#2 False Memory
There are a number of theories that handle memory, dual process (Gist, and Verbatim memory), FFT (Fuzzy trace theory) and "False Memory. I, on the whole, don't agree with any theories that portion the brain / psyche, because any thought procedure produces so much synaptic, and chemical / hormonal activity across the whole of the brain.
http://www.human-memory.net/brain_neurons.html
The historical roots of "false memory" can be followed back to Alfred Binet (1857–1911), Jean Charcot (1825-1893), Jean Piaget (1896–1980), and Frederic C. Bartlett (1886–1969). The first theories were based on the studies of animal magnetism by Franz Mesmer around 1773.
"False memory" seems like a relict of a, metaphorically speaking, time when the psychological world was still flat.
Experiments involving the theory of "false memory" only go to prove human imperfection IMO. I think this is something we all know and knew, or did you remember to buy everything when you last went shopping? Our imperfection is displayed almost daily. Instead of diagnosing someone with "false memory", you could just say their recollection was not correct, they made a mistake, they're making up a story, or they are darn right lying. Who can tell the difference anyway?
It gets a bit more interesting on the subject of memory manipulation, or implanting a "false memory". It does happen quite often, that before a witness is questioned, they hear rumours from other people or the media, and they can implant things into their stories of an event. A black car might become dark blue, a green coat become grey. This however depends on the level of awareness present in the addressed situation, and the amount of detail that is registered. Only the amount of information that was stored, can be later recovered. This is where eye witnesses should be looked at very closely.
If a person was paying attention, or was very aware for a certain reason, they will be sure of what they have seen, and there is not much room for manipulation. The amount of awareness will decide the size of the file that's saved into memory, very much like scanning a photo into your computer. As a traumatic experience generally raises the level of awareness, the size of the file increases, however the situation can become so traumatic that the person dissociates, the higher developed regions of the brain appear inactive, survival modus is activated.
The retrieval of this information becomes difficult because of "defense" procedures, and actual theories propose that these files are scattered in memory as if they were on a highly fragmented disk drive, and often have no chronology. Later, fragments of the experience, force themselves into consciousness and can cause very problematic flashbacks.
On the whole, what's memorised is the result of a combination of awareness, interpretation, sensual capabilities, association and the many physical attributes of time and space and mass. Memory is as individual as we are as humans. If a memory is good, time does not play a great role, the information is there, if recollection is not disturbed by individual defense procedures (dissociative amnesia) or mental deficiency, chances are good of restoring this information. The quality of the information is related to the required details, lets say in a criminal investigation for instance.
