Re: Recovered memory

[Beth Benoit]

This case took place in our "neighborhood" - everything is pretty close if you live in New England, so it's all your neighborhood...   There were other accusers in the Shanley case, but they decided against testifying at the last minute.  The one who stood his ground did, indeed claim that he had "recovered" the memory.  It was not after talking with other alleged victims though, but rather when he heard and read the story.  The young man had already gotten a monetary settlement from the Archdiocese in the case before this trial, and as it was pointed out repeatedly, "He had nothing to gain from testifying against Shanley."  The recovered memory wasn't the only evidence though.  There were other validations of much of the young man's testimony, though not of the actual sexual abuse itself.  (CCD teacher recalling that he'd been sent to Shanley when he'd misbehaved during religion class, etc.)   Here's a short summing up of the details: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/02/09/credible_witness/   The Boston Globe also ran a story just today saying that 10 or 15 years ago, this case probably wouldn't have had a prayer.  They recounted a similar case that rocked Boston a little over a decade ago, when one priest (who happens to be a friend of ours) accused his pastor of sexual abuse when he came upon the pastor and a little boy.  The pastor maintained that he'd only been engaging in "horseplay," and during it, pulled the young boy's pants down "as a joke."  In that case, the boy and his family agreed to testify against the pastor, but at the last minute, changed their minds, and that left only the other priest to testify against the pastor.  The pastor's parishioners showed up to offer support every day.  The feeling at that time was that a priest "wouldn't do such a thing."  The pastor was acquitted, but was removed from the priesthood and the other priest was "promoted."  Sounded like Cardinal Law, yet again, had known what was going on.  Today's Globe story the pastor's lawyer as saying that it's almost the opposite now:  There's a presumption of guilt if you are a priest.   Here's a link for that story: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/02/09/jury_hints_view_shift_regarding_the_clergy/   It's been said often, too, that there's no such thing anymore as a juror who hasn't heard of a notorious case.  There have been accusations against Shanley for years, but many were beyond the statute of limitations.  Another nail in Shanley's coffin was his notorious advocacy of man-boy love in the organization NAMBLA.  This evidence wasn't allowed to be entered in the case, but it's doubtful that none of the jurors knew of and recalled this.  It is remarkable that despite what looked like rather shaky evidence, Shanley was convicted.  I watched Elizabeth Loftus' testimony, which was very interesting, but I felt that, despite what I know and admire of Loftus' work, her testimony didn't appear to be very compelling in this case.   Beth Benoit University System of New Hampshire         --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]