Quote:
Originally Posted by squirrely girl
There is a HUGE difference between making errors on some of the details of a situation and the situation not having happened at all. This is the most basic of memory research, particularly in terms of memory for traumatic events.
When the primary "evidence" for suggesting it didn't happen is A) the fraternity SAYING they didn't have a party that night, and B) SAYING they didn't have a member with a role at the Aquatic center on campus, I think you're stretching pretty darn far to suggest it "doesn't look like it happened."
Why is what the fraternity is saying suddenly somehow more relevant or believable than what the woman is saying?
|
We are way past the point of the primary evidence being anything the fraternity has claimed. You might need to catch up on the latest reporting.