probably not... In accident investigation it is also a notorious weak element even professionals at the time of high stress have a kind of "tunnel vision" everything not perceived as relevant at the time is washed away. Later on people add demonstrably false details. Not because they are bad intentioned. For example with people who witness an aircraft crashing, there is always someone who swears the engine is on fire. Even if engines had nothing to do with it. It is just the stereotypical picture on the news and our brains kind of fill in the blanks when details aren't there...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Damn, that sucks. Our anchoring or focus effect bias results in less retained data at the time and more filling in later. But that would be for extraneous things they didn't actually see. A proper recollection of events would probably have them clear up what actually happened where they realize they didn't see the engine on fire. If asked about the specific things they did see, I would think that is more accurate since they actually did focus on it at the time. Our best option is to always have a camera, then we can verify what happened lol ;)