I remember seeing the moon landing with a group of fellow 11 year olds in a crowded school room but it didn't happen the way I recall it or so I am told. We were not where I think we were, I wasn't with the people I remember were with me and we didn't see what I recall seeing.


My memory is vivid through regular exercise and reinforced by numerous viewings of TV footage of Armstrong & Aldrin but the memory I have is irrecoverably polluted by other peoples depictions of the event.

My memory is a sham. It is an artifact formed out subsequent expression and the art of others.

Every day in the courts in Australia and throughout the "Western" world judges and magistrates assess the relative merits of witnesses and choose a version of the incidents in question according to who is credible. It is vital function of the judicial officer but it is in function, in many ways, like a real time book reviewer assessing the merits of  different fictional accounts but people are jailed or loose fortunes as a consequence.

The unspoken truth is that little or no allowance is made by all too many judical officers for the different personality traits which can affect the way a witness presents in court. Some people are argumentative by nature and seem to ne uncooperative in the witness box. Other witnesses are uncomfortable with authority or intimidated by the educated vocabulary of the court and do not give their evidence in a convincing manner. Still others have English as a second language or have such a limited vocabulary as native English speakers that they are so clumsy in expression that they are incapable if accurately express what they saw.

Nevertheless, the courts plug on with the responses by individual judicial officers to the variability of witness presentation being wildly unpredictable.

Western justice systems are sophisticated but in need of "upgrading" to allow for contemporary understanding of memory and expression.

James Pope