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

Terry Austin wrote:
"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).

Not convicted doesn't help much when you are bankrupt and your life and livelihood are destroyed. Not a convicted Child Molester still tends to drag down your resume.

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.)

As opposed to young children making up their own false memories or being influenced, possibly accidentally, by untrained, unqualified family members.

.