It's the memory problem

again isn't it?
What if a certain judge who has been nominated for a position on the highest court in the US and a certain professor accusing him of unspeakable acts both honestly believe they are telling the truth?
No, hear me out please. This is a serious question.
It is a question of major importance to the law and one which has received far too little attention.
Our memories are faulty. We may genuinely believe we remember things, that they are so fixed in our memories that we will never forget them. We believe we will remember, can remember and will always remember the most minute of details.
We don't. 
We can even be wrong about the big things. They may have happened - or they may not have happened. They may have happened in a certain way - not have happened. People we know may or may not have been there.
In my family I am considered to be the person who can remember things. I know why this is so and I also know that my memory is far from perfect.
I remember things because I have the language to remember things. I can remember things from a very early time in my life but some are no more than vague impressions. I wouldn't want to have to give evidence about those. My slightly later memories are sharper because I had more language. By the time I started school I want to believe that my memories are sharp and clear and accurate. They aren't of course - although I have no doubt that I can remember more than many children.
The Senior Cat and I were discussing something yesterday. It was something that occurred in my early childhood.  He made some shelving for a small shed out of something called "dexion". That same dexion now  holds the pots he uses for gardening. It is no surprise that I know it exists - and can remember for what purpose it was first used. I also remember the shed. 
I know I don't remember the shed that well. I remember I was not allowed inside the shed. It had a range of things in it that were not safe for a very inquisitive small child. But I said to the Senior Cat 
"And I remember you painting the door of the shed. It was blue."
"No, it was green."
"It was blue."
"No, you're wrong. It was green."
We argued about this for a moment longer and then I said, "No, it had to be blue because you painted my first tricycle red but there wasn't enough paint so you painted the tray at the back blue."
The Senior Cat shrugged and we stopped discussing it.
Now, I honestly believe I am right about that but there is no way either of us can prove it.  I do remember watching the Senior Cat paint the second hand tricycle he was given for me. Am I right or wrong about the tray? 
That tricycle was an enormous event in my life. I could suddenly go places - and did I go! I don't think I will forget it - unless I am unfortunate enough to get Alzheimer's. But do I remember the colour correctly?
Of course we can argue that the judge's accuser was a lot older, the memory much more recent and much more.  But the reality is  that in a highly charged and very emotional setting memories about what actually happened and what we want to believe happened can be two different things. 
We can believe people are what they are not. It can depend entirely on whose side we are on. Do we believe that a murdered daughter is pretty well perfect and that the grieving family "deserves justice" and thus find someone guilty of her murder - or do we acknowledge that she was a drinker and a drug  user and that her death was an accident in which he played no part? The family and those who side with them will always want to believe the former. Those who know the man in question will no doubt always want to believe the latter.
And yes, those "year books"...how accurate are they? I've never seen any similar sort of thing here which is a completely accurate representation of those in it or the events which took place. They most certainly should not be used as character evidence. I can remember vicious comments written about a quiet girl from a remote area - simply because she had not joined in the alcohol fuelled events that had dominated her first year at university. It had been so cleverly done that other people thought it was funny at the time.  If she went for a job interview now and that was brought up she wouldn't get the job even though it was completely wrong.
Simply accusing someone and saying you remember what happened is not enough. Even corroborative evidence can be wrong if it simply relies on memory.
The law has a problem with all this. It is one which we have yet to overcome.