As an analytically trained psychologist you should know, what happens to memory and reporting, even a recent event, let alone 36 year old memories without corroborative evidence, even if people want to tell the whole truth. Take 5 people that witnessed an accident a day before. You will have 5 different stories. Let alone, when politics and interests are involved. Where is DNA, pictures, bruises, witnesses?
-------
I do not blame the accuser. What I put on question, is the ability to judge a case, depending only on memory and the content of accusation, without any corroborative evidence. People usually believe in their own memory and therefore they can look honest and credible, when describing their experiences, even if they are severe distortions in comparison to actual evidence, if such evidence exist. It is a daily experience in psychotherapy. The difference is, that in therapy what matters, is the subjective experience and not the evidence. In judicial system - what matters, is the evidence. For sure you know, what inner world, time, and other experiences make to human memory. I have plenty of examples of distorted memories of very credible and honest people. I am sure, that you are aware of many studies, that confirm what I just said. I am sorry, if I was not very polite yesterday. Of course I watched the whole hearing. I was surprised, that no one mentioned the distortions, that are inherent to human nature, and are not matters of lying or telling the truth. I think, that having an expert in memory research on the panel, would make the hearing much more deep.
------
You became personal. I tried to concentrate on the credibility of human memory. I am sure that in such a big country, you can find a lot of credible people, that believe in being abducted by aliens. I am not interested to make a "mishmash" of scientific and political aspects of the debate.
------
I speak about impossibility to come to conclusion in all cases of memories without corroborative evidence, witnesses, etc. even if no one is lying, both are lying, or one side is lying. It is not about this particular inquiry or specific people involved. This TV Show simply aroused those thoughts. Of course it is traumatic to all parties. But this is not what I am discussing here.
------
We are talking about different things. I am trying to understand better a very complicated issue of human memory, and you are (naturally), emotionally involved in this particular case. So, from my side, the discussion is over. Thank you for giving me the initiative to look further in books and papers on this fascinating topic. By the way, I am more interested in the implications of memory research for the psychotherapy, then in the forensic side of the topic.
