Memory and stress

[AnneGuedes]

JFK was not a stressful event to the vast majority of people so it isn't really relevant apart from his wife whose memory was probably shot to pieces

The president of the most powerful nation in the world !

[Sherlock Holmes]

Google and look at the EVIDENCE

JFK was not a stressful event to the vast majority of people so it isn't really relevant apart from his wife whose memory was probably shot to pieces

I will look at the article but I imagine it is not in the context of a mothers memory after the loos of her daughter

Actually there was a whole generation of children growing up in America who were strongly traumatised and affected by the fact that their president had been shot. When you attack a president, you attack a nation, and a lot of the things it stands for. It affected various aspects of those children's development, and their views as adults. Much has been written on the topic and many studies carried out.

[icabodcrane]

Well I have to agree with you about the lying, so-called.

If the McCanns and others were lying, their accounts probably would have been exactly the same.

Something occurs to me in that case  ...  if it would be more likely that they were lying if they all remembered events the same way  ...   would it also be more likely they were lying if they all  forgot   an event in the same way  ? 

I'm thinking here about the night of the quiz 

I don't know if something significant happened that night,  but it always struck me as strange that not  a single member of the party could remember what night the quiz was on   ...  they were asked in their rogatory interviews,  and not one of them could remember

Is uniformly  'forgetting'  as indicative of lying as uniformly 'remembering'   ? 

[Redblossom]

Seeing as it is a medical fact that stress effects memory in a negative way, this surely explains the minor inconsistencies in the McCann statements

Dont you think seasoned policemen are able to tell the difference between a genuine insignificant  discrepancy and its opposite?

[Benice]

Something occurs to me in that case  ...  if it would be more likely that they were lying if they all remembered events the same way  ...   would it also be more likely they were lying if they all  forgot   an event in the same way  ? 

I'm thinking here about the night of the quiz 

I don't know if something significant happened that night,  but it always struck me as strange that not  a single member of the party could remember what night the quiz was on   ...  they were asked in their rogatory interviews,  and not one of them could remember

Is uniformly  'forgetting'  as indicative of lying as uniformly 'remembering'   ?

Why is it strange?  They remembered the quiz - as that was something 'different' to the norm  - but the particular date on which it was held was of no importance at all, and made no difference to anything at the time  - so no reason to specifically commit it to memory.       

 

[AnneGuedes]

Well I have to agree with you about the lying, so-called.

If the McCanns and others were lying, their accounts probably would have been exactly the same.

There's a way to establish whether someone told the truth or not.  Supposing you can find evidence that contradicts or confirms his/her statement.
Forensic examination showed the McCanns didn't say the truth to their family/friends, when they said the shutters and window were forced (they never denied, unfortunately, Mr. Mitchell had to deny, end of October, to an Irish TV channel).
People with some reason will call that "lying".
Did the McCanns say the truth to the police about finding the shutters and the window open ?  Nobody else saw the shutters and the window open, not even one of the group. This is an absurd statement since forensic proved nobody used this way in, opening them was then of no use.
People with some reason will doubt that story.
As Magalhães e Menezes said, these aren't lies but "untruths" !

[Sherlock Holmes]

Dont you think seasoned policemen are able to tell the difference between a genuine insignificant  discrepancy and its opposite?

It completely depends on the circumstances, Red.

If one witness says that something happened at 9.00, and another witness says it happened at ten past, that difference, be it attributable to human error or deliberate misrepresentation, could be completely inconsequential for the events as a whole.

On the other hand, the discrepancy could be fundamental to our understanding of events, depending on what else was going on at the time.

Without being more sure about how exactly everyone's timeline fitted in with everyone else's, it is hard for the police to evaluate between 'a geniune insignificant discrepancy and its opposite' as you put it.

That is where a reconstruction, properly conducted, would come in. That would help us get closer to what actually happened, in which context we could put aside the discrepancies that were not so relevant to our understanding of the case, and concentrate on what we could draw from what was left.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Something occurs to me in that case  ...  if it would be more likely that they were lying if they all remembered events the same way  ...   would it also be more likely they were lying if they all  forgot   an event in the same way  ? 

I'm thinking here about the night of the quiz 

I don't know if something significant happened that night,  but it always struck me as strange that not  a single member of the party could remember what night the quiz was on   ...  they were asked in their rogatory interviews,  and not one of them could remember

Is uniformly  'forgetting'  as indicative of lying as uniformly 'remembering'   ?

It depends on how important the thing was. We memorise what matters to us.

Certain, seemingly trivial things  can become ' important' in context - so perhaps the quiz wasn't.

[icabodcrane]

Why is it strange?  They remembered the quiz - as that was something 'different' to the norm  - but the particular date on which it was held was of no importance at all, and made no difference to anything at the time  - so no reason to specifically commit it to memory.       

They were only there for five nights before Madeleine disappeared

The first night they ate at the millenium restaurant

So just four evenings on which the Quiz at the Tapas bar  might have been held  (  it was Tuesday night by the way  ) 

Yet not  one of them could remember which of the four evenings it had been  ...  not one  of them  !

I just wondered if  collective  forgetfulness was as indicative of lying  as collective  remembering

[Sherlock Holmes]

They were only there for five nights before Madeleine disappeared

The first night they ate at the millenium restaurant

So just four evenings on which the Quiz at the Tapas bar  might have been held  (  it was Tuesday night by the way  ) 

Yet not  one of them could remember which of the four evenings it had been  ...  not one  of them  !

I just wondered if  collective  forgetfulness was as indicative of lying  as collective  remembering

I'm not sure if I can work out what you mean...

They could have all got together to feign forgetfulness of which night the quiz took place?

[Redblossom]

It completely depends on the circumstances, Red.

If one witness says that something happened at 9.00, and another witness says it happened at ten past, that difference, be it attributable to human error or deliberate misrepresentation, could be completely inconsequential for the events as a whole.

On the other hand, the discrepancy could be fundamental to our understanding of events, depending on what else was going on at the time.

Without being more sure about how exactly everyone's timeline fitted in with everyone else's, it is hard for the police to evaluate between 'a geniune insignificant discrepancy and its opposite' as you put it.

That is where a reconstruction, properly conducted, would come in. That would help us get closer to what actually happened, in which context we could put aside the discrepancies that were not so relevant to our understanding of the case, and concentrate on what we could draw from what was left.

Thank you,  its complex, more so with such a large group and people remembering an event  so differently, events that happened, and some that didnt happen by most accounts. Eg Matthew Oldfield remembering that Kate Mccann and her kids were sat watchng the mens tennis on Thursday evening. Then you have David Payne sayng he knocked on the patio door of 5a and went inside and chatted to Kate Mccann for 3 mins or so, and how he was observing the children, but her testimony was he didnt go inside and she sent him away immediatly, Qaugmire.(sp.?) Theres many examples.
Eta

I agree they werent exactly clock watching so small differences in remembering times are of little relevance. 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There's a way to establish whether someone told the truth or not.  Supposing you can find evidence that contradicts or confirms his/her statement.
Forensic examination showed the McCanns didn't say the truth to their family/friends, when they said the shutters and window were forced (they never denied, unfortunately, Mr. Mitchell had to deny, end of October, to an Irish TV channel).
People with some reason will call that "lying".
Did the McCanns say the truth to the police about finding the shutters and the window open ?  Nobody else saw the shutters and the window open, not even one of the group. This is an absurd statement since forensic proved nobody used this way in, opening them was then of no use.
People with some reason will doubt that story.
As Magalhães e Menezes said, these aren't lies but "untruths" !

And one example of such evidence would be the corroboration (or contradictory) evidence of another witness account in a timeline, hence the use of a reconstruction.

[icabodcrane]

It depends on how important the thing was. We memorise what matters to us.

Certain, seemingly trivial things  can become ' important' in context - so perhaps the quiz wasn't.

Well in the spirit of the thread,  and the substantive subject under discussion,  could we assume that the quiz night WAS  important  ...  or,  rather,  something that happened on the quiz night was important ?

Purely hypothetically let's imagine the following scenario  :

During the quiz,  or some time later,  Kate and Gerry have a blazing row ...  I don't know,  let's say because Gerry had been paying too much attention to the attractive quiz mistress  ( purely hypothetical, remember  )  ...  and Kate stormed off back to the apartment on her own

Now,  let's assume that the tapas friends would be reluctant to tell the police about that incident because they felt it had nothing whatsoever to do with the crisis that unfolded two days later,  but were afraid the police might  'make something out of it '

So out of loyalty to Kate and Gerry,  they decide it is best not to mention the incident,  which they feel is insignificant  in any event 

They cannot  'lie'  to the police though  ...   so they collectively  'forget'  all about that night  ...  indeed,  they even forget what night it was   

Given the research you are are refering to,  is there a possibility that  collective forgetfulness may be an indication of lying  ...  where the subject forgotten  IS   significant  (  as in the hypothetical example I have given  )  ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thank you,  its complex, more so with such a large group and people remembering an event  so differently, events that happened, and some that didnt happen by most accounts. Eg Matthew Oldfield remembering that Kate Mccann and her kids were sat watchng the mens tennis on Thursday evening. Then you have David Payne sayng he knocked on the patio door of 5a and went inside and chatted to Kate Mccann for 3 mins or so, and how he was observing the children, but her testimony was he didnt go inside and she sent him away immediatly, Qaugmire.(sp.?) Theres many examples.
Eta

I agree they werent exactly clock watching so small differences in remembering times are of little relevance.

Yes, it's a very complex tapestry with so many people involved.

[Benice]

They were only there for five nights before Madeleine disappeared

The first night they ate at the millenium restaurant

So just four evenings on which the Quiz at the Tapas bar  might have been held  (  it was Tuesday night by the way  ) 

Yet not  one of them could remember which of the four evenings it had been  ...  not one  of them  !

I just wondered if  collective  forgetfulness was as indicative of lying  as collective  remembering

IMO The date was trivial in the extreme compared to other things they were being asked to recall.  I'm sure that had they been told it was of vital importance then they would have all been able to work out which night it was -  once they gave it some serious thought   - but as it happens they simply had had no reason to give it any special attention.