I, too, am curious what the facts of the Shandley conviction are.
I heard (on NPR, I think) that the defense claimed that the alleged
victim's "recovered memory" only happened after he had discussed the court
case with other alleged victims. This would certainly make it suspect.
My understanding is that there was no evidence other than the "recovered"
memory to corroborate the claims. If this is so, it was certainly
a blatant violation of guidelines.
If all the above is true, my interpretation is that
the jury probably figured the guy was guilty of something, and weren't
too fussy about the quality of evidence.
If anyone has factual information on this case,
please share it.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
