Actually, what George did to remember the time is completely natural: Memory studies show that we connect incidents with activities and places already "tagged" in our minds. (In fact, you can improve your memory by practicing such associations.)
The major problem with reconstructing these days is that memory fades very, very quickly and most of us have a tendency to transpose parts of recollections onto other events. (We spent last weekend with my girlfriend's sister and three sons, but when we compared our memories of sequences and events, both of us were very spotty. I should admit that my girlfriend's recollections were much more detailed than my own.)
That was actually what I was trying to point out. On wither it was a normal thing in it's self.
The guy with the shovel, he also based the when.. on what he was doing at the time she asked for it and when she returned it. And he was doing those thingsa t such and such time.
It's based upon what is going on in that persons life. What is important to them.
Since it was your GF's sister and the sisters kids.... a lot more stuff going on, who was doing what, etc.. that in it's self might be more important to the gf, then you. Hence, she might remember more detail. Alot of the stuff she would remember, she automaticly attached it to older memories or reasoning.
CA said her mom might have heard Caylee in the background while taking to KC. She might have heard a little girl and didn't focus on it, cause such a sound would be 'normal.' Any such sound would automaticly, mentally expalined away cause KC has a little girl. However, if KC didn't have a child, then her mind would want to know who was the little girl.
Some times our mind makes automaticly thought judgements that we don't realize. Granny might really have heard a little girl. Doesn't mean it's Caylee. KC did go with a friend who has children to the park one day. If granny called during that time frame, granny would assume any young child she heard was Caylee.
The reason folks can see the very same events and each tell the story differently, is because we store the memory based upon how we understand what we saw. We do that based upon past experiences, etc. We make moment judements about what we see and hear. What each one witnessed is the truth. The problem is when one tried to make what their opinion is as fact. It's the opinion of what happened that is the differences. It takes someone else, who wasn't involved, to interview everyong, who is most likely to come up with a more clear picture of what happened. They get to 'see' from many angles, etc.
BTW: None of that is about wither GA was lying or making up stuff. I would like to point that.
I gota go. Hubby is demanding family time. LOL! Seems folks think I need to get off the computer.
