing of care 
and affective witnessing through media practices during, and after, crisis. Media, Culture 
& Society, 01634437211040952. 
Peters, J. D. (2001). Witnessing. Media, Culture & Society, 23, 707-723. 
Philpot, R., Liebst, L. S., Møller, K. K., Lindegaard, M. R., & Levine, M. (2019). Capturing violence 
in the night-time economy: A review of established and emerging methodologies. 
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 46, 56-65. 
Pinchevski, A. (2022). Social media’s canaries: content moderators between digital labor and 
mediated trauma. Media, Culture & Society, 01634437221122226. 
Rasmussen, B., & Bliss, S. (2014). Beneath the surface: An exploration of neurobiological 
alterations in therapists working with trauma. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 
84(2-3), 332-349. 
Regehr, C., Regehr, K., & Birze, A. (2022). Traumatic residue, mediated remembering and video 
evidence of sexual violence: A case study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 
81, 101778. 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

James, E. L., Bonsall, M. B., Hoppitt, L., Tunbridge, E. M., Geddes, J. R., Milton, A. L., & Holmes, 

E. A. (2015). Computer game play reduces intrusive memories of experimental trauma 
via reconsolidation-update mechanisms. Psychological science, 26(8), 1201-1215. 
James, E. L., Lau-Zhu, A., Clark, I. A., Visser, R. M., Hagenaars, M. A., & Holmes, E. A. (2016). The 
trauma film paradigm as an experimental psychopathology model of psychological 
trauma: Intrusive memories and beyond. Clinical Psychology Review, 47, 106-142. 

Keats, P. A. (2005). Vicarious witnessing in European concentration camps: Imagining the 
trauma of another. Traumatology, 11(3), 171-187. 
Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2009). Expanding the mirror: vicarious activity for actions, emotions, 
and sensations. Current opinion in neurobiology, 19(6), 666-671. 

Regehr, K., Birze, A., & Regehr, C. (2021). Technology facilitated re-victimization: How video 
evidence of sexual violence contributes to mediated cycles of abuse. Crime, Media, 
Culture. 

Regehr, K., Regehr, C., & Glancy, G. (2019). Murder at the dinner table: family narratives of 
forensic mental health professionals. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 24(1), 31-49. 


How durable are they over time and does memory integration reduce them? Journal of 
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 57, 88-95. 
Trautmann, S. A., Fehr, T., & Herrmann, M. (2009). Emotions in motion: dynamic compared to 
static facial expressions of disgust and happiness reveal more widespread emotion-
specific activations. Brain research, 1284, 100-115. 
Weidmann, A., & Papsdorf, J. (2010). Witnessing trauma in the newsroom: Posttraumatic 
symptoms in television journalists exposed to violent news clips. The Journal of nervous 
and mental disease, 198(4), 264-271. 
Westera, N. J., & Powell, M. B. (2017). Prosecutors’ perceptions of how to improve the quality 
of evidence in domestic violence cases. Policing and Society, 27(2), 157-172. 
Wetherell, M. (2012). Affect and emotion: A new social science understanding. Sage 
Publications. 
Wetherell, M. (2013). Affect and discourse–What’s the problem? From affect as excess to 
affective/discursive practice. Subjectivity, 6(4), 349-368. 
Wetherell, M. (2015). Trends in the turn to affect: A social psychological critique. Body & 
Society, 21(2), 139-166. 
White, C. N., & Buchanan, T. W. (2016). Empathy for the stressed. Adaptive Human Behavior 
and Physiology, 2(4), 311-324. 
How durable are they over time and does memory integration reduce them? Journal of 
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 57, 88-95. 
Trautmann, S. A., Fehr, T., & Herrmann, M. (2009). Emotions in motion: dynamic compared to 
static facial expressions of disgust and happiness reveal more widespread emotion-
specific activations. Brain research, 1284, 100-115. 
Weidmann, A., & Papsdorf, J. (2010). Witnessing trauma in the newsroom: Posttraumatic 
symptoms in television journalists exposed to violent news clips. The Journal of nervous 
and mental disease, 198(4), 264-271. 
Westera, N. J., & Powell, M. B. (2017). Prosecutors’ perceptions of how to improve the quality 
of evidence in domestic violence cases. Policing and Society, 27(2), 157-172. 
Wetherell, M. (2012). Affect and emotion: A new social science understanding. Sage 
Publications. 
Wetherell, M. (2013). Affect and discourse–What’s the problem? From affect as excess to 
affective/discursive practice. Subjectivity, 6(4), 349-368. 
Wetherell, M. (2015). Trends in the turn to affect: A social psychological critique. Body & 
Society, 21(2), 139-166. 
White, C. N., & Buchanan, T. W. (2016). Empathy for the stressed. Adaptive Human Behavior 
and Physiology, 2(4), 311-324. 
Video Playback, Affective Witnessing, and the Mobility of Trauma 

Richardson, M., & Schankweiler, K. (2020). Introduction: Affective Witnessing as Theory and 
Practice. Parallax, 26(3), 235-253. 

Rossmanith, K. (2015). Affect and the judicial assessment of offenders: Feeling and judging 
remorse. Body & Society, 21(2), 167-193. 

Schankweiler, K. (2020). Reaction Images and Metawitnessing. Parallax, 26(3), 254-270. 

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage publications 
Thousand Oaks, CA. 

Streb, M., Conway, M. A., & Michael, T. (2017). Conditioned responses to trauma reminders: