Dianne Webster

[faithlilly]

One doesn't have to have a degree in psychology to know that Dianne Webster's first statement was more likely to be true than the 'memory' acquired by way of her relatives some time later.

[debunker]

One doesn't have to have a degree in psychology to know that Dianne Webster's first statement was more likely to be true than the 'memory' acquired by way of her relatives some time later.

THe science does not make that a certainty. On average more recent memories are better than those recalled later, but in many cases later statements willprove more accurate if differently cued.

AS i said,get a primer on modern approaches to human memory and educate yourself. Do notrely on common sense.

[debunker]

Start here, especially Craik and Lockhart.

http://www.human-memory.net/processes_recall.html

[debunker]

And here
http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/a/memory_retrival.htm

[faithlilly]

And you would agree that is also possible to convince someone that an event happened even though they have no memory of the event ?

[debunker]

And you would agree that is also possible to convince someone that an event happened even though they have no memory of the event ?

Agreed. That is fecovered memory syndrome or False memory syndrome.

THat said there is no guarantee that the first statement is more accurate than a later one.

IT depends on many factors- stress, fear, style of questioning, language used, language heard. Later statements are often more accurate than earlier ones as memories are integrated and self confirmed. They are also often worse. It all depends.

DOnot rely on common sense because all too often, common sense is a sum of your prejudices.

[faithlilly]

In a police investigation the first statement is always the most important and deemed the most accurate. Afterwards memory can be 'tainted' by many external influences, as we have seen with Webster being 'reminded' of what she had experienced.

[debunker]

In a police investigation the first statement is always the most important and deemed the most accurate. Afterwards memory can be 'tainted' by many external influences, as we have seen with Webster being 'reminded' of what she had experienced.

That is your view.

IT is not scientifically valid, nor does it comply with Judges' rules on summarising evidence to jury.

STop making up factoids- unless you have a cite to prove it.

[debunker]

Try reading and understanding this before sharing any more anecdotes.

[faithlilly]

Perhaps you can cite the section of the Judges rules that detail why a negative inference shouldn't be applied by a jury when a witness changes their statements many months later ?

[debunker]

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/judicial-college/Pre+2011/crown-court-bench-book-directing-the-jury


NOw caled the Bench Book

ABout p220

[faithlilly]

The pages you have referred me to concern Cross Admissibility and Bad Character. Care to explain how those rules help in this debate ?

[debunker]

Page 222

[faithlilly]

Nope, just more direction re: bad character and from 224 rules regarding hearsay which, as Dianne Webster's was direct evidence does not apply.

[debunker]

Page 222, top half, illustration.