home

Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 05:46:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

There was a Perry Mason-type moment* in the trial of defrocked Priest Paul Shanley in Boston today, as the accuser broke down on the witness stand, multiple times, and then begged the judge not to make him return tomorrow.

The accuser is not under subpoena, so if he doesn't show to complete the cross-examination, a mistrial will be requested by the defense.

This case is a repressed or recovered memory case in which the accuser suddenly remembered, 20 years later, that he was abused after reading about allegations of others, including some of his classmates, in the news. He immediately hooked up with a personal injury lawyer and settled for $500,000. Tough cross-examination is a necessity in the case. Cross- examination has been called the greatest engine ever invented for ferreting out untruths in the courtroom. (Wigmore on Evidence)

No reputable psychological, scientific or medical organization endorses repressed memories. Or the theory that trauma causes children who were repetitively sexually abused to somehow block out the memory years and years. (At most, some say they can't for sure rule it out.)

As I said on the Abrams Report the other night (available on Lexis.com):

ABRAMS: It`s the kind of case, Jeralyn, where defense attorneys, kind of a defense attorney`s dream, (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

JERALYN MERRITT, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think so. You have got one witness. You don`t have any corroboration, and let`s face it, repressed memories have come under a lot of fire in recent years. Memory is not like a video recorder. It changes over time. And it`s affected by things such as what you hear other people discussing, what you read in the newspapers. And it may well be that he imagined these things happening and then he came to believe that they really happened to him. But it is going to be a tough road to prove it to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

_______________
* A Perry Mason moment is when the witness breaks and confesses to the crime the defendant is charged with, or admits he lied about something very significant. In this case, that didn't happen, so we're calling the breakdown only a "Perry Mason-type Moment."

* Most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them although they may not fully understand or disclose it." American Psychological Association, Working Group on Investigation of Memories of Child Abuse, 1996.

More on Recovered or False Memory syndrome is here. A more scholarly version by memory expert Elizabeth Loftus is here.
A good Guardian article is here .

The American Psychological Association (APA) now takes the line that most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them, and that it is rare (though not unheard of) that people forget such emotionally charged events and later recover them. But it states that, "Concerning the issue of a recovered versus a pseudomemory, like many questions in science, the final answer is yet to be known." And the debate simmers on. Several new lines of evidence suggest that the interaction between memory and emotion is more complex than was thought. Powerful emotions, it seems, can both reinforce and weaken real memories. We may be able to actively degrade painful memories. And false memories, once accepted, can themselves elicit strong emotions and thereby mimic real ones.

Update: Dahlia Lathwick at Slate takes a neutral approach that is well worth reading. I agree with her that the case is likely to turn more on the accuser's motives than his memory.

< John Edwards' Brother Gets 60 Days in Old DUI Case | Barbara Boxer at Daily Kos >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand | 14 comments (14 topical)
    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#1)
    by Richard Aubrey on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 07:27:51 PM EST
    Repressed memory has put a lot of people in trouble. Are they all out of trouble yet? Convictions overturned? Damage awards refunded? Reputations repaired?

    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 07:33:13 PM EST
    I hate repressed memory testimony slightly more than eyewitness testimony.

    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kitt on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 07:54:22 PM EST
    Repressed memory or not, Paul Shanley is the same 'class' as John Geoghan.

    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 08:00:43 PM EST
    The accuser may be entirely sincere, especially if some "helpful" unlicensed therapist has encouraged him to dredge up these so-called repressed memories, but that doesn't make it any more likely that his sworn testimony is true. I wonder what is actually going on here. That said, I certainly do not think that this rehabilitates the accused in any way. Shanley was defrocked by church tribunal for a long list of abuses, which must have been pretty impressive given the church's foot-dragging on getting its house in order. It simply means that even a dreadful person is supposed to tried on the evidence (Bush administration policy in other matters notwithstanding), and the evidence in this case reeks.

    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 08:44:41 PM EST
    Richard Aubrey, right can't say more.

    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 09:19:57 PM EST
    Just for the record: I agree that "recovered" memories, especially with the aid of a therapist, can be of questionable validity. However, repressed memory, or protective amnesia, is genuine. I personally know people who have experienced this. I know them well enough to know their characters, and they are honest women: not manipulative schemers, or delusional, or given to believing wild theories; in fact, they're both scientists. And they have not tried to use their memories or experiences to gain any remuneration. On the contrary, it took all their energy just to deal with the memories once they did come back (which they did on their own, no therapist involved). Again, I'm not claiming that every case of repressed memory is genuine, or even that most are, and I am not saying anything at all about the present case. I only know that this is not an entirely "manufactured" phenomenon. While someone suing on the basis of recovered memory must, of course, be looked at closely, the idea that it does happen should not be dismissed out of hand.

    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 09:59:35 PM EST
    Leslie, repressed memories are very susceptible to attack. Let's define it first:
    Very simply, the theory says that some memories of significant past events are driven from conscious awareness, i.e. repressed, and at some later time in life are brought back through a triggering and/or explorative process, i.e. unrepressed. The legal importance of this phenomenon rests on its ability to escape the statute of limitations for civil suits and criminal prosecution. Typically, plaintiffs who claim to newly remember being sexually abused in the past, can assert that they had no notice of the abuse until the memory became unrepressed, at which time the statute of limitations should begin to toll. Similarly, prosecutors can initiate criminal action when a victim's memory becomes unrepressed, even if the crime occurred many years previously.
    Second, when the claimed sexual abuse is of a repetitive nature, it is less likely to be unconciously repressed over a long period of time. See here.
    The theory of unconsciously repressing the memory of traumatic experiences is controversial. There is little scientific evidence to support either the notion that traumatic experiences are typically unconsciously repressed or that unconscious memories of traumatic events are significant causal factors in physical or mental illness. Most people do not forget traumatic experiences unless they are rendered unconscious at the time of the experience.
    One more:
    A few therapists still believe in the concept of repressed memories. i.e. that memories of hundreds of incidents of serious sexual abuse and ritual abuse can be actively repressed so that the events cannot be recollected in adulthood. They believe that through intensive techniques (hypnotism, "truth serum" sessions, guided imagery, dream analysis, etc.) such memories can be recovered. Their numbers are dwindling. The main reason is that "there are no scientific data that trauma victims dissociate and forget their abuse."


    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#8)
    by BigTex on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 11:05:40 PM EST
    I guess two points bother me when referrin' t' repressed memories, not countin' th' statue o' limitations concern. First, seems like FRE 401-403 should keep th' newly discovered memory out. It's at best unreliable evidence. Given th' doubts about th' validity o' th' memory th' balancin' test o' probative-prejudicial should run towards unduly predjucial (althouth th' potential probative amount is great th' high chance o' false meories or warped memories means th' chance fer prejudice is also great.) Second question is how do you help th' falsely accused. In a case o' alleged sexual misconduct th' accused never recover completley. And there's no point in goin' after th' accuser fer makin' a flase report, th' accuser believes that they were victimized. Th' use o' recovered memories goes from 0 victims t' creatin' 2 victims. As a matter o' public policy it shouldn't be allowed.

    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#9)
    by bad Jim on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 11:18:48 PM EST
    For what it's worth, Dahlia Lithwick has a somewhat muddled article about this on Slate.

    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 11:29:49 PM EST
    Research shows those who were children in the German concentration camps do not have "repressed" memories. The body of research is very conclusive. Repressed memories of the type here do not seem to exist, while 'false'memories are all too real, and quite easy to create. What is the statistic, 37 states allow evidence from recovered memories? Thousands in prison, many thousands prosecuted. Let me know what stressors a person experiences, and just a bit about their personality, and I'll convince them that Sponge Bob is a gay acivist.

    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 01:45:55 AM EST
    If the Catholic Church had not engaged in an ongoing criminal conspiracy to obliterate any evidence of the massive instances of sexual abuse for the last 50 years and more, perhaps memories would be a bit fresher. We are talking about crimes that cross the boundries of international law, where The Holy See was given simple parish church records and confessions of abuse in Diplomatic pouches, for the express purpose of covering up these heinous crimes, hopefully forever. I say until the Vatican comes clean on this massive (world wide) coverup litigation of this type will continue until the evils of celebiacy and corrupt abuses of power are wrung out of the current autocrats sitting in Rome. That may take sometime. But this is one of the very valid reasons why these prosecutions take so long and are so long in coming forward.

    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#12)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:15:07 AM EST
    A therapist drove a wedge through my family when my sister suddenly estranged herself from my mom. My sister accused my late father of all sorts of hideous things, all of which I knew to be untrue, since I was present during the events in question. Of course, being dead, he was not in a position to defend himself. My sister further accused my saintly mother of complicity in the supposed abuse, a heartbreak I cannot even fathom. My sister, a very intelligent attorney, seems to move from one self-realization process to another in a lifelong search to "find" herself. Eventually she moved on to another, and has now reconciled with my mother. I love everyone involved, and I am enraged that some bogus therapist was able to do that to my family, slander my dad, collect her fees, and pay no personal price for a real form of abuse.

    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:29:11 AM EST
    It has gotten to the point that people feel that if they were raised Catholic and not abused they have to admit they were unattractive children.

    Re: Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:02:28 PM EST
    As I said above, the use of "intensive" therapies to recover supposedly lost memories is problematic at best; the therapists I know tell me that memories should never be forced to the surface. But those same therapists do not deny the validity of repressed memories, because they've seen them in their clients. A lack of scientific evidence does not mean something does not exist, and there is also danger in generalizing from "we don't have scientific proof" to "therefore it can't be real." Repressed memories of abuse are by their very nature difficult, if not impossible, to "prove"; the shame associated with being abused makes most *genuine* victims unlikely to speak out. Repressed memories do happen. They may be rare, the exception rather than the rule, but they are not a myth. To accuse those who have genuinely recovered memories of manufacturing them is to dishonor them and what they have suffered. Frankly, such an attitude is reminiscent of Freud deciding that his female patients were all hysterics rather than believing so many of them could have been abused.

    Priest's Accuser Breaks Down on Witness Stand | 14 comments (14 topical)