15 years for "victim's" false memory

[CBL4]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/15/church.abuse.shanley.ap/index.html

Defrocked priest Paul Shanley, a central figure in the Boston Archdiocese clergy sex abuse scandal, was sentenced Tuesday to 12 to 15 years in prison for raping a boy repeatedly in the 1980s.
...
The case hinged on the reliability of the accuser's memories of the abuse, which he said he recovered three years ago as the clergy sex abuse scandal unfolded in the media.

Shanley has been accused by others and he may (or may not) be guilty in those cases but he is almost certainly innocent in this one.

"It is difficult to imagine a more egregious misuse of trust and authority,"

I totally agree but unfortunately the judge was talking about Shanley and not himself and the (in)justice system.

CBL

 

[CFLarsen]

The case hinged on the reliability of the accuser's memories of the abuse, which he said he recovered three years ago as the clergy sex abuse scandal unfolded in the media.

How did he "recover" the memories?

 

[RandFan]

Shanley has been accused by others and he may (or may not) be guilty in those cases but he is almost certainly innocent in this one.

Could you comment further. I watched parts of the trial and the expert for the defense admitted on cross examination that such memories are possible. I wasn't expecting that.

It is true that there have been many witch hunts and many innocent people who have been imprisoned on this problematic notion of repressed memories. I'm not sure that it is absolutely spurious though, at least not at the moment.

 

[CBL4]

Could you comment further. I watched parts of the trial and the expert for the defense admitted on cross examination that such memories are possible. I wasn't expecting that.

I am not an expert on sex crimes or false memories but a moderately educated layman in both.

I am not aware of any strong evidence for recovered memories being accurate regardless of the recovery method. Perhaps there are cases but I am unaware them. I am aware of numerous case where they are clearly false. I am also aware of several cases where people accuse priests who are clearly innocent. I assume that infamous recovered memories are always false.

I read the transcript of one child abuse case. I "learned" that that it is possible to have sex with a girl hundreds of time without breaking her hymen. Since then I have read newspaper account of some of local cases and it is clear to me that many (most?) convicted child abusers are innocent.

I freely admit my biases but I believe that my assessment is accurate.

CBL

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: 15 years for "victim's" false memory

Could you comment further. I watched parts of the trial and the expert for the defense admitted on cross examination that such memories are possible. I wasn't expecting that.

Of course it is worth noting here that the question the defense is concerned with is not whether such memories are possible, but whether false memories are possible.

The prosecution's burden is not to show that it is possible that his memories are correct, they must show that they are correct beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the impact of such a defense admission in a jury trial cannot be underestimated, because of the emotional aspect. But in principle it does not change the facts of the case. Sure, it's possible but is it even likely? Even if the likelyhood that the memories are real is only 1%, then it must be considered possible. However, that doesn't change the fact that the memories are 99% likely to be wrong.

Of course, the defense doesn't even need it to be 99% likely to be wrong.

In this case, the prosecution turned the tables, and made a big score by getting the defense that they couldn't prove their case to beyond a reasonable doubt. Not that they need to, in principle, but if you can make it sound like they do, you have an edge.

 

[davefoc]

With respect to recovered memory my biases are quite similar to CBL4's.

Without some very significant corroborating evidence and maybe additional special circumstances long term recovered memory should probably never be allowed in a trial.

My thought is that the priest may very well be innocent. If the only significant evidence against him was the testimony from an individual that claimed a recovered memory the idea that he could be found guilty beyond a reasonabl doubt is loony.

One thing that has surprised me over the years is the way some prosecutors (at least in various documentaries on alleged false convictions) can latch on to the notion that the defendant is guilty and continue to believe that in the face of significant evidence to the contrary.

CBL4 commented:

Since then I have read newspaper account of some of local cases and it is clear to me that many (most?) convicted child abusers are innocent.

This comment surprised me. I don't have evidence to refute it but it goes pretty much against the common view of this which is that most people that are convicted of child abuse/molestation are guilty.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: 15 years for "victim's" false memory

Of course it is worth noting here that the question the defense is concerned with is not whether such memories are possible, but whether false memories are possible.

The prosecution's burden is not to show that it is possible that his memories are correct, they must show that they are correct beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the impact of such a defense admission in a jury trial cannot be underestimated, because of the emotional aspect. But in principle it does not change the facts of the case. Sure, it's possible but is it even likely? Even if the likelyhood that the memories are real is only 1%, then it must be considered possible. However, that doesn't change the fact that the memories are 99% likely to be wrong.

Of course, the defense doesn't even need it to be 99% likely to be wrong.

In this case, the prosecution turned the tables, and made a big score by getting the defense that they couldn't prove their case to beyond a reasonable doubt. Not that they need to, in principle, but if you can make it sound like they do, you have an edge.

"Anything is possible" is often the retort of experts answering defense lawyers. That was not lost on me. I will have to look up the transcripts if I get the opportunity. I think the responses were a little more than "it is possible".

I think "how" they are recovered is very important. Therapists were notorious at suggesting memories thus implanting false memories.

When I was very young I witnesed a violent act at a friends house involving incest and rape by my friends older brother and sister. My family moved and I did not think of the memory for more than a decade when I was in High School and I saw my friend for the first time since shortly after the event. I remembered the event and asked him about it. He corroborated the story. I admit that this is anecdotal but I think these types of accounts are common. I wonder if there is any other information on this type of memory. I think the accuser had a similar experience though certainly the fact that it happend to him might be a factor.

 

[Brown]

According to the New York Times, "About two dozen people have accused (defrocked priest Paul) Shanley of abuse, dating to the 1960's. Most of the allegations involved teenagers."

Also, the prosecution started out with four alleged victims, "(b)ut before the trial started, charges relating to three of the accusers were dropped."

Something's a little fishy. Cases based upon allegedly repressed memories are ALWAYS fishy, and ordinarily accusations should be supported with corroborating evidence. It appears that the prosecution thought it had corroborating evidence, but if it dismissed charges relating to three accusers, one wonders about the validity of the corroborating evidence. In addition, it is strange that the prosecution would determine that the recovered memory case is the BEST of the four cases.

According to the Boston Globe, the Defense attorney may have made a tactical error by trying to discount all recovered memories with just one witness:

Defense attorney Frank Mondano was so confident in the strategy that the only witness he called was Elizabeth Loftus, a professor at the University of California at Irvine, who testified that false memories can be placed by psychotherapists in susceptible minds.

Shanley chose not to take the stand, and even though juries are specifically instructed that they cannot infer guilt from exercise of Fifth Amendment rights, they often cannot ignore the fact that the defendant did not tell his side of the story. As they weigh the facts, juries find the testimony of an accuser (who was very sincere, emotional and not acting), balanced against no counterweight testimony from the accused. They are given virtually nothing from the accused upon which they can "hang their hat" for a finding of reasonable doubt.

The accuser had already obtained a half-million settlement from the archdiocese, and chose not to go away, but rather chose to try to put Shanley behind bars. To some jurors, this made the accuser credible.

I expect that there will be an appeal of this case, perhaps with the admissibility of uncorroborated recovered memories being brought to the forefront.

 

[CBL4]

This comment surprised me. I don't have evidence to refute it but it goes pretty much against the common view of this which is that most people that are convicted of child abuse/molestation are guilty.

It does go against the common view but I believe it is true.

As I said, I read the transcipt of a trial where prosecution's doctor said the hymen was unbroken but this did not mean the girl had not had sex hundreds of times. His most telling comment was that we know repeated child molestation can occur with an unbroken hymen because we frequently convict men of repeated rape even though the hymen is unbroken.

In a local case, a man had a deformed rib which the girl could remember after several alleged instances of consensual sex. 8 of the jurors still wanted him convicted. He pled guilty to a lesser charge rather than face a new trial in which she would "remember" the rib deformity. In this trial, the doctor (not the same one) made the same comment about the hymen - and since the defendent pled guilty, it "proves" the doctors are right.

After reading the transcipt in the one case, I repeatedly read the same code words in the testimony which, to me, imply innocence.

I realize that no one will (or should) take my word on this but I hope to make people think a little before assuming the worst.

CBL