The memories of witnessed events are data, not necessarily facts

There was an interesting segment last night on 60 Minutes dealing with the fragility of memory and the consequent inaccuracies that are found in eye witness testimony in police processes and in court. The program emphasized that police should be trained to understand the perils of planting false memories in witnesses (which can happen inadvertantly) and procedures should be institutionalized to maximize the accuracy of eye witness testimony.

Clearly jurors should be trained to understand that eye witnesses may mistake identifications and helped to interpret the testimony of witnesses reasonably. The program mentioned that the jury process is good at dealing with witnesses that tend to lie under oath, but is not good at dealing with witnesses who are simply wrong in what they remember.

There obviously is information in eye witness testimony. Perhaps judges and jurors should think of that information in terms of "information theory". The trial process is one in which each piece of information changes the probabilities that should be attached to not only the assertion of guilt, but also to a large number of subordinate assertions used in building and refuting a case. A witness who has been subject to processes likely to affect or modify recollection should be considered less informative than one whose memory has been fully protected.

Probably there are some important lessons that should transfer to any area of reports from other people.