Posted on 09/17/2018 7:59:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Its been shown in studies the more times a memory is accessed, the more chances untrue things can be inserted or taken away from the memory. The brain fills things in or discards things and the more a memory is accessed, the more chances something untrue will be added or something true, discarded.
The difference is that you were probably not “stumbling drunk”. If you were, your recollection might SEEM clear, but it would be utterly unreliable unless someone else sober, unbiased, and preferably trained in objective observation could back it up.
Heck, we have seemingly very rational FReepers who can watch a video of a shooting as many times as they like, and then they misstate the details of what happened because of their bias one way or the other on the subject. (I assume they are not drunk!)
I’ll bet a pro could give OJ Simpson a lie detector test about the murders we almost all think he committed, and he would pass it, professing his innocence all the way, with no coaching on how to beat the test. His need to believe he is innocent convinces him over time that he is. I’ve seen it happen over and over with people with less “incentive” than OJ has had.
Further, I find that MOST people in traumatic situations will have errors in pieces of the memory. It has happened to myself, esp. when “peak” trauma occurs — the preceding moments can be distorted, even though I “think” I remember them clearly. And I have training in dispassionate observation... Clarity of memory and accuracy of memory are not necessarily the same thing.
This is NOT a disparaging comment on your recollection — I am just saying your recollection has little bearing on what a very drunk 15 yr. old would remember, even with (or maybe distorted because of) clinical assistance, and lie detector tests are often useless or worse than useless.
Some of us were brought up with a modicum of self discipline and respect for ourselves and others. I realize that’s not “normal”, although it used to be more common. It also has little bearing on the ability to correctly & dispassionately interpret and apply the US Constitution.
It was a repressed memory, that she suddenly remembered while in therapy.
That is very true. It is also true that perception during stress can be severely altered. A common alteration (tho’ it does not seem to apply in this case) is a sense of time distortion. For example, my brother was once in a bad bicycle wreck. He remembered the bicycle “slowly floating over me (him)” after he hit the sidewalk. Righto....
Watch Benito address America from Alaska to Florida, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, a socialist pretender without a teleprompter:
I hope Christine Ford’s lawyer advised her about testifying under oath before Congress.
WIKI-—Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in “any matter within the jurisdiction” of the federal government of the United States,[1] even by merely denying guilt when asked by a federal agent.[2]
A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[3] Rod Blagojevich,[4] Michael T. Flynn,[5] Rick Gates,[6] Scooter Libby,[7] Bernard Madoff,[8] and Jeffrey Skilling.[9]
This statute is used in many contexts. Most commonly, prosecutors use this statute to reach cover-up crimes such as perjury, false declarations, and obstruction of justice and government fraud cases.[10]
Its earliest progenitor was the False Claims Act of 1863. In 1934, the requirement of an intent to defraud was eliminated. This was to prosecute successfully, under the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), the producers of “hot oil”, i.e. oil produced in violation of restrictions established by NIRA. In 1935, NIRA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),[11] imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both....
I have seen this coming for a while.
It can make life difficult for someone like me, who has worked and supported herself for over 30 years.
I hope they inadvertently forget to mention it!! Thanks for all this info Liz. Very interesting.
There is a reason that they are considered minors.
Montgomery County is one of the elitist enclaves in greater DC. Potomac is the elite area of Montgomery County. As a friend of ours used to say, people form Potomac go to Bethesda to slum. (And Rockville.)
They’re near each other, and both went to elite private schools. Guys from his school tended to hang out with girls from hers. So it would not be surprising that they were at the same party.
The relationship is much like the Ivy League and the Seven Sisters (before all of them went coed): Columbia-Barnard, Penn-Bryn Mawr. That kind of relationship.
According to her, there were other girls (and guys) at the party. Four of each, I think. Let’s see if anyone else emerges.
I guess they wouldn’t have thought anything of a girl and a guy (or two) heading upstairs together, which tells you something about the environment.
Yup. Happens to cops. But they all know this and thats why they let a cop rest a day or two before asking for statements, because the brain may need tome to get thing in order and remember properly. They do not do this for regular people and want statements right away, and then if they give them again or talk to them again things may be a little different and the cops think they changed their story, when its really the brain processing what happened.
It is important that we keep the absurdity of this accusation in mind, We have to get this wise, good & honorable man onto the Bench for which he is so very well qualified.
Our Last Chance? [Can Donald Trump Revive The "Spirit of '76?]
I don’t think Kavanaughs accuser has the mental capability to stand before the committee for long.
Check out her student reviews. They describe someone on the edge and close to coming apart.
Actually nothing could be better. It would certainly describe the despicable other party on that panel. One could go right down the line starting with dumb Dianne.
Have you forgotten the floor show put on by the democrats during Kavanaugh’s hearings a couple of weeks ago? Just IMAGINE what they have in store if THIS hearing happens. Oh, the HUMANITY!!!
If that’s the case, then bring out the popcorn!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.