Quote
The Anticult
I am not going to contribute any more to this thread, its too complex a discussion for that..
Yes, it's very complex.
Quote
The Anticult
I have NEVER said so-called "repressed memories" are forensically reliable! That is insane. No sane person would ever claim that.
People can't remember the color of a truck from a hit and run yesterday.
Good, I think that we agree then that repressed memories cannot be used to determine whether an accused is a pedophile or not.
Quote
The Anticult
Did I mention Singer and the others? No, I am talking about the couple I mentioned, and how the FMSF began.
Thanks for the clarification. Your original statement was quite a sweeping generalization, so your intent wasn't clear. the FMS *concept* was not created by pedophiles, however. It was created and promoted by respectable psychologists one of them being a foremost light in the anti-cult movement. Whether or not the *FMSF* was founded by a pedophile has *absolutely* no bearing on the validity of the *FMS* theory. It is a "red herring" argument regarding the validity of FMS itself.
Quote
The Anticult
Of course there are "false memories" but its NOT an epidemic, like the sex offenders lawyers want everyone to think.
Enough of one so that, as you seem to agree, it cannot be used to determine whether a person is a pedophile or not.
Quote
The Anticult
Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a conviction for child sex abuse these days, when there are no witnesses, and no evidence?
No longer is a therapists notes good enough.
An effect of the demonstrated unreliability of recovered memories.
Quote
The Anticult
And the reality is that a cross-examination can reveal all sorts of patterns, and lies, and cover-ups.
Not when there are *no* lies and coverups. A victim with recovered memories is absolutely not lying or covering anything up. They absolutely believe what they are testifying to.
Quote
The Anticult
They also interview others, look at medical records. Judges are generally not idiots, and they look for small clues and inconsistencies, and over a 2 week trial, can often see what is going on.
"Often" isn't good enough. Again, the judge has absolutely no way to tell if a memory is confabulated or not when it is the "victim's" word against the accused's, as is often the case. If there is other evidence supporting the "victim's" claims, then that other evidence should be considered of course. But in the absence of other evidence, the judge just can't determine whether a recovered memory is accurate or not.
Quote
The Anticult
Are there false convictions? Yes.
Are there criminals walking free? Yes.
Yes, as with any other crime
Quote
The Anticult
Of course human memory is HORRIBLE, and memories are distorted.
Much more so at the hands of well-meaning "memory recovering" therapists.
Quote
The Anticult
But just looks at the facts.
Look at the court records.
Every childhood sex offender is claiming FMS these days, its a joke.
I believe that we have agreed that recovered memories are forensicaly unreliable. That means that in the absence of other evidence, a recovered memory is not enough for a conviction.
Quote
The Anticult
My view is the problem is far less with false convictions with false memories, than criminals being let off the hook by claiming FMS.
Look at all the priests claiming FMS for their victims.
But we have agreed that recovered memories are forensically unreliable.
Quote
The Anticult
Its up to judges to sort through this stuff, and its very difficult.
It's literally impossible in the absence of other evidence.
Quote
The Anticult
What the offenders lawyers have done is take some bad examples, and tried to make them into a FMS epidemic.
The reality is that getting a conviction for child sex abuse for decades before, is not easy.
It's almost impossible in the absence of other evidence, because as we have agreed recovered memories are not forensically reliable.
Quote
The Anticult
Anyway, I am out of this thread.
Its just way too complex, and its up to the legal system anyway.
But the real problem is the offender lawyers using FMS as a weapon against their victims. That I have seen time and time again.
If recovered memories are forensically unreliable, how did you yourself determine the guilt of the accused time and time again?
Quote
The Anticult
If anyone ever ends up in a court, with an associate as a victim from decades past, and you see the FMS used as a[b:64e2138798] lie by the defence [/b:64e2138798]to try to destroy a person, then you might see the other side of it. The extreme abuse of the FMS concept.
But we have agreed that recovered memories are forensically unreliable.
Quote
The Anticult
As far as the FMSF, that place is crawling with offenders, and from what I have seen, they assume EVERYONE is FMS, no matter the charge.
They are no better than those who say, "if you think you were abused, then you were".
Only very rare cases are full "recovered memories". Most are only very partially "remembered".
None of which has a bearing on the truth or falsity of the FMS theory.
Quote
The Anticult
This subject has been deliberately distorted by the lawyers and advocates for the child sex offenders, and many people have bought into the lies.
No lies have been demonstrated as regards the FMS theory itself.