BP -
Thanks for posting the Loftus TED Talk
I posted something very similar (in a lengthy manifesto) a while back. Loftus is certainly one of the top (if not the top) experts in this field.
The relevance to the PSU situation is - of course - obvious.
But, forgetting about Penn State, in purely general and generic terms:
The idea that chronologically distant recollections of events......ESPECIALLY when those events were:
- Somewhat traumatic (emotional etc)
- Subject to not just subtle influences.....but rather to GIGANTIC volumes of post-incident information
- Subject to directed interrogations relevant to various conclusions
The idea that those recollections are expected to be:
- Identical among all parties (or even substantively similar)
- Definitive in determining the details of the contemporaneous actions
Is simply scientifically ludicrous.
And that is in the BEST CASE scenario (i.e. with no outside parties attempting to actively influence results).
Further, the idea that any divergence has to be due to "someone lying" is simply a fallacy. In fact, it is more likely to be an impossibility.
Absolute pure hogwash.
Was the Rape Victim LYING? Of course not
Was the man unjustly accused of rape LYING? Of course not
But common "85 IQ, Mouth-Breather-Don't-Want-To-Think-Too-Hard Logic" says:
"Well, one o' them thar two has gots ta' be fibbin'"
And: IT....JUST....AIN'T....SO
_______________________________
I certainly haven't studied this stuff like Loftus has, but it would be hard to find a more relevant example of a situation when you would expect "eyewitness recollections" to be divergent than the situation we had here.
As just one for instance - the one that draws everyone's attention - the notion that if MM's and TC's and GS's recollections of "the conversation" is different - - - - it must mean SOMEONE is lying - - - - is pure garbage.
Now, it also DOESN'T conclusively prove that someone IS NOT lying.
Bottom line - - - as evidence of anything, in order to "prove" anything, it ain't worth crap.
The whole genesis of the 5 year Circle-Jerk is due (largely) to the Prosecution's attempts to make that "evidence" a key component in their prosecution.
They should have (and probably did) know better.
They owed everyone - EVERYONE - involved in that entire scenario a much greater level of diligence and responsibility.
Just as in several of the cases Loftus was involved in - and she has been involved in plenty of high profile situations - her research DOESN'T lead us to nice simple conclusions as to "What happened?" in any particular situation or case.
That would be nice, but that is not the conclusion to be drawn from her work.
What it DOES tell us is: Expecting "memory" testimony to be consistent among all subjects, or to be reliable wrt drawing conclusions, or to be indelible - and uninfluenced by outside forces.....is nonsense.
To TRY to summarize (something I'm not very good at):
This DOES NOT mean:
- That every time eyewitness testimony is used, someone gets wrongly convicted
This DOES NOT mean:
- That every time eyewitness testimony is used it is "incorrect"
This DOES NOT mean:
- That eyewitness testimony should never be used
This DOES mean:
- That eyewitness testimony should never be used as the sole or primary source of reaching conclusions (especially for situations with serious repercussions)
This DOES mean:
- That eyewitness testimony should never be "weighted", without first considering the parameters of: Chronolgy/Trauma/Post-Event Information and Influences/and the ability of third-parties to form or alter "recollections".
____________________________
Again, thanks for posting that BP.....most folks won't take the time to research those studies, or even listen to the "TED Talk" - - - but it is important stuff. Not just for the PSU Nightmare, but for any of us who might ever find ourselves in related situations.
)
