DOJ-OGR-00016613.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Header** * Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE * Document 761 * Filed 08/10/22 * Page 130 of 246 * LCGCmax4 * Loftus - direct **Text Body** 1. something that could vaguely look like it might be eyeglasses 2. or whatever, very ambiguous. If it got labeled as eyeglasses, 3. people remembered it as more like eyeglasses. If it got 4. labeled as dumbbells, people later remembered it as looking 5. more like dumbbells. That's just an example of how you can 6. label something ambiguous and it will affect people's memory 7. for what they saw. 8. Q. So if two people, let's say, are having a conversation 9. concerning an event, and one of the individuals characterizes 10. it in some colorful fashion that the other one may not have 11. considered, would that be a situation where the memory might 12. become labeled? 13. A. Yes, absolutely. In one of our older studies, we found 14. that labeling something as an incident, which is really fairly 15. neutral, has a different affect than when you label the thing 16. that happened as a fight. People are more likely to construct 17. an image of a fight, probably because of that label. 18. Q. Are you familiar with the term memory traces? 19. A. Memory traces? 20. Q. Yes. Or memory fragments? 21. A. Well, I suppose that every now and then somebody might talk 22. about memory fragments. Just, you would have a bit or a piece 23. of information in your memory. 24. Q. And are you familiar with situations where someone might 25. take that bit of a memory and enhance it in some way? **Footer** * SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. * (212) 805-0300 * DOJ-OGR-00016613