Archive for the ‘Memory’ Category

More About Martha Coakley and the Souza Case

Saturday, January 16th, 2010

Dear Friend of Justice,

A while back, I asked if a reader of this blog might be interested in pulling together a brief summary of Martha Coakley’s career. My friend Frank Kane volunteered. His short summary, however, eventually grew to 15,500 words.

Eventually I want to post the entire document, which Frank is still working on. Meanwhile, I would like to post a few excerpts.

First, I would like to post his summary of the Ray and Shirley Souza case. Frank was a frequent visitor to the Souzas during their many years spent under house arrest. Much of what follows is based not only on news reports but on conversations he had with Ray and Shirley.

***

Case of Raymond and Shirley Souza, Lowell, Mass. Grandparents [1991 to 1993]:

Coakley was assigned to the case of Raymond and Shirley Souza, grandparents who had lived all their lives in Lowell, Massachusetts. Their story began when a college-age single daughter, Shirley Ann, went to a therapist for issues with a near-date rape.  The therapist ranged beyond that incident to suggest that Shirley Ann had been sexually abused by her father, Raymond Souza, and her mother, Shirley Souza. In a nightmare subsequent to the initial sessions in which she was convinced she’d been repressing her memories, Shirley Ann dreamed that she’d been raped by her father with a crucifix, and that her mother had participated. [Note: the satanic ritual aspect of this “dream,” as well as the repressed memory facts, never made it to trial.]

In a panic, Shirley Ann immediately told her sister-in-law, Heather, and her married sister, Sharon, that she had been sexually abused by Mom and Dad, and that their children were also probably being sexually abused. Heather brought her kids to a therapist, who basically told Heather to ease up, that she was overly pressuring the kids. Heather then took the kids to another therapist, who confirmed that the children were suffering from sex abuse trauma. And so it went with the other Souza adult children
.
The Department of Social Services (DSS) was called in and had the children checked out by doctors and therapists. The initial outcome was that DSS saw no need to pursue the case, and so ruled, perhaps because Sharon, the oldest daughter, had not joined the push for indictment, as well as awareness that Heather had been pressuring her kids to disclose.

And so the DA took no further action until the daughter-in-law, Heather, protested vehemently at the Office of the DA, and somebody told Sharon she’d lose her kids if she didn’t cooperate. The DSS reversed itself and decided to go forward, when Sharon, panicked, also went to the therapist, and joined the indictment. By this time, six months had passed and Sharon was ensnared in the repressed memory trap.

The Souzas were told a child sexual abuse expert would interview the children. They later learned it was Jeanine Hemstead, a then-unlicensed social worker.

The Souzas hired a lawyer, Robert George, who counseled them to go with a bench trial — a judge, but no jury. The first judge available demurred on the bench trial; the next available judge was Elizabeth Dolan. George told the Souzas she was a good judge, knew child sex abuse matters very extensively, but failed to inform them she had been Gerald Amirault’s judge. The Souzas did not fully understand the significance of a bench trial, which, in effect, was like a grand jury hearing, in which the judge could allow or disallow most anything.

Judge Dolan informed George that she would not allow any of that recovered memory garbage in her court room, and threatened to throw him out if he tried to bring it in. Therefore, the true start of the Souza fiasco, the recovery of repressed memories of Shirley Ann, never saw the light of day in the Souza trial. All would hinge on the testimony of little children, just as in the Fells Acres Case. I’m sure Coakley and the D.A. were not displeased with that decision. And, the children came up with similar bizarre accusations as in the Fells Acres trial. They said Granma and Grampa had locked them up in a cage in the basement (there was no cage), that they’d been molested by a machine as big as a room, and that they’d been forced to drink a green potion. When one of the kids, as she was being questioned by the social worker, pushed around one of those sexually-explicit dolls lying on the floor, with the toe of her shoe, it was entered in evidence that the girl had been sexually molested by her grandfather, using his toe.

Judge Dolan gave short shrift to the one Souza expert, Dr. Richard Gardner, a well-known psychologist who had written books on child sex abuse cases, especially the Salem Witch Trials. She barely acknowledged his contribution of his extensive experience in the field, whereas she listened intently to what Dr.Andrea Vandeven from Children’s Hospital had to say, in regard to an anal “wink” and to a hymenal anomaly, later called a “tear” in the media after the trial session (Lowell Sun), as “not indicating sexual abuse but not inconsistent with the existence of possible sexual abuse.” Later, when the Souzas appealed that the doctor had contradicted her own reporting of physical symptomology, Judge Dolan said that she had made her decision on their guilt, with little to no regard to the testimony of the experts in the case, so the matter they were appealing was irrelevant.

George did not try to call the therapist who had told Heather she was overly pressuring her kids. He also failed to call a medical expert to counter Vandeven’s claims. He never tried to challenge Jeanine Hemstead’s credentials by calling her out. In short, George didn’t object to much of anything of substance, which could have helped the Souzas on appeal.

Ray Souza had a hearing problem, following a near-electrocution on his job, but nothing was done by the court to assist him. There is no record of George trying to file an objection to it. Ray and Shirley were badly prepared to go on the stand in their own defense and came across as angry and defensive, as any innocent set of grandparents might under those conditions.

Despite the fact the Souzas’ story was featured in a lead article about repressed-memory cases in Newsweek, with the Souzas appearing on the cover, Martha Coakley responded to all queries about her case against the Souzas — on the TV program Greater Boston and elsewhere — that the trial was not about repressed memories. It was about the sexual abuse of the children.

The case, begun in 1991, finally ended in a courtroom in 1993 with Dolan convicting the Souzas. If the scenes from news stories in the media of the unfettered jubilation among the Souza adult children can be judged accurate, in the court room after Judge Dolan decreed the guilt of their mother and father, then, it seemed that the female members of the family had totally fallen under the Repressed Memories spell. There was unbridled glee, shared with the prosecution sex abuse team’s gloating over their “victory.”

When Judge Dolan, at the sentencing hearing, allowed the Souza adult children to read from letters purportedly written by the children, something happened to Dolan’s stern resolve, which had taken on an almost impassive and implacable aspect when it came to matter before her — the alleged horrendous molestation of the Souzas’ grandchildren, accompanied by unbelievable, unproven, and unsubstantiated claims by the prosecution team, led by Martha Coakley and including the experts from the Children’s Hospital’s Abuse Prevention Group, headed up by Dr. Eli Newberger.

What affected Dolan no one will ever know, whether it was the stand taken by experts, not in the trial, but in the media, that the Middlesex D.A.’s Office had over-reached and over-charged, or perhaps the reading of those letters from the children, filled with hateful and barbed animosity, not sounding like words any child would say, let alone know.  Dolan seemed to react with a measure of mercy by allowing the Souzas to remain under house arrest pending appeal. She still found them guilty, however, while never addressing the true source of their prosecution, the repressed memories of the youngest Souza daughter — an element  she had barred from testimony, without objection by the Souzas’ lawyer, Robert George.  She sentenced the Souzas to 9 to 15 years.

Later, in 1995 and in 1998, Dolan turned down all points in their appeal, but then revised their sentence to nine years.  She did not remand them to prison, over the objections of the adult Souza children and the Middlesex County DA’s Office, voiced by Martha Coakley. So Ray and Shirley Souza spent the time until 2002 at home, but with ankle bracelets and a constantly-monitoring phone system, all of which they had to pay for.  At least they were together, and he not in Bridgewater and she not in Framingham. Ironically, Dolan did not set any home visitation restrictions on the Souzas, despite the conviction for child abuse. Friends of their adult children often brought their own little kids on visits to the Souzas’ home. Dolan refused to amend her guidelines for children visiting, despite the complaints from the D.A..

Lest one might think Coakley later changed her mind about her much-maligned and oft-criticized prosecution of the Souzas, she continued to argue that the couple should be behind bars.  In a Boston Globe article dated November 28, 1999, following her election as Middlesex D.A., Coakley reaffirmed that position.  “I didn’t feel at all there was pressure for us to go on some witch hunt to clean up child abuse,” Caokley said.  “If you look across the board at the abuse cases we did, there are a lot we didn’t go after. I’m pretty proud of my record on that.”

In the same article, in assessing Coakley’s future role as the new Middlesex County D.A., the writer speculates, as follows:

“Just what she will do in the office remains unclear. Even though crime is down statewide, those who take her measure from her years in the child abuse unit are watchful for signs of an aggressive attack on crime. Defense attorneys are generally unwilling to talk publicly about Coakley, in whose hands their clients’ fates may lie, but some regard her as having been unrelentingly zealous. Charges of over-reaching echo particularly in the Souza Case, which Coakley helped prosecute.

“Last year, a judge [Elizabeth Dolan] ruled that the elderly couple did not have to go to prison, as prosecutors had wanted, but could remain under house arrest. In doing so, the judge revoked their original prison sentence of 9 to 15 years and placed them on probation until 2002, causing some to criticize Coakley for slamming the couple too hard in the first place.”  (Actually, they remained under house arrest until April, 2002.)

“Martha Coakley was one of the people who believed that all victims and children were telling the truth when they said they were abused,” declared lawyer Robert George , who defended the Souzas. “Did she go too far in prosecuting the Souzas? Absolutely. I don’t think Martha Coakley ever stopped going 100 miles an hour in her efforts to convict them.”

Raymond Souza died in 2007, of complications of Alzheimer’s. His wake and funeral, although not announced by Shirley Souza in the media, for fear of continuing media persecution, drew an amazing crowd of hundreds of his family, friends, neighbors, work associates, and Lowell-area luminaries, worthy of any well-loved and respected personage.  A  cortege consisting of scores of automobiles wound through the streets of Lowell. At the cemetery, Ray was accorded honors as a World War II veteran of the U.S. Navy, and Shirley was given the ceremonially-folded U.S. flag.

Shirley Souza, in 2009, remains categorized as a registered sex offender according to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB). While Martha Coakley runs for Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in Washington, D.C..

**************************************************************

The Shanley Amicus, Submitted by 100 Leading Scientists

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

Dear Friend of Justice,

Press accounts of the Shanley case have been mentioning an amicus that was submitted by 100 prominent and extremely well-credentialed scientists. You can read the brief for yourself by going here.

I am pleased that four members of the Advisory Board of my organization, the National Center for Reason and Justice, signed on to this clear and comprehensive brief.

-Bob Chatelle

We Must Stop Martha Coakley!

Thursday, September 10th, 2009

Dear Friend of Justice,

When I first heard the unfortunate news about Senator Kennedy’s terminal illness, my blood ran cold at the thought of his being succeeded by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

I fear that Coakley is going to be hard to stop. She will be the only woman in a crowded race, and she is likely to have the enthusiastic support of the Boston Globe, which does its best to influence electoral politics in Massachusetts.

The media is making much of her “stellar” record in the Middlesex District Attorney’s office. Let’s look at that record.

First, there is the case of Ray and Shirley Souza. These were the Lowell grandparents falsely accused and convicted of molesting their own grandchildren. The case was spurred by a daughter who was victimized by a recovered-memory “therapist.” The testimony was manufactured by the same discredited methods used in the other high-profile cases of the day. Ray Souza is now deceased, but Shirley — a very fine woman — is saddled with living her life out as a registered sex offender.

Coakley was also the prosecutor in the case of Louise Woodward — the nanny accused of murdering a child in her care. There was no reliable medical evidence supporting this. Woodward was convicted, but the judge changed the verdict to manslaughter, sentenced her to time served, and released her to return to her native England.

Then there was the Fells Acres case.  The Amirault family was falsely accused and wrongly convicted of abusing children at the daycare school that they ran. This was one of the classic daycare cases, along with the McMartin case, Bernard Baran, the Little Rascals, and many others. While Coakley was not one of the original prosecutors, she fought the appeals tooth and nail. And when Gerald Amirault was pursuing a commutation, she orchestrated a disinformation campaign against the Amiraults.

Coakley and the Middlesex County DA’s office also did their best to derail at least one wrongfully convicted inmate’s efforts to prove his innocence via DNA evidence, at first denying that such evidence existed, then trying to impede access to it.  Once the evidence was obtained. and the inmate’s innocence was established, Coakley still tried (and failed) to strike a face-saving deal in which the exoneree would admit to a nonexistent measure of guilt.

And then there is the case of Paul Shanley The media campaign against Shanley was so successful that few consider his innocence a possibility. But innocent he is. I attended that trial. There was no evidence against him, other than the testimony of a sociopath who had collected a huge settlement from the church and who claimed to have massively repressed for decades all memory of terrible abuse that had occurred weekly for years.  There is no scientific evidence to support the theory of massive repression. I refer you to Dr. Richard McNally’s excellent book on the subject, Remembering Trauma.

I believe that Coakley is driven more by ambition than ideology. But her willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocent people in order to further her political goals is most troubling. If Massachusetts voters wish to honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy, they should send someone else to replace him.

-Bob Chatelle

Welcom Back Frank!

Monday, April 20th, 2009

Dear Friend of Justice,

Many of you know my friend, Frank Kane, the Treasurer of the National Center for Reason and Justice. Many of you once corresponded with him by email.

About a year and a half ago, Frank’s computer got fried as a result of a bad lightning strike near his house. (I’ve forgotten the details.) He finally has obtained a new system.

I helped him get on the air, but I was unable to transfer files, emails, and his address book from his old Mac. (I am totally helpless when faced with a Mac.) So I’m hoping some Mac expert will soon help him out.

Meanwhile, he has no email addresses for his friends. So if you know Frank, send him an email at frank@ncrj.org.

If you don’t know Frank, email him anyway. He’s a great guy!

Cheers,

Bob

Reliability and Credibility

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

[Courts have] a responsibility to ensure that evidence admitted at trial is sufficiently reliable so that it may be of use to the finder of fact who will draw the ultimate conclusions of guilt or innocence. That concern implicates principles of constitutional due process. “Reliability is the linchpin” in determining admissibility of evidence under standard of fairness that is required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Competent and reliable evidence remains at the foundation of a fair trial, which seeks ultimately to determine the truth about criminal culpability. If crucial inculpatory evidence is alleged to have been derived from unreliable sources, due process interests are at risk.

State v. Michaels (1994) citing Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U. S. 98, 97 S. Ct. 2243
(1976)

I am posting a link to an article, by Robert Rosenthal, that I believe should be required reading for every law student intending to enter criminal practice, either as a prosecutor or as a defense attorney.

One of the most useful things Rosenthal does in this article is to explain clearly the difference between the commonly confused concepts, reliability and credibility:

Understanding the meaning of reliability in the legal context has proven difficult for many lawyers and jurists, as well as scientists attempting to be heard and understood in a courtroom. A primary source of this difficulty is the frequent confusion between “reliability” and two other legal terms: “credibility” and “competence.”

“Competence” refers to the capability or capacity of a particular individual to serve as a witness. Persons are deemed competent if they are sufficiently intelligent to observe, recollect, and recount an event, and have a moral sense of obligation to speak the truth. 3 The determination regarding a witness’ competence is a legal one, made by the trial judge before testimony is given. 4 The competence standard is not very demanding. The vast majority of people offered as witnesses are deemed — and are — competent to testify in a trial. Competence is presumed, and therefore it only becomes an issue in cases involving young children or individuals whose capacity to observe, recollect, and recount is impaired or undeveloped.

“Credibility” refers to how believable a witness is. The credibility of a witness’ testimony is an assessment made by the jury’s it considers each witness’ statements and the challenges to those statements made through cross-examination and contradictory evidence. The jury’s responsibility to determine the credibility of each witness’ testimony is no different than any listener’s judgments about whether a speaker is telling the truth. In the context of a trial, credibility determinations are not matters of law to be decided by the trial judge. Rather, the jury is solely responsible for making these credibility assessments.

Whether evidence is “reliable” is a legal matter that is decided by the trial judge before the evidence is presented to the jury. Unlike “competence,” reliability does not concern the personal characteristics of witness. Unlike “credibility,” reliability does not concern the believability of witness. “Reliability” concerns the inherent quality of evidence.

Evidence is reliable if it is what it is purported to be. For example, photograph is reliable as evidence at trial if it accurately represents the scene that it purports to represent; that is, the scene of the crime at the time it occurred. Similarly, if a witness sees the occurrence of crime and then identifies the perpetrator, that identification testimony is reliable because it is what it purports to be: n identification of the person who committed the crime. If, however, the witness could not positively identify suspect until investigators suggested that a particular person was in fact the perpetrator, the witness’ identification may not be what it purports to be. It may be reflection of the suggestion rather than the witness’ own identification. Because there is no way to differentiate between the two, the identification that is made after suggestion is deemed unreliable and inadmissible at trial as a matter of law, and the jury would never hear about it. 5 Other examples of evidence deemed inadmissible for want of reliability include testimony produced through hypnosis, which may be the product of the hypnotic suggestion rather than reflection of the witness’ experience, 6 and out-of-court statements elicited through suggestive or coercive questions. 7

Each piece of evidence offered at trial is subject to a reliability determination by the judge. For example, if the prosecutor in a trial involving cocaine possession wishes to present bag of cocaine, the prosecutor must establish that the bag of cocaine presented in court is the same as the bag of white powder taken from the defendant at the time of his arrest. To do this, the prosecutor must demonstrate a “chain of custody” documenting the whereabouts of the bag of powder from the time it was collected by the police through the trial. The chain of custody provides an assurance that the cocaine presented at trial is what it purports to be: the bag of white powder confiscated from that particular defendant at the time of the arrest.

It is understandable that lay people and journalists often confuse credibility and reliability. What is neither understandable nor forgivable is that so many judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys either don’t know the difference or simply don’t care.

Testimony produced by the coercive questioning of children is not reliable. (Indeed, coercive questioning can produce unreliable testiminy in adults as well.) This is not to say that such testimpny is necessarily false. But since no jury should hear unreliable evidence in the first place, no jury should have to decide its credibility.

Testimony based on memories previously “repressed” memories is not reliability. No jury should hear such evidence and judge its credibility.

Few (if any) scientists argue for the reliability of evidence produced by coercive questioning or based on repressed memories. Part of the problem is that lawyers, including judges, have little understanding of what science is and often treat non-scientists, such as psychotherapists, as if they were scientists.But if psychotherapists qualify as scientists, then so should astrologers and phrenologists.

A few years ago the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court disgraced itself when it, without dissent, refused to grant a new trial to the obviously innocents defendants in the Fells Acres case. If any of those judges understoon the difference between reliability and credibility, they held their tongues for political reasons.

Soon the massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear the new-trial motion for the Paul Shanley case. Once again, they will have to decide which is more important: politics of the United States Consitution.

I wish their past performance gave us more reason to hope.

-Bob Chatelle

Bad — but not unexpected — ruling in the Shanley case

Wednesday, November 26th, 2008

Dear Friend of Justice,

I learned today that Judge Neel turned down the new-trial motion in the Paul Shanley case. While this decision saddens and angers me, it was what I was expecting. I attended the trial and the hearing on the new-trial motion. Neel made it obvious that he didn’t understand the issues involved, including the difference between repression and forgetting.

I have not read the decision and I am not in a hurry to do so. I don’t want to lose my appetite completely on the day before Thanksgiving. If you have a strong stomach, let me know and I will send the document to you.

Robert Shaw, Shanley’s appellate attorney, is intelligent, dedicated, and hard-working. I know that he will do a stellar job before the Appeals Court. My hope is that he will draw three fair, intelligent, and courageous judges.

-Bob Chatelle

Beware of Sybill

Thursday, June 5th, 2008

I received this press release from Pam Freyd:

**********************************************************************
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TV MOVIE REVIEWER
JUNE 5, 2008
SYBIL: AN MPD HOAX

On Saturday June 7, 2008 CBS will air its remake of the movie SYBIL,
(based on the 1973 book with the same name) about an early, alleged
case of “multiple-personality disorder” (MPD).

SYBIL was the first major book/movie to tie “MPD” to child abuse.
Before SYBIL was published, there were fewer than 50 reported cases of
MPD worldwide. By 1994, over 40,000 cases had been reported.

SYBIL, however, is well known to be a hoax. See, for example, _The New
York Review of Books, 44(7)_, April 24, 1997, “Sybil-The Making of a
Disease: An Interview with Dr. Herbert Spiegel,” by Mikkel
Borch-Jacobsen.1

Dr. Spiegel (Faculty, Columbia Medical School) reported that
statements from the real “Sybil” convinced him that her “memories”
were the result of suggestion by Dr. Cornelia B. Wilbur. He reports
that Wilbur engaged author Flora Rheta Schreiber to write “Sybil’s”
case for a popular audience only after professional journals refused
to publish it. He refused to lend his name and credentials to
co-author the work when asked to do so by Wilbur and Schreiber.

The 2006 book _The Bifurcation of the Self: The History and Theory of
Dissociation and Its Disorder_ (Springer) by Professor Robert Rieber
(Fordham University) documents how the hoax was perpetrated. Rieber
had access to the original Schreiber/Wilbur interview tapes made when
Sybil was being written. We learn that the “memories were a result of
prolonged hypnosis and, to quote Dr. Wilbur: “Uh, the first time we
got any memories back was when I gave her Pentothal …” (Rieber,
page 217)2

Wilbur’s treatment of Sybil required eleven years and a total of 2,254
sessions.

In a letter to Dr. Wilbur, (reprinted in Rieber page 91) Schreiber
reports that she had visited “Sybil’s” hometown but was unable to find
anyone to corroborate the awful things that supposedly happened to
“Sybil” there. Schreiber was also unable to find the “woods” where
many incidents allegedly occurred.

Will the CBS remake of SYBIL include the information documenting
Sybil’s MPD as a hoax? Does it matter? Yes! Bitter experience shows
that when the media give credence to psychological anomalies, they
spread wildly.

Media coverage played a pivotal role in the dissemination of McMartin
preschool copycat cases in the mid 1980’s, the spread of the “Satanic
Panic” and alien abduction sightings in the 1990’s, and in widely held
beliefs about “repressed” memories of childhood abuse.

SYBIL played a substantial role in a cultural and psychiatric tsunami,
later known as the “false” or “recovered” memory debate. In spite of
professional skepticism about MPD and multi-million dollar malpractice
suits by former MPD patients, there is danger of unleashing another
tsunami unless the truth is told.

Does anyone care? Yes! As Oprah Winfrey’s recent experience over the
fraudulent James Frey memoir A Million Little Pieces shows, the public
really does care to know whether the material served them by the media
is fact or fiction.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
http://www.fmsfonline.org/sybil.html

CONTACTS:
Pamela Freyd, Ph.D., Executive Director
False Memory Syndrome Foundation
215-940-1041
pamfreyd@earthlink.net

August Piper, Jr., M.D.
206-623-5757
Dr. Piper is the author of Hoax and Reality: The Bizarre World of
Multiple Personality Disorder_. He is a member of the FMSF
Scientific and Professional Advisory Board.

Robert W. Rieber, Ph.D. Fordham University
Graduate School of Social Services
212-535-4010
207-963-7232
He is the author of _The Bifurcation of the Self_ and
he is not affiliated with the FMS Foundation.

[1] Available from the FMS Foundation.
See also http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=1199
[2] This book contains more than 75 pages of transcripts of
conversations between Wilbur and Schreiber.
**********************************************************************

Forgetting and "Repression"

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

Dear Friend of Justice,

The theory of “repressed memory” – or, alternatively, “dissociative amnesia” – posits something radically different from ordinary forgetting. Indeed, were this not so, there would be no need to invent special terms.

Almost all of the confusion in the repressed-memory debate arises from people confusing the two phenomena.

We are all prone to forgetting – and forgetting about – things that have happened to us. We even forget about traumatic events, sometimes for years.

Consider this excerpt of an email from a colleague, a distinguished professor of psychology:

Is it possible to forget major traumatic events and later remember them? I am convinced it happens quite frequently. It happened to me.

As a teenager I was violently mugged and injured by a gang in Central Park and ten years later when I entered grad school I told my colleagues I had never been a victim of violent crime while actively searching my memory for anything that would count. The next day the entire mugging memory came back in full detail even though I had apparently not thought of the event several years. This is not scientific but I believe it is strongly analogous to sexual abuse cases. I don’t believe I repressed the memory, I believe that moving to Hawaii in my early 20s made the memory irrelevant and thus I forgot it through normal cognitive mechanisms.

This is an ordinary case or forgetting and remembering. The memory was delayed by a few hours after the recall attempt was made, but that is not unusual. I suspect that similar things have happened to all of us.

It is also common for people to forget – or forget about – childhood sexual abuse. But in this instance, memory scientists and those believing in dissociative amnesia make very different predictions.

Dissociative amnesia is supposed to protect the individual from traumatic memories. Thus the more traumatic event, the more likely it is to be repressed. Many even believe that traumatic events can be repressed immediately after they occur. For example, many believe that a father can violently rape a daughter during the night and that the daughter can sit down to breakfast with him in the morning as if nothing untoward had happened.

My colleague instead has this to say:

Most importantly one needs to know if force was alleged. If no force was used and if the child believed at the time that the behavior was acceptable then I believe it is possible to forget even repeated sexual contacts and in adulthood regain access to the memories. Furthermore I do not believe this to be repression. If the child is able to fit the behavior into some type of schema for acceptable behavior then the child will be more likely to simply forget it as he or she moves on through life.

According to popular culture, adults who have sex with children are violent rapists who obtain the child’s silence through violent threats. If these sex offenders exist, they are quite rare. The fact that an adult wants to behave sexually with a child doesn’t mean that he or she is stupid. The last thing they want is to get caught.

The usual pattern instead is not to frighten the child but to befriend the child. Children and adults have different moral senses. What is obviously wrong to an adult may not necessarily seem wrong to a child.

When I posted my account of the recent Shanley hearing, I made the following observation:

When Shaw expressed the opinion that the theory of repressed memory was “junk science,” Judge Neel asked if it wasn’t the case that Dr. Elizabeth Loftus believes that it does exist but is very rare. Shaw disputed this. I am sure that he was right. As a scientist, Dr. Loftus would never state that the nonexistence of repressed memory has been proven. She may have said something like, “If it exists, it is very rare.”

It turns out that what Loftus actually said in her affidavit was that traumatic events “rarely slip from awareness.” Now “slipping from awareness” is radically different from “repression.”

Judge Neel doesn’t know the difference between “repression” and ordinary forgetting. And the reason he doesn’t know the difference is that Shanley’s trial lawyer, Frank Mondano, didn’t do his job.

My guess is that Mondano himself never grasped the difference. Thus it is not surprising that he was unable to educate the judge and jury. And as a result Paul Shanley was undeniably deprived of his right to a fair trial.

-Bob Chatelle