Hacker News Reader

Comment by erelde | Hacker News Reader

Should we also discuss witnesses' recollections during trials?

I remember thinking about that very much when I listened to the podcast Serial. What do we actually remember? I think I only really remember "methods". (neural passageways?)

edit: I was a pain in high school for my physics teacher (and for myself), I never learned any formulas and did everything with dimensional analysis...

View on HN

Historically I believe we always trusted eye witnesses pretty heavily in trial, but they're known to be unrelated. I remember myself testifying once, and it's the strangest experience.

I remember what I thought I saw. I don't remember seeing. Even at the police station immediately after the "replay" was fuzzy. 3 months later? I was literally just parroting what I remember saying and thinking at the time not what I remember seeing.

Was a weird experience

I Wonder if we should favorite witness statements taken shortly after the event instead of involving witnesses in the trial?

I absolutely think that's a better way to behave. Once I replay/recall a memory a couple of times in my head it becomes as real as the original, eventually more real. I guess I'd favour my odds of being correct closer to the event but overall I just think humans are unreliable overall.

Memory is volatile, I would describe it as, every time you access a memory you store the active copy back into memory, allowing for alteration or the data depending on what you feel at the time or external suggestions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com