NY Times Story
A note on recovered memories: if you lost your car keys a year ago
and then suddenly remembered that you left them in your hockey bag, is that
a "recovered" memory? It might be, if you never knew that
your keys were missing until you "recovered" the memory. But
of course, you can't remember that ever happening.
You know and I know that you are not going to remember where you left
your car keys if you don't know they are missing.
And chances are very, very good that if you were not able to remember
where your car keys were at the time they went missing, you will not be able
to "recover" that memory a year later. What you might recover, with
the blatant encouragement of a counselor, is a constructed memory.
Your keys won't be there.
We don't think of all memories at once. Never. Memories come
into consciousness as they are prompted by the mind, in search of a missing
item, a moment with a fondly remembered friend, a smell or sound, or a piece
of music. Memories are not like tape recordings: we often blend
elements of different past experiences or present perceptions into recalled
activities.
There are many people who fervently believe that some memories,
especially of trauma, can be "repressed". These people are rarely not
advocates for some social action of some kind.
I don't believe it. I believe that bad experiences, in fact,
provide vivid memories. You may choose to not bring them forward in
your mind very often, but they are not hidden or buried.
Have you ever heard a Holocaust victim speak about his or her
experiences? Have you read "Maus"? Or any of a hundred
books on wartime experiences in Europe? If "repression" were possible,
it beggars the imagination that these witnesses bear such voluminous,
eloquent testimony.
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. 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 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.