Friday, March 26, 2010

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rejects Attack on Junk Science of Repressed and Recovered Memory

The appeal of the defrocked priest and admitted child abuser Paul Shanley was not an appealing one. Perhaps this explains why the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected an attack on the use of "repressed and recovered memory" in Paul Shanley's criminal trial. See Commonwealth v. Shanley, 455 Mass. 752, 766, 919 N.E.2d 1254, 1266 (Jan. 15, 2010).
Is it a "technicality" that although Shanley years earlier had admitted sexually abusing some other minors, he probably did not commit the crime of which he was convicted?

I don't profess to understand the psyche (if it has one) of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. But the upshot is that Massachusetts is now saddled for yet some time with the junk science of "repressed memory."


The dynamic evidence page

It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post and this post.

Post a Comment