Re: Early Memories, was Re: And you thought "Christians" hated Harry Potter before

"Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:C-6dnXPDL6qj_rbanZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx:

Terry Austin wrote:
pv+usenet@xxxxxxxxx (PV) wrote in
news:13ijpdk2dbrnq9f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all. *
Judges and juries disagree.
No they don't. *

Yes, actually, they do. Cases are decided on anecdotal evidence all
the time.


Two Words. McMartin Preschool.

Two more words: no convictions. Not. A. Single. One. Do try to keep that
in mind. (There were, in fact, several high profile cases similar to
McMartin, in several states, around the same time, each with a hundred
plus counts. Not a single one ever produce a single conviction, though
there were a number of guilty please, probably brought on by false
confessions).

The whole case was based on the memories of young children of things
that had happened to them when they were even younger. Turns out,
nothing happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

No, the whole case was based on false memories planted, possibly
deliberately, by untrained, unqualified, malicious investigators who
should never have been allowed in the same room with children. And, as a
direct result, investigators who interview children in criminal cases are
now required to be certified in techniques that are far less likely to
plant false memories.

(It's also not really a case of false memories so much as young children
being, generally speaking, very eager to please authority figures.
Similar mechanisms, though.)

--
Terry Austin
Beware the other head of science. It bites.
.