Tim: I agree w/ your contention that there are some holes in the
arguments supporting the defendant's jury-decided guilt. What bothers
me about the whole controversy, though, is the way that the term
"repression" was tossed about with abandon and that people "all over the
place" seem to be uncritically accepting its existence as valid.
Popular belief in Freudian concepts die hard, I guess. In addition,
the hard data cited by Loftus and others seems to be viewed as fluff.
Is it because she's "only" a psychologist? Just wondering. DKH
David K. Hogberg, PhD
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Albion College, Albion MI 49224
[EMAIL PROTECTED] home phone: 517/629-4834
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/09/05 2:39 PM >>>
I, too, am curious what the facts of the Shandley conviction are. I
heard (on NPR, I think) that the defense claimed that the alleged
victim's "recovered memory" only happened after he had discussed the
court case with other alleged victims. This would certainly make it
suspect. My understanding is that there was no evidence other than the
"recovered" memory to corroborate the claims. If this is so, it was
certainly a blatant violation of guidelines.
If all the above is true, my interpretation is that the jury
probably figured the guy was guilty of something, and weren't too fussy
about the quality of evidence.
If anyone has factual information on this case, please share it.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
