Dr. David Eagleman

And he said, look, that can't be reliable eyewitness testimony.

So this went to the Supreme Court, and they said, look –

Sorry, but we can't guarantee reliable eyewitness testimony.

And if we were to ever try to legislate that, that would ruin most court cases because most things are predicated on eyewitness testimony.

So what the legal system tries to do is just educate jurors about this, about how seriously to take it, because – and by the way, I should mention –

Unfortunately, people are very swayed by this jurors are meaning, you know, a scientist might get up and say, look, there's this information or that.

But then some some I would assess, you know, I witness comes up on the stand and says, look, I don't know about all that science stuff, but I know what I saw.

And the jury is swayed by that.

So it's not easy to educate jurors on this because people fundamentally, even after education, feel like, OK, but I know that my memory is like a video camera.

Right.

So anyway, but that's one thing the legal system tries to do and tries not to take it as gospel.

Oh, but kids are actually more susceptible to memory manipulation.

So Elizabeth Loftus at Irvine ran these studies years ago where she – well, here's – sorry, this is slightly different.

But what she's doing in these cases is she says to someone, hey, I talked to your parents.

She actually did talk to the person.

And she says, I found out a story from when you were younger.

About the time you got lost in the mall and you were found by this woman in a red hat who then, you know, found your parents and so on.

And it turns out she can make these stories completely up and people will come to believe these.

And when she interviews them a week later, that is just part of the fact of their life resume is that they were lost in the mall and found this woman in the red hat and so on.

Well, here's what I think.