View Single Post
Old 11-20-2014, 09:06 AM
carlb is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palmetto Bay, FL
Posts: 1,237
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
Wasn't that the point of the first part of Ep1. Its not easy to remember everything from a day that happened in the past. Of course their stories have holes in them.
I remember listening to part of a trial once (OJ, maybe?) where the attorney was questioning a witness as to the timing of some event. They were taking things in order of occurrence and assigning estimated times to everything. "OK, so you left your house and got in your car. That took, what, one minute? And then you drove to the store. How long did that take?" And it frustrated the hell out of me.

Our memories of specific events are fuzzy enough as it is. How well do we estimate and remember time? How often do we look at our watches or clocks and remember the time on them? There is so much slop in the numbers involved that hanging a conclusion on a reconstructed timeline like this seems like wishful thinking at best.

Now, I can see a place for reconstructing some specific set of events to determine plausibility, like Koenig and her assistant did with the timeline here. It doesn't prove anything, but it could potentially disprove something, or at least lend a little weight to a particular story. But drawing conclusions from estimated times to do poorly-remembered things seems like an exercise in futility.