Temporal logic is very important or essential for analysis of fact investigation in or for litigation; fact investigation is a dynamic process.
It's here (more or less): the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post.
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
Inter-University Conference on Justice and Fairness at TUM Munich
On Proportionality and Justice – Quantitative Aspects of Justice and Fairness
Technische Universität München & Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München,
January 6 – 7, 2010
http://www.cvl-a.de/justice10
IMPORTANT DATES
December 11th, 2009: Abstract submission deadline
December 16th, 2009: Notification of acceptance
December 20th, 2009: Early registration deadline
January 6 – 7, 2010: Conference
February 15th, 2010: Paper (e-book) submission deadline
April 30th, 2010: Paper (hard copy) submission deadline
GENERAL INFORMATION
From Wednesday 6th to Thursday 7th January, 2010 an inter-university and interdisciplinary conference on justice and fairness will be held at the TUM – Technische Universität München. This is the first inter-university, analytical and quantitative oriented conference on fairness and justice in Germany as well as at the TUM and LMU.
The Technical University of Munich (TUM) and the University of Munich (LMU) – are both the highest ranked universities of Germany (see below) –inviting cordially to this inter-university and interdisciplinary conference on justice and fairness.
PROGRAMME
The conference is interdisciplinary: we invite papers from philosophy, didactics, computer science, media science, literature, social science, economics and related disciplines. Justice has at least two sides. Actually, there is a huge effort and focus on institutionalization. Whether this and the associated costs and bureaucracy is of value or not may one question among others. Sometimes this view, especially in Germany omits that finally a human ought to make a decision. A decision, he has to take the responsibility for. A glance at history shows us that the quantification of law was going hand in hand with a humanization and equalization of society. As there is a widespread altercation with justice among scholar form diverse faculties we invite them to a interdisciplinary discussion. Our thoughts and actions, our perception, imagination, and experience depend more and more on informational, computational, and robotic systems with increasing complexity and autonomy. What are their epistemic, ethical, and societal challenges for the future of mankind? The workshop will promote scholarly dialogues on all aspects of this turn of society.
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS
Ruth Hagengruber (University of Paderborn)
Klaus Mainzer (TUM, Munich)
Lothar Philipps (LMU, Munich)
Peter Tillers (Cardozo Law School, New York)
RELEVANT RESEARCH AREAS
We call for papers that cover topics pertaining to analytical and quantitative aspects of fairness and justice from the following list (but not restricted to this list):
Analytical philosophy: from quantity to quality, sets, structures, processes
Ontology /Theory of Mind: limits of revaluation
Metaphysics: foundation of quantification …
Ethics: institutional vs. human-centered view, problem of comparison …
Law: compensation & degree of penalty …
Economics: insurances, value of human as capital goods ...
Business studies: benefits, earnings & compensation …
Representation in media: representation of humans and life in economic, quantitative terms
Literature: cross-culture comparisons & concepts
Healthcare: value of quality time and care
Medicine: transplantation, ranking in palliative care, emergency medical aid …
Theology: concepts in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism …
Computer Science: how to handle short resources intelligent and fair, e.g. under constraints?
Mathematics: game theory, geometry, etc.
Didactics: How to teach quantification understandable?
…
CONTRIBUTED PAPERS
We invite (analytical) philosophers, mathematicians, lawyers, economists, computer scientists, theologians, physicians, didactic, media scientists and other scholars interested in discussing these or other related topics to join the workshop, for an exchange of ideas on these subjects. Contributions focused on quantitative and analytical issues of fairness are especially encouraged, but papers on any aspect of justice are welcome. Final Papers should be not more than 10 to 15 pages long (3.000 to 5.000 words) to be presented in 20 minutes maximum, and to allow up to 10 minutes discussion. All accepted papers will be published within an e-book.
Selected papers from the conference will be considered for publication (hard copy). Contributions in English as well as in German are welcome.
SUBMISSION ABSTRACTS
Submissions should include (a) title, and (b) extended abstract of 300–500 words long. The submissions should preferably be sent in PDF (or MS Word or RTF if PDF is not possible) as an attachment to an email that should contain the author's name, affiliation, contact details, and the title of the submission.
The submissions should be made electronically, either as PDF, or in RTF or Word format to: bengez@cvl-a.tum.de
REGISTRATION
Registration fees (in EURO): 20 €; after December 20th, 2009: 30 €.
ACCOMMODATION
To book accommodation, please visit the official conference web site. The TUM campus has no own accommodation facilities (hotels), but TUM’s close situation (and good public transport service connections) open the possibility to stay all-around in Munich city.
ORGANIZATION
Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Chair for Philosophy and Philosophy of Science and Technology & Carl von Linde-Academy, Munich
Ludwig-Maximilans Universitaet Muenchen, Chair for Philosophy of Law, Munich
CORRESPONDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
Rainhard Z. Bengez (bengez@cvl-a.tum.de) Department for Philosophy and Philosophy of Science and Technology, TUM – Technical University of Munich, Arcisstr. 21, D-80333 Muenchen, Germany
PROGRAMME COMMITTEE
Rainhard Z. Bengez, Technical University of Munich, Germany
Lilija Mieliauskiene, Kaunas Technology College, Lithuania
Lothar Philipps, University of Munich, Germany
Wolfgang Pietsch, Technical University of Munich, Germany
Gerhard Spilgies, Institute for Anthropotechnical Studies, Spain
Carsten Stolz, University of Ingolstadt, Germany
Fu Ching Wang, National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, Taiwan
VENUE
The Technische Universität München (TUM: http://www.tum.de ) and the Ludwig-Maximilians University (LMU: http://www.lmu.de ) are Germany’s Universities of Excellence and according to QS World University Ranking 2009 the best German universities (http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2009/results ) with a long historical tradition. There are several famous research centers in, e.g., Garching, Weihenstephan, and Rechts der Isar, Martinsried, etc. The conference will take place in the central buildings of TUM (Stammgelände) in the center of Munich near to beautiful museums, Schwabing, and close to TUM’s robotic center. This workshop is co-organized by the interdisciplinary center of TUM: http://www.cvl-a.de
It's here (more or less): the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post.
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
Alpha is an ambulatory person, a pedestrian. Beta is a rich boor. C is a chauffeur. He works for Beta.
One day Alpha ambulates, he goes for a walk. Beta has a cold. So he stays home in bed. However, he orders C to get some groceries.
On his way to the grocery store C runs into A -- he literally and actually runs into A -- with B’s Rolls Royce.
After the accident, C tells O, an onlooker, “I’m about to kick the bucket. I’m gonna have a heart attack. I just ran into A. And I’m injured. My arm is broken and my leg is broken.”
On hearing of the accident, B said to Z, “M’gosh, C was reckless.”
Lawsuits, naturally, ensue, including the following federal civil actions:
A brings a civil action against B. A seeks to recover on a theory of respondeat superior, for injuries inflicted by the negligent acts of B’s employee, C, while in the course of B’s employment.B’s pretrial statement “M’gosh, C was reckless” is offered in the trial of A v B.A brings a separate civil action against C. He seeks to recover for personal injuries negligently inflicted by C.
C brings a civil action against B. He seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained while on the job.
B objects that the statement is hearsay.B’s pretrial statement is offered in the trial of A v. C.The objection is overruled. Explain why.
C objects on the ground of hearsay.C’s pretrial statement “I’m about to kick the bucket. I’m gonna have a heart attack. I just ran into A. And I’m injured. My leg arm is broken and my leg is broken” is offered in the trial of C v. B.A replies that B’s statement is an admission.
A is wrong. Please explain why.
A tries again: He states, “Your Honor, B’s statement is plainly against his interest. It is admissible under the exception for statements against interest.”
The trial judge responds, “No it isn’t.”
Explain the trial judge’s reply. Give two reasons why the trial judge is correct.
B responds, “It’s hearsay, Your Honor.C replies, “It’s a dying declaration, your Honor.”
B responds, “This isn’t a murder case. And C isn’t dead. His statement isn’t a dying declaration. And he’s offering the statement on his own behalf.”
The trial judge replies, “C’s statement is not admissible as a dying declaration. But not for the reasons you gave, counsel.”
The trial judge is correct. Please explain.
Does C’s statement nevertheless overcome the hearsay hurdle? If so, please explain why.
The "evidence module" of Spindle Law has quite a bit of material about the hearsay rule, hearsay exemptions, and hearsay exceptions.
It's here (more or less): the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post.
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
N.B. #1: I am a resolute heterosexual. So my questioning and doubting are not motivated by a personal "sexual orientation" agenda.I think it is very unlikely that wrongful sexual conduct by members of the clergy in Protestant churches is less common than wrongful sexual conduct by Roman Catholic clergy. I find support for this guess in (i) my beliefs about human nature and human sexual activity, (ii) anecdotal evidence, (iii) some (sparse) scholarly literature, and (iv) reports such as the following:N.B. #2: I am not a Roman Catholic. I have always been a Lutheran and for the time being I remain one.
Daniel Burke, "Study: 3 Percent of Women Victims of Clergy Sexual Advances,"Ethicsdaily.com (September 11, 2009): More than 3 percent of adult women who attend religious services at least once a month have been victims of clergy sexual misconduct, according to researchers at Baylor University. Put another way: in a congregation of 400 people, seven adult women have been targets of sexual advances by clergy, the study says. In addition, in one of 50 cases, the religious leader was married, according to the report. Four percent of respondents said they knew of a close friend or family member who had experienced a sexual advance by a clergy member in their own congregation, the study says. Baylor researchers said their report is the largest scientific study into clergy sexual misconduct with adults in the U.S. “Because many people are familiar with some of the high-profile cases of sexual misconduct, most people assume that it is just a matter of a few charismatic leaders preying on vulnerable followers,” said Diana Garland, dean of the School of Social Work at Baylor University and lead researcher in the study. “What this research tells us, however, is that clergy sexual misconduct with adults is a widespread problem in congregations of all sizes and occurs across denominations.”So what accounts for the focus by media outlets such as the Boston Globe on sexual abuse by Catholic clergy?While the sexual abuse of children, particularly by Catholic priests, has received outsize attention in the media and academia, the abuse of adults has received relatively little notice, according to Baylor researchers.
“We hope these findings will prompt congregations to consider adopting policies and procedures designed to protect their members from leaders who abuse their power,” said Garland. “Many people—including the victims themselves—often label incidences of clergy sexual misconduct with adults as `affairs.’ In reality, they are an abuse of spiritual power by the religious leader.”
The research was conducted using questions included in the National Opinion Research Center’s 2008 General Social Survey of more than 3,500 American adults and followed up by interviews with respondents.
These are some possibilities:
1. One possibility is simple ignorance -- ignorance that Protestant clergy (and clerics in other kinds of religious organizations) "do it too."
But if that's part of the explanation, I am inclined to view such ignorance as wilful. The reporters at the Boston Globe, for example, were probably quite familiar with popular literature such as Sinclair Lewis's Elmer Gantry, in which the "hero" -- a Protestant preacher -- engages in sexual misconduct of at least a sort.2. Another possibility is that media outlets such as the Boston Globe have a degree of "homophobia."
This may explain some of the behavior of some media outlets. But it does not readily explain the behavior of the Boston Globe (which, ironically, once championed the activities of the gay "street priest" Paul Shanley [a central figure in the Boston Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal that broke 2002 A.D.] and decried the efforts of the Archdiocese of Boston to suppress Shanley's "street ministry").3. It is also possible that anti-Catholic bias played (and still plays) a role in the behavior of media outlets such as the Boston Globe and the New York Times.However, anti-homosexual attitudes very probably play a large part in explaining the depth of the public outrage about homosexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy.
The thesis that the Boston Globe in particular has suffered from anti-Catholic bias should not be too readily dismissed.4. Some or much of the media focus on the Catholic clergy was probably the result of the activities of plaintiffs' lawyers who brought lawsuits on behalf of victims of clergy sex abuse. Those lawsuits have been brought almost exclusively against Catholic clergy and branches of the Roman Catholic Church.
I do not think it likely that a disproportionate number of those lawyers were either anti-Catholic or anti-gay (although I would not be astonished to find that I am wrong about this). My guess is that plaintiffs' lawyers focused on Catholic targets of lawsuits for damages because Catholic clergy and the Roman Catholic church were the most alluring targets for financial reasons: the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church made it possible -- after some tinkering was done with immunity rules pertaining to non-profits -- to bring actions for damages against entities with relatively deep pockets. (I deeply discount the hypothesis that the beneficent intentions of plaintiffs' lawyers explain why those lawyers so fervently pursued Catholic targets instead of Protestant targets. Plaintiffs' lawyers -- like many of the rest of us -- are primarily interested in money.)Now that financially-rewarding Roman Catholic targets are drying up -- they have almost been exhausted -- we can expect to see -- and I think we are seeing -- an increasing number of sex abuse lawsuits against Protestant clergy and churches, Jewish clergy and organizations, other religious organizations and their clergy (e.g., Mormons, Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists), and -- eventually -- educators (regardless of religious persuasion) and those who employ educators (school boards, universities, and the like).
It's here (more or less): the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post.
Spindle Law's Evidence Module has material about chains of inference, or inference-on-inference or -- in other words -- pyramided or cascaded inference. (The diagram found above shows that credibility analysis -- assessment of the credibility of a witness -- involves pyramided inferences, inference-on-inference. And this shows that the notion that testimonial evidence is non-circumstantial evidence is mush.)
It's here (more or less): the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post.
It's here (more or less): the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post.
I have reason to believe that the participants in this conference on visualization of law include Prof. Dr. Friedrich Lachmayer, Prof. Dr. Lothar Philipps & Dr. & Senior Lecturer Burkhard Schafer.
I can only surmise that the Center believes that infamy is as good as fame. Or perhaps it believes in redemption? Or perhaps ... well, who knows?
Bizarre.
But I must admit that the Center does have a classy web site. Kudos to the web master. (I had to say something nice about the Center.)
It's here (more or less): the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post.
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
Is it true that "reliable hearsay" may still routinely be admitted in Military Commission adjudicative proceedings? Cf. Warren Richey, "Obama endorses military commissions for Guantánamo detainees," Christian Science Monitor (Oct. 26, 2009). This same article states, "The new law excludes statements obtained through torture or through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. But Congress empowered the secretary of Defense to enact rules permitting admission of coerced statements and hearsay evidence. These are departures from trial rights routinely provided to US service members in courts-martial."
It's possible that the Obama administration succumbed to the probable myth that a rational ("reasonable"? "average"?) trier of fact knows how to sort hearsay wheat from hearsay chaff. See also this post.
I will have to do some research on the new Act. I am not optimistic about what I will find. When people acquire the reins of power, they tend to become more impressed with the relative priority of security over liberty and justice or -- if you want me to be less bombastic and dramatic -- over the importance of avoiding false positives. Am I being unduly cynical? I honestly don't think so.
It's here (more or less): the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post.
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
If you are a faithful reader of this blog, you know that the evidence module is an online hybrid of
(i) an outline,of the law of evidence.(ii) a treatise, and
(iii) an evolving and collaborative account
For further details, see this early post.Now we -- Joannes and I -- need and want your help. We need and want the help of legal professionals -- lawyers, law students, law professors, and judges.But note that Spindle Law now accommodates state law and that the evidence module will eventually cover state evidence rules and principles as well as the the Federal Rules of Evidence. Eventually -- and perhaps before too long -- there will be variants of the evidence module that will examine the law of evidence and proof in countries other than than the U.S.
The evidence module, by design, is not a static thing. The evidence module is, by design, incomplete. (Furthermore: the evidence module -- by design -- will never be complete.)
The evidence module awaits your contributions, your comments, your arguments, your research, your thoughts, your suggestions.
The premise of Spindle Law -- or one key premise of Spindle Law -- is that there are legal professionals out there who hunger to do legal scholarship largely (if not only) because they enjoy scholarship, particularly collaborative scholarship.
It is also very probably the case that you can make something of a name for yourself by contributing to the evidence module and that you can get to know other legal professionals around the country and around the world.Another key premise of Spindle Law and the evidence module is that collaborative scholarship -- the joint work of many scholars and budding scholars -- can sometimes (as in this instance) produce legal scholarship that is finer, richer, and deeper than anything that any single legal scholar can manage to produce.
So I invite you to join this great experiment. To take part, send an e-mail to info@spindleresearch.com and get a password, and start adding to this evolving thing that we (modestly) call an "evidence module."
Many thanks for considering this invitation.
An important postscript: Joannes Vinarao-Pilapil is my first and primary collaborator in this enterprise. Joannes is an eminent Philippine lawyer and legal scholar. She has studied law in the United States as well as in the Philippines.
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
Jackson, Langer and Tillers have accomplished a considerable feat in putting together a set of original and insightful papers that tease out many of the core themes of Damaska's work. Certainly, both the breadth and depth of the papers contained in this volume are a fitting tribute to him. Yet the end-product is also an excellent piece of scholarship in its own right; here we have an enlightening and engaging set of papers which will be of interest to criminal and evidence lawyers, as well as those with more general comparative interests.I blush. But not too much. That's because Professors Jackson and Langer, the stellar essayists who contributed to the book, and, of course, Professor Damaska are the ones who deserve 99.99% of the credit for the Festschrift. My role was primarily that of cheerleader and agitator.
Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
Dwek's own criminal misdeeds, however, involved rather large amounts of money: Dwek is a brazen scoundrel with wide financial horizons.Perhaps the most astonishing part of the Dwek story is how he managed to deposit two bad checks for $25 million at a bank drive-though window.
Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
Suspecting Ms. Paton of falsifying her address to get her daughter into the neighborhood school, local officials here began a covert surveillance operation. They obtained her telephone billing records. And for more than three weeks in 2008, an officer from the Poole education department secretly followed her, noting on a log the movements of the “female and three children” and the “target vehicle” (that would be Ms. Paton, her daughters and their car).[snip, snip}
The Poole Borough Council, which governs the area of Dorset where Ms. Paton lives with her partner and their children, says it has done nothing wrong.
In a way, that is true: under a law enacted in 2000 to regulate surveillance powers, it is legal for localities to follow residents secretly. Local governments regularly use these surveillance powers — which they “self-authorize,” without oversight from judges or law enforcement officers — to investigate malfeasance like illegally dumping industrial waste, loan-sharking and falsely claiming welfare benefits.
But they also use them to investigate reports of noise pollution and people who do not clean up their dogs’ waste. Local governments use them to catch people who fail to recycle, people who put their trash out too early, people who sell fireworks without licenses, people whose dogs bark too loudly and people who illegally operate taxicabs.
Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
"A modern philosopher who has never once suspected himself of being a charlatan must be such a shallow mind that his work is probably not worth reading", [Leszek Kolakowski] said."Leszek Kolakowski" (obituary), Telegraph.co.uk (July 20, 2009)
Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
Without rights such as these -- the right to counsel -- the right to submit and challenge evidence at trial means little or nothing. How does a society that is putatively dedicated to the rule of law justify the termination of parental rights in a proceeding in which the parent does not have counsel and does not have the ability to retain counsel -- not to speak of a parent's inability to secure a reasonable amount of time and services of any counsel the parent might be lucky enough to get?
'Tis a scandal.
Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
The last article is worth quoting:
A seismic shock wave is coursing through the global energy industry. Based on American innovation, a new way of extracting natural gas from prehistoric clay called shale is unbalancing the global energy equation. The traditional rulers of the fossil fuels industry – Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia -- are watching in horror as independent wildcatters in unlikely places like Poland and Pennsylvania are finding gigantic new natural gas reserves. Shale Gas has been creeping up on the energy industry. As far back as 1981, a Texas wildcatter by the name of George T. Mitchell experimented with a new way of gathering natural gas from tight-rock deposits of organic shale. His idea was to drill horizontal wells 1 ½ miles behind the surface and then fracture the rock by using water pressure. ‘Fraccing‘ is the industrial equivalent of pressuring hosing the back deck, except that the process requires 2 to 3 million gallons of water and 1.5 million pounds of sand for just one well -- though 3 million gallons of water is not as much as it sounds, only the equivalent of 5 Olympic size swimming pools.Source: http://lingo.cast.uark.edu/LINGOPUBLIC/natgas/wellprep/index.htm
According to The Potential Gas Committee, which is connected with the Colorado School of Mines, estimated US natural reserves increased almost 40% between 2006 and 2008 due to shale gas technology. The US is now estimated to possess 1,836 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas reserves, 33% of which is related to shale gas that no one knew how to extract economically as recently as two years ago. This translates into an additional supply of 26 years at current rates of consumption of about 23 Tcf per year. Total US natural gas reserves are now estimated at 75 years. In less than two years, the US has gone from a gas importing nation to a gas surplus nation.
Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
And then, of course, it is possible (is it possible?) there are interactions among different parts of the brain (which I will assume, for the sake of convenience, have four levels [though it is practically certain that each part of the brain has more than four levels of "existence"]):The interaction hypothesized in Figure 2 assumes that the processes at each level are not "deterministic" within each level. However, the logic of Figure 2 does not preclude the possibility that all the processes in Figure 1, taken together, are "deterministic" (even if only probabilistically so).
Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
The hearsay rule is intermittently -- and perhaps regularly and periodically -- attacked as an abomination. Hearsay, it is often suggested, should be considered for what it is worth. That is what a rational person would do, it is often said. But when hearsay is in fact regularly received and considered in adjudication, the result is often a disaster. Consider the recent experiment with the "military commissions." It really did happen that the equivalent of a harmless goatherd was sometimes identified as a terrorist on the strength of an accusation by an absent (and often anonymous) accuser. Such experiments in hearsay rule-free proof suggest that there is usually less to hearsay than meets the ear.
A few years ago the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals suggested that although a prohibition against piling inferences on inferences is absurd, it is not absurd to require a proponent of evidence or a court to describe how inferences are piled on other inferences and what they reasonably amount to. See United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2005). Perhaps the hearsay rule works in largely the same way: much hearsay ends up being admitted, but generally it manages to get admitted only if the proponent lays out a series of inferences that suggest that the hearsay in question is sufficiently probative to be admissible. Of course, it is true that some hearsay does not manage to get through even the very elastic and porous hearsay filter that our legal system uses; and this may mean -- it almost surely does mean -- that some trustworthy hearsay does not manage to find its way into trials. But a penalty-free injunction -- "Make a plausible argument for the probative force of your hearsay! That's all we ask." -- will have little or no effect in our adversary legal system. The occasional exclusion of reliable hearsay may be a price worth paying to get trial lawyers to assemble enough evidence to support a plausible argument for the probative value of the hearsay they decide to proffer.
Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
Our research suggests that the concept of “repressed memory” or “dissociative amnesia” might be simply a romantic notion dating from the 1800s, rather than a scientifically valid phenomenon. To test this hypothesis, we are offering a reward of $1000 to the first person who can find a description of “repressed memory” in any written work, either nonfiction or fiction (novels, poems, dramas, epics, the Bible, essays, medical treatises, or any other sources), in English or in any work that has been translated into English, prior to 1800. We would argue that if “repressed memory” were a genuine natural phenomenon that has always affected people, then someone, somewhere, in the thousands of years prior to 1800, would have witnessed it and portrayed it in a non-fictional work or in a fictional character.Dr. Pope was in the news quite recently because he reportedly played a role in the preparation of the amicus brief submitted by the International Committee of Social, Psychiatric, Psychological Science, Neuroscience, and Neurological Scientists to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the appeal of Paul Shanley, a priest who was convicted in 2005 on the strength (I use the word "strength" advisedly) of the testimony of a man in his 20s who claimed that he had "recovered" his "suppressed" memory of having been abused by Shanley when he, this man, was a child. It is entirely possible that Shanley did indeed sexually molest minors. But I believe that the evidence that led to Shanley's conviction was scientific malarkey -- and against common sense. The courts of Massachusetts have not distinguished themselves in cases such as these. Let's hope that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court now does something to redeem the standing of the court system it heads.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper The Boston Globe also did not distinguish itself in the Shanley case. Its reportage on the case was awful. Perhaps that's because the Globe was too busy pursuing a Pulitzer Prize. Now that august paper is fighting for its life. The mighty have fallen a fair distance.P.S. A controversy later ensued about whether someone had met Dr. Pope's challenge See this and this.
Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law
Browser-based evidence marshaling: MarshalPlan in your browser
