Hi, Kim. So the idea is that we, as speakers, typically include in our statements information we deem relevant to our conclusions. When we violate that norm, our conversation partner is surprised and the discussion can become awkward. If someone is telling you a story about spilling her cereal all over the place, and she keeps going out of her way to tell you it's the "blue bowl" she was using, it becomes confusing at the end when you realize it didn't matter what color the bowl was. You might ask, wait, why did you keep telling me the bowl was blue? So, sure, we often go off on tangents. As many of my students can attest, doing so seems to be an unavoidable component of my teaching style. But when your hypothetical storyteller searches for the right day instead of just saying "last week," I think it's reasonable to conclude that she either thinks 1) it'll matter to your ability to really "get" the story, or 2) remembering which day it was will help her get the rest of the story right. And I suppose a third option is that it just bugs us when we can't remember something, so she might spend a minute trying to get the right day before saying, "sorry, I guess that doesn't matter" or "never mind; whichever day it was, the next thing that happened was..." To answer your question more directly, if you asked a storyteller who was searching for the right day of the week to explain why he was doing it, he'd either explain the importance of knowing which day it was for the purpose of the story or apologize for the irrelevant diversion. The jurors in question didn't do either. They didn't apologize for the irrelevant, tangential thought. And they denied that it was an important aspect of their statement, claiming instead that it was a simple descriptor of the defendant. That makes little sense given that no such descriptor was needed-- everyone knew the defendant was big and Black.