[Note: Friends of Justice is a personal blog. I speak only for myself.]
Dear Friend of Justice,
I was not surprised — but still sickened — by this story that just appeared on the Boston Globe web site.
I attended the Shanley trial. No reliable evidence was presented. The only evidence, in fact, was the uncorroborated testimony of a steroid-addicted sociopath who claimed that Shanley had abused him on a weekly basis for years and that he then immediately repressed all memories of the abuse only to recover them decades later.
There is no evidence to support the possibility of this kind of massive repression.
But thanks to the SJC, this whacko theory is now considered “science” in Massachusetts courtrooms. I live in a state where the SJC cares aught for science and justice but everything about politics. Perhaps they just wanted to give their pal Martha Coakley, who relentlessly pursued this conviction, a little boost.
I haven’t yet seen the decision. I wonder if at least one Justice had the guts to dissent.
Judges in more enlightened states have tossed the theory of massive repression into the trash where it belongs. Sooner or later, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to tackle the issue. Perhaps the Shanley case is the one they need to hear.
For more about Shanley, see http://ncrj.org/Shanley/.
-Bob Chatelle
