The 1991 Telephone call...Attack #7 Oct. 18,1976 Carmichael
Jun 24, 2017 12:32:45 GMT
freudianslip likes this
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 12:32:45 GMT
The way that memory is encoded is always "partial." They're not exact "records" of events; it's a misconception that memories are imprinted in this manner. More accurately, we exprerience something, it's relayed to the proper part of the brain, evaluated against existing experiences and mental representations we have of similar experiences, and filed away in pieces in different parts of the brain. They're then reconstructed in many ways after they happen, and are thus vulnerable to many different kinds of distortions. This is multiplied when the encoding is done under stress and recollection of them involves trauma. That is what I was trying to convey with my post. This isn't about believing or disbelieving this particular victim, or knowing them as you do or not knowing them as I do not. Science has shown that memories are infallible, no matter how much confidence we may have in them. I don't doubt this victim's sincerity (or yours for that matter, it's clear you're passionate about your work), and she may be spot on. But we'd be doing a disservice if we didn't look at everything involving this case as objectively as possible, and in doing so it's important to note that eyewitness testimony is not nearly enough to call something a fact.