In response to why his testimony Wednesday included more details, the man said that a counselor he has recently been seeing has helped him recall more. “That doorway that had been closed has since been opened,” the man said in a confident voice. “Through a lot of counseling, I’ve been able to remember a lot more. NY Times, 2012-06-13
Without commenting on the trial itself, or Sandusky, I am outraged that the judge allowed this witness to give testimony that was adduced through “a lot of counseling”.
Is this judge even aware of recent history? Of the 1980’s Satanic Ritual Abuse scare? Of the McMartin Daycare case?
Nobody “recalls” more memory. However, with the careless or willful encouragement of therapists, people can construct memories. Especially when a lawyer and a potential civil case is involved.
Why didn’t the judge immediately cut off the witness and warn him– and all participants in the trial– that they may only give accounts of actual memories– not constructed memory facilitated by the suggestive assistance of a therapist who may or may not even be qualified, and who certainly cannot be warranted to have never offered the witness suggestive or manipulative advice.
There is enough evidence against Sandusky without this tainted testimony. Get rid of it.
[Added 2012-June 27] Apparently, Sandusky’s adopted son is now also alleging recovered memories of abuse– also with the prompting of a therapist.
Whatever Sandusky did or did not do should be weighed only by the testimony of witnesses who have real memories of the experience. Those recovered memories through therapy should be barred from testifying.
Perhaps that is why Sandusky’s adopted son did not testify.