false memory and eyewitness testimony

False Memories are essentially, unintentional human errors, or a state of none-factual creativeness; which results in persons having declared memories of events and situations that did not occur in the actuality of their own lifespan reality history. If they were not unintentional errors they would be deception, which has the nature of a different purpose, morality and legality. False memories have no authenticity, realness or legitimacy, in the subject’s actual life. However they may not be complete false memories: more likely to be a combination of subjugation of previous memory cue’s; or imaginative inventive production, activated and initiated by an origination of external scenario additive as a prompt, indicator or sign, which fuses into memory recall. Therefore ‘False Memories’ are a genuine but inaccurate remembering of experimental data or recall of an genuine occurrences; both of which have rudiments of accuracy and inaccuracy in their transitive attention, giving most ‘False Memories’ partiality. In the episodic sense, that is the category of long-term memory which involves the recollection of a specific event, as is the case of ‘Eye Witness Testimony’; but which also recalls the situation and experience formulated around the time and location: there are two separate processes, a dual theory of recollection and familiarity, (Yonelinas, A.P. 2002 p441) who asserts that it is best explained by the scenario of identifying a person (familiarity) but also have the inability to bring to mind who the person is or when they were encountered them, an amaurosis of (recollection). According to (Gardiner 2002) he notes that whilst episodic memory is autonoetic, that is a memory has the ability to place us in the past, it also has noticism, it has an intuitive knowing working towards meaning and purpose, a subjective placement of memory. In any episodic event there