4 ms·

'Replacing notes from memory' is not ideal but it's far removed from 'make up evidence' used in the headline.

• fabian2k 3y ago
  Depends probably on how extensive and detailed the notes are. And the big problem seems to be that they are hiding the fact that those notes were from memory.
• cowpig 3y ago
  Take a look at this figure[0] from "The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom" [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=4183265_nihms-624859-f0002.jpg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/t...
• 6c696e7578 3y ago
  Indeed, but memory is fine, then why take notes at all? I think the point is that if the inspector only finds out by chance that the notes were not committed then they might have to make it up from memory in a day or week, it just isn't reliable. Why not double account, why not have a separate (software?) dictaphone and write notes? If one is lost, there's the other.
  • SoftTalker 3y ago
    Primary notes or journals should always be hand-written on paper or perhaps recorded, then entered into a more structured database system. This is why lab notebooks are still used in science and engineering. This is why doctors dictate their chart entries. You can always reconstruct from those.
    • fabian2k 3y ago
      Lab notebooks are often digital today. Of course they shouldn't get lost and all changes need to be logged. The software described here would be entirely unacceptable as a lab notebook.