Surely her memory wouldn't be that blurry.
Oh yes, it could be, very easily. Memory is a tricky thing. The kind of memory we're talking about here is
episodic memory, that is, memory of events, things seen and heard. This type of memory is very unreliable in everybody, with rare exceptions for savant syndrome types. However, most people think their memory is good to great, when actual experiments and tests show the opposite to be the case. Eyewitness testimony is hugely unreliable, and one problem that occurs when people are repeatedly asked to describe something that happened, is that every time part of the real memory gets dropped out and the brain inserts something else to take its place and before long the whole "recollection" is quite distorted from the real event.
One of the acknowledged world experts in the field is Elizabeth Loftus, whom I had the privilege of hearing at a professional symposium recently. I recommend any of her books, but anyone interested might want to start with some of her YouTube offerings. For an overview, here's the Wikipedia link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
One can have a spectacular memory in other ways but will be no better than anyone else at episodic memory. I could remember whole pages of the dictionary as a kid but I now know I would not be a good witness to an auto accident just because I readily remember 25-digit numbers or multiple things in print. These are different kinds of memory and use different brain structures. Others have spectacular visual-spatial memory (chess masters) or motor memory (gymnasts, violinists).
Memory is a fascinating topic,but quite complex. I for one did not find it surprising that many of the witnesses didn't remember significant things (and said so). Typically, people only remember
what they pay attention to, and that only for a short time and usually in a mixed-up way.
