Memory and stress

[C.Edwards]

Thanks for that Carana - very informative indeed.

Many years ago I watched a TV prog where volunteers were requested to take part in a study.  The chosen ones were asked to meet in a pub to be introduced to one another and to be told about the study.   Whilst they were assembled around a table, a fracas broke out at the bar - and a bit of punch-up ensued.      Unbeknown to the volunteers  - they were actors.      The volunteers were then asked to describe what they had witnessed.  To say their  accounts differed wildly is an understatement - with one person even thinking a weapon had been produced!    The study concluded that discrepancies  in witness statements - even major ones  - was normal.

Anyone who thinks the discrepancies in witness statements in the McCann case are proof of people 'lying' - are definitely barking up the wrong tree. imo.

*sigh* It's like we're permanently stuck in a kind of stretched out groundhog day as the same old dross comes around and around again...

For observers, there may be some truth or even relevance in this whole eye-witness thing. When you're the person actually involved in the happenings yourself, it's not the same thing at all.  You're being interviewed the day after a highly traumatic event. Do you:

a) remember the basics like which door you used to enter the apartment or
b) completely forget and have to do an embarrassing and suspicious about-turn in your story

There is no direct correlation for this event in eyewitness testimony. If someone had been sitting on the wall at the front and saw Gerry McCann going into the apartment that way then they'd have seen the front door used. If they'd been standing around the side road they'd have seen him use the patio door. End of story, no speculation.  Yes, they *may* have had issues identifying whether it was gerry mccann or not or whether he was wearing a blue coat or something, but which door he went in - not a problem.

And still, STILL, we have McCann supporters claiming that this bright-red with orange spots and green striped elephant in the room is not an issue, perfectly normal, all eye witnesses make mistakes, blah, blah, blah...

[Lyall]

Thank you for that. One of the problems with being a newbie is dragging up old ground that everyone else has covered. I did the same thing yesterday too! I do apologise, however, I'm almost certain to do it again at some point 

Don't worry about that Cariad. It's all been covered again and again but next to nothing is agreed on.

Sadie's post above is pure hypothesis.

[Redblossom]

Don't worry about that Cariad. It's all been covered again and again but next to nothing is agreed on.

Sadie's post above is pure hypothesis.

Second that post, cariad, maybe spend some time reading old threads, to get a feel, around all the subjects, your posts have been friendly petinent and valuable. Lyall is exactly right, it is like groundhog day, I doubt that will change much unless more definite facts are brought to the table, that no one can argue about...and less speculation, with such a case with massess of information and masses of press coverage, and comment, not to mention biases or preconceptions, there is so much chaffe and little wheat...people need to go with the wheat more

Dont blame you for taking a step back though...so much rubbish in this case, makes you wonder sometimes why bother

[drummer]

*sigh* It's like we're permanently stuck in a kind of stretched out groundhog day as the same old dross comes around and around again...


I reckon we all agree with that sentence. Question is how long are people willing to carry on with this? Six years is a very long time to discuss, argue, prove points, unravel myths and debate this case.

[Lyall]

*sigh* It's like we're permanently stuck in a kind of stretched out groundhog day as the same old dross comes around and around again...


I reckon we all agree with that sentence. Question is how long are people willing to carry on with this? Six years is a very long time to discuss, argue, prove points, unravel myths and debate this case.

A long time I think drummer. The papers still put the case on the front page, so they're still very much interested too.

[AnneGuedes]

And still, STILL, we have McCann supporters claiming that this bright-red with orange spots and green striped elephant in the room is not an issue, perfectly normal, all eye witnesses make mistakes, blah, blah, blah...

Why changing their minds (if not lying for convenience) ? First front door (for both), then doorwindow for both. First besides the patio gate, then on the other side of the street... First broken shutters and window, then open shutters and window... First everything open, then everything seeming shut, masking the opening... They're really lucky the public ignores all this.

[sadie]

*sigh* It's like we're permanently stuck in a kind of stretched out groundhog day as the same old dross comes around and around again...

For observers, there may be some truth or even relevance in this whole eye-witness thing. When you're the person actually involved in the happenings yourself, it's not the same thing at all.  You're being interviewed the day after a highly traumatic event. Do you:

a) remember the basics like which door you used to enter the apartment or
b) completely forget and have to do an embarrassing and suspicious about-turn in your story

There is no direct correlation for this event in eyewitness testimony. If someone had been sitting on the wall at the front and saw Gerry McCann going into the apartment that way then they'd have seen the front door used. If they'd been standing around the side road they'd have seen him use the patio door. End of story, no speculation.  Yes, they *may* have had issues identifying whether it was gerry mccann or not or whether he was wearing a blue coat or something, but which door he went in - not a problem.

And still, STILL, we have McCann supporters claiming that this bright-red with orange spots and green striped elephant in the room is not an issue, perfectly normal, all eye witnesses make mistakes, blah, blah, blah...

C.Ed:  And still, STILL, we have McCann supporters claiming that this bright-red with orange spots and green striped elephant in the room is not an issue, perfectly normal, all eye witnesses make mistakes,

What are you ranting about C.Ed ?

[drummer]

A long time I think drummer. The papers still put the case on the front page, so they're still very much interested too.

Probably Lyall, don't know if you've been around on blogs/forums from the start but I remember posts from people who wrote of their own feelings and beliefs about what happened. Now everything is from google, wiki, statistics, translators, doctors, scientists, policemen etc .  Probably since the files were released then suddenly all the bloggers morphed into professionals who maybe use the internets knowledge to enhance their writing. Not everyone mind you but you can usually tell .
.

[C.Edwards]

Probably Lyall, don't know if you've been around on blogs/forums from the start but I remember posts from people who wrote of their own feelings and beliefs about what happened. Now everything is from google, wiki, statistics, translators, doctors, scientists, policemen etc .  Probably since the files were released then suddenly all the bloggers morphed into professionals who maybe use the internets knowledge to enhance their writing. Not everyone mind you but you can usually tell .
.

Therein lies the problem.  Two people can look at something as simple as a colour and disagree about it, let alone something as complex as a piece of evidence from the case files.  Those who doubt the McCanns will tend to interpret one way, their supporters will choose another and both sides will be convinced that their opinion is the only decent/right one and will not look at it any other way.  Periodically it all gets too depressing having to continually correct the blatant propaganda put out by one side or the other (obviously I'm more biased one way than the other and ferryman/honestbroker is an easy target because of his own pet theories and complete pig-headedness in persisting with things he's been proven wrong on time and again).

10/10 for persistence though HB. God loves a trier and all that.

[Lyall]

Probably Lyall, don't know if you've been around on blogs/forums from the start but I remember posts from people who wrote of their own feelings and beliefs about what happened. Now everything is from google, wiki, statistics, translators, doctors, scientists, policemen etc .  Probably since the files were released then suddenly all the bloggers morphed into professionals who maybe use the internets knowledge to enhance their writing. Not everyone mind you but you can usually tell .
.

I know what you mean drummer. There's a mass of information now but basically the equation remains exactly the same as it was the first week in May 07 - you either trust those nine people or you don't.

I think I agree there should be less analysis, and more description (if I'm right in thinking that's what you mean). People are still trying to solve the case, instead of describing it. Clearly solving is impossible. Better qualified minds than ours have tried and failed.

[Lyall]

You're going all James Joyce there Red Finnegan's Wake.

But you're right of course. I was reading a book on the Jill Dando case the other day, and it says one witness was interviewed ten times. That's what should have happened in this case, and it would have been a different result more than likely. But it got political very quickly, and the police probably couldn't do what they wanted to do - then attention was diverted to Mr Murat.

[Chinagirl]

Did I speak of stress ? I discovered that the most powerful man on the planet could leave for good in a nutshell.

Gosh - I always thought JFK had been shot ....

[C.Edwards]

Why are you making a personal attack on ferryman?

Try answering the posts, not the poster.

Hmm.

We are supposed to believe Anne's transcripts from the court?

Her grasp of English is sadly lacking I'm afraid.

Add to that her sceptics postings then I really can't value anything she says.

Sorry.

I am indeed questioning the neutrality of her work.

The newspapers are reporting on the trial so I don't need Anne's version of events.

Sorry if this upsets you.

Tell you what Faithliily, don't tell me what to think and what to post.

A sceptic posting from the court will always cause me to question what they post.

Stop making things up Anne.

It makes you look silly.

Practise what you preach, Neeley.

[Benice]

*sigh* It's like we're permanently stuck in a kind of stretched out groundhog day as the same old dross comes around and around again...

For observers, there may be some truth or even relevance in this whole eye-witness thing. When you're the person actually involved in the happenings yourself, it's not the same thing at all.  You're being interviewed the day after a highly traumatic event. Do you:

a) remember the basics like which door you used to enter the apartment or
b) completely forget and have to do an embarrassing and suspicious about-turn in your story

There is no direct correlation for this event in eyewitness testimony. If someone had been sitting on the wall at the front and saw Gerry McCann going into the apartment that way then they'd have seen the front door used. If they'd been standing around the side road they'd have seen him use the patio door. End of story, no speculation.  Yes, they *may* have had issues identifying whether it was gerry mccann or not or whether he was wearing a blue coat or something, but which door he went in - not a problem.

And still, STILL, we have McCann supporters claiming that this bright-red with orange spots and green striped elephant in the room is not an issue, perfectly normal, all eye witnesses make mistakes, blah, blah, blah...

Why the need to be so rude?   I don't remember being rude to you at any time.

It's obvious to me from many posts - not necessarily here - that many people believe that if two witness statements conflict then one of the witnesses must be lying.    My post was to illustrate that this is a fallacy.

The question of which door GM was referring to has been done to death,  and I don't intend to go into it again except to say that we only have a summarised and not verbatim record of his interview and so never see the questions asked.   A verbatim account would probably show how a misunderstanding may have occurred - which I believe was the case.    Particularly as it is recorded (in  JT's verbatim statement)  by the Police  Officer that confusion was originally caused by some people referring to  the patio doors as the Front Door whilst others referred to them as the Back Door.   If that wasn't a recipe for misunderstandings I don't know what is.   

As far as I am concerned that is probably the reason for any misunderstandings that took place regarding 'doors' during that first interview - added to the fact that there is no sensible reason IMO for Gerry to deliberately lie.

[Puffin]

I have worked with people with PTSD and other memory problems using CBT and EMDR. I have also taught courses for Police and Lawyers on problems with recall of events.

The key points that just about all professionals agree on are:

1/ Memory is completely Reconstructive. That is to say that 'facts' stored in our brains about the past are constructed in many ways- biased perception, biased analysis, biased retention, biased storage and biased recall. These biases occur because of previous experiences, expectations about the milieu, power relationships, personal involvement and many other features. There is clear evidence that if an event is witnessed by many people, the ensuing statements from different people always differ in content, tone and assumption.

2/ Although 'iconic' (claimed eidetic-photographically clear and  apparently real, and especially accurate) memories are claimed for high emotion events, these too are reconstructed and when checked against reality are seen to be as biased as any other type of recall. This type of memory is common in PTSD and when the recall is normalised and defused emotionally, people come to realise that what they were claiming as photographic and clear recall was in fact their own construction of events- with as many fallacies as any other recall- eidetic memory is not especially valuable.

3/ Courts rely on identification evidence and factual witness statements despite rather than because of the scientific truth about such claims. Forensic specialists know that such evidence is empirically unsafe, but feel that given the need to make decisions, the best way is to allow Juries or Magistrates to hear the evidence supported and challenged in a Court. The truth is that most such evidence is almost totally valueless. There are lists of sentences that must be read by Judges to Juries (and internalised by Magistrates) about the major problems with such statements.

In summary about this case_

1/ The High Emotion involved with the loss of a child would neither improve nor impair statements made by the people.

2/ Witness statements taken from a group of people are always full of inconsistencies even under ideal circumstances, and even more so under high stress situations.


Having followed the McCann case previously before it was settled legally, I do understand that facts have little value in this debate and that people will continue believing what they wish in order to support their own views (that is human nature), but the above are the Empirical Facts about  legal statements. No one suggests from a scientific stance (only from a political, forensic or emotional stance) that supposed 'eidetic' memories are especially accurate, or that a group of witness statements should be anywhere near consistent.