I have just read a New Scuentist article on “recovered memories” basically saying that it is now widely recognised amongst researchers and practitioners in the area that the whole concept is basically bullshit, and it has done great harm to both the people who have been subject to these “therapies”, and their families.

Obviously I haven’t been paying attention, because I wasn’t aware of that, but I am wondering how it is regarded in the legal area.

If a legal case is based on “recovered memories”, which it is claimed had previously been totally forgotten, is that legally regarded as valid evidence, or something that should be entirely dismissed, or something in between?

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have just read a New Scuentist article on “recovered memories” basically saying that it is now widely recognised amongst researchers and practitioners in the area that the whole concept is basically bullshit, and it has done great harm to both the people who have been subject to these “therapies”, and their families.

Obviously I haven’t been paying attention, because I wasn’t aware of that, but I am wondering how it is regarded in the legal area.

If a legal case is based on “recovered memories”, which it is claimed had previously been totally forgotten, is that legally regarded as valid evidence, or something that should be entirely dismissed, or something in between?

I think it’s been quite some years since recovered memories went South as an idea. I doubt it’s been used in courts for ages now.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have just read a New Scuentist article on “recovered memories” basically saying that it is now widely recognised amongst researchers and practitioners in the area that the whole concept is basically bullshit, and it has done great harm to both the people who have been subject to these “therapies”, and their families.

Obviously I haven’t been paying attention, because I wasn’t aware of that, but I am wondering how it is regarded in the legal area.

If a legal case is based on “recovered memories”, which it is claimed had previously been totally forgotten, is that legally regarded as valid evidence, or something that should be entirely dismissed, or something in between?

I think it’s been quite some years since recovered memories went South as an idea. I doubt it’s been used in courts for ages now.

It simply cannot be evidence. Circumstantial or otherwise?

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have just read a New Scuentist article on “recovered memories” basically saying that it is now widely recognised amongst researchers and practitioners in the area that the whole concept is basically bullshit, and it has done great harm to both the people who have been subject to these “therapies”, and their families.

Obviously I haven’t been paying attention, because I wasn’t aware of that, but I am wondering how it is regarded in the legal area.

If a legal case is based on “recovered memories”, which it is claimed had previously been totally forgotten, is that legally regarded as valid evidence, or something that should be entirely dismissed, or something in between?

I think it’s been quite some years since recovered memories went South as an idea. I doubt it’s been used in courts for ages now.

Seems it’s still in discussion.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691619862306

buffy said:

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have just read a New Scuentist article on “recovered memories” basically saying that it is now widely recognised amongst researchers and practitioners in the area that the whole concept is basically bullshit, and it has done great harm to both the people who have been subject to these “therapies”, and their families.

Obviously I haven’t been paying attention, because I wasn’t aware of that, but I am wondering how it is regarded in the legal area.

If a legal case is based on “recovered memories”, which it is claimed had previously been totally forgotten, is that legally regarded as valid evidence, or something that should be entirely dismissed, or something in between?

I think it’s been quite some years since recovered memories went South as an idea. I doubt it’s been used in courts for ages now.

Seems it’s still in discussion.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691619862306

And this one seems interesting, has history etc.

The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: Lessons from the past and their modern consequences

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4409058/

And this:

Creating Memories for False Autobiographical Events in Childhood: A Systematic Review

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248593/

That should be enough to be going on with.

:)

buffy said:

And this:

Creating Memories for False Autobiographical Events in Childhood: A Systematic Review

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248593/

That should be enough to be going on with.

:)

Thanks buffy :)

Will have a browse later (have to go off and talk concrete now).

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

And this:

Creating Memories for False Autobiographical Events in Childhood: A Systematic Review

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248593/

That should be enough to be going on with.

:)

Thanks buffy :)

Will have a browse later (have to go off and talk concrete now).

Concrete evidence.

;)

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

And this:

Creating Memories for False Autobiographical Events in Childhood: A Systematic Review

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248593/

That should be enough to be going on with.

:)

Thanks buffy :)

Will have a browse later (have to go off and talk concrete now).

Concrete evidence.

;)

Hard evidence.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have just read a New Scuentist article on “recovered memories” basically saying that it is now widely recognised amongst researchers and practitioners in the area that the whole concept is basically bullshit, and it has done great harm to both the people who have been subject to these “therapies”, and their families.

Obviously I haven’t been paying attention, because I wasn’t aware of that, but I am wondering how it is regarded in the legal area.

If a legal case is based on “recovered memories”, which it is claimed had previously been totally forgotten, is that legally regarded as valid evidence, or something that should be entirely dismissed, or something in between?

Sounds like a question for a lawyer

I am a little surprised that Rev was unaware that it had been debunked as this occurred during the previous millennium. The process by which the edifice fell apart is one of the major stories covered by The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan back in 1995.

dv said:

I am a little surprised that Rev was unaware that it had been debunked as this occurred during the previous millennium. The process by which the edifice fell apart is one of the major stories covered by The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan back in 1995.

Should I be flattered that you are surprised, or offended that you are only a little surprised?

I shall have to give this further consideration, but it seems from buffy’s first link that I’m not the only one.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have just read a New Scuentist article on “recovered memories” basically saying that it is now widely recognised amongst researchers and practitioners in the area that the whole concept is basically bullshit, and it has done great harm to both the people who have been subject to these “therapies”, and their families.

Obviously I haven’t been paying attention, because I wasn’t aware of that, but I am wondering how it is regarded in the legal area.

If a legal case is based on “recovered memories”, which it is claimed had previously been totally forgotten, is that legally regarded as valid evidence, or something that should be entirely dismissed, or something in between?

Sounds like a question for a lawyer

Or perhaps an Artsy sort of person.

Recovered memories via hypnotism were used as evidence of alien abductions back in the day

possibly some of the unreliability, more to generalize of the act of remembering, is that remembering involves a reconstruction of whatever

Cymek said:

Recovered memories via hypnotism were used as evidence of alien abductions back in the day

are you sure you remember that correctly

I have two comments on this.

1) You’ve obviously watched the Mythbusters episode where the three witnesses successfully each accurately recovered a new detail of the crime under hypnosis. Establishing its validity if used soon enough.

2) The Bloxham tapes, where people invented new memories under hypnosis to fill in gaps in their real memories from many years earlier. Establishing its failure if pushed too far.

mollwollfumble said:

I have two comments on this.

1) You’ve obviously watched the Mythbusters episode where the three witnesses successfully each accurately recovered a new detail of the crime under hypnosis. Establishing its validity if used soon enough.

2) The Bloxham tapes, where people invented new memories under hypnosis to fill in gaps in their real memories from many years earlier. Establishing its failure if pushed too far.

Even though it may be obvious, I have never even heard of that Mythbusters thing. Sounds pretty dodgy to me.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have just read a New Scuentist article on “recovered memories” basically saying that it is now widely recognised amongst researchers and practitioners in the area that the whole concept is basically bullshit, and it has done great harm to both the people who have been subject to these “therapies”, and their families.

Obviously I haven’t been paying attention, because I wasn’t aware of that, but I am wondering how it is regarded in the legal area.

If a legal case is based on “recovered memories”, which it is claimed had previously been totally forgotten, is that legally regarded as valid evidence, or something that should be entirely dismissed, or something in between?

Sounds like a question for a lawyer

Or perhaps an Artsy sort of person.

eye witness testimony is less sand less relied upon in a courtroom and when it is introduced Jurys are instructed to take it as only a part of the whole lot of evidence that is put forward. Prosecutors and defence lawyers are going to lawyer, but juries are increasingly being made aware of the flaws of eyewitness testimony.

That said, it has been used to convict alone (Ruben Carter is a famous case, Ronald Cotton is a more recent one, Brenton Butler even more so) and many cases have been exonerated that were once prosecuted on eye witness testimony.

Apart form the obvious failings of memory there is also the cross race effect and contamination of eye witnesses by questioning techniques used by investigators… we know it’s deeply flawed..

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have just read a New Scuentist article on “recovered memories” basically saying that it is now widely recognised amongst researchers and practitioners in the area that the whole concept is basically bullshit, and it has done great harm to both the people who have been subject to these “therapies”, and their families.

Obviously I haven’t been paying attention, because I wasn’t aware of that, but I am wondering how it is regarded in the legal area.

If a legal case is based on “recovered memories”, which it is claimed had previously been totally forgotten, is that legally regarded as valid evidence, or something that should be entirely dismissed, or something in between?

Several points seem to immediately come to my mind. How are you defining “recovered memories”? I recently noted on this very forum that several years ago I recorded an interview with John Clarke (this was while I was doing a radio show), but that I’d completely forgotten about it until I was going through some old tapes and found the recording. Does that qualify as a “recovered memory”?

A few years ago I female friend had seen her doctor who, after an examination, said “You’ve had a baby.” She denied this, but some research revealed that she’d been raped by her stepfather during her teen years, had given the baby up for adoption, reported the rape (the baby’s paternity was confirmed by DNA samples), and completely suppressed the memory. She recovered those memories after seeing the physical evidence. Does this qualify?

I acknowledge that both these incidents are anecdotes.

And then there’s DV and the British Museum.

Witty Rejoinder said:

And then there’s DV and the British Museum.

???

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

And then there’s DV and the British Museum.

???

waiting….

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

And then there’s DV and the British Museum.

???

DV had a revelation on watching ‘Night at the Museum 3’ that the British Museum was not merely a plotline but was rather a real place in London that he had no memory of knowing about despite his usual prodigious awareness of general knowledge.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

And then there’s DV and the British Museum.

???

DV had a revelation on watching ‘Night at the Museum 3’ that the British Museum was not merely a plotline but was rather a real place in London that he had no memory of knowing about despite his usual prodigious awareness of general knowledge.

Hmmm

Witty Rejoinder said:

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

And then there’s DV and the British Museum.

???

DV had a revelation on watching ‘Night at the Museum 3’ that the British Museum was not merely a plotline but was rather a real place in London that he had no memory of knowing about despite his usual prodigious awareness of general knowledge.

Huh!

The British Museum of Natural History was where I discovered I am colour-blind. I also have a book published by them: “The Triassic Fishes of Brookvale”.

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Michael V said:

???

DV had a revelation on watching ‘Night at the Museum 3’ that the British Museum was not merely a plotline but was rather a real place in London that he had no memory of knowing about despite his usual prodigious awareness of general knowledge.

Huh!

The British Museum of Natural History was where I discovered I am colour-blind. I also have a book published by them: “The Triassic Fishes of Brookvale”.

How did you discover you were colour-blind at the museum?

Speedy said:

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

DV had a revelation on watching ‘Night at the Museum 3’ that the British Museum was not merely a plotline but was rather a real place in London that he had no memory of knowing about despite his usual prodigious awareness of general knowledge.

Huh!

The British Museum of Natural History was where I discovered I am colour-blind. I also have a book published by them: “The Triassic Fishes of Brookvale”.

How did you discover you were colour-blind at the museum?

and the sign said…

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

Michael V said:

Huh!

The British Museum of Natural History was where I discovered I am colour-blind. I also have a book published by them: “The Triassic Fishes of Brookvale”.

How did you discover you were colour-blind at the museum?

and the sign said…

Double blind test

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

How did you discover you were colour-blind at the museum?

and the sign said…

Double blind test

Long haired freaky people need not apply.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

and the sign said…

Double blind test

Long haired freaky people need not apply.

They mess up the scenery

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have just read a New Scuentist article on “recovered memories” basically saying that it is now widely recognised amongst researchers and practitioners in the area that the whole concept is basically bullshit, and it has done great harm to both the people who have been subject to these “therapies”, and their families.

Obviously I haven’t been paying attention, because I wasn’t aware of that, but I am wondering how it is regarded in the legal area.

If a legal case is based on “recovered memories”, which it is claimed had previously been totally forgotten, is that legally regarded as valid evidence, or something that should be entirely dismissed, or something in between?

Several points seem to immediately come to my mind. How are you defining “recovered memories”? I recently noted on this very forum that several years ago I recorded an interview with John Clarke (this was while I was doing a radio show), but that I’d completely forgotten about it until I was going through some old tapes and found the recording. Does that qualify as a “recovered memory”?

A few years ago I female friend had seen her doctor who, after an examination, said “You’ve had a baby.” She denied this, but some research revealed that she’d been raped by her stepfather during her teen years, had given the baby up for adoption, reported the rape (the baby’s paternity was confirmed by DNA samples), and completely suppressed the memory. She recovered those memories after seeing the physical evidence. Does this qualify?

I acknowledge that both these incidents are anecdotes.

btm – The article was specifically about memories “recovered” during therapy sessions where the therapist provided no evidence of what may have happened.

It also said that traumatic memories are not normally supressed, and would not be recoverable in any detail even if they were. I have my doubts about how true that is, and your second example certainly seems to be contrary evidence.

Speedy said:

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

DV had a revelation on watching ‘Night at the Museum 3’ that the British Museum was not merely a plotline but was rather a real place in London that he had no memory of knowing about despite his usual prodigious awareness of general knowledge.

Huh!

The British Museum of Natural History was where I discovered I am colour-blind. I also have a book published by them: “The Triassic Fishes of Brookvale”.

How did you discover you were colour-blind at the museum?

They had a demonstration Ishihara test there.

They also had a Van der Graaf generator, which I found quite amazing. I eventually built myself one.

Michael V said:

Speedy said:

Michael V said:

Huh!

The British Museum of Natural History was where I discovered I am colour-blind. I also have a book published by them: “The Triassic Fishes of Brookvale”.

How did you discover you were colour-blind at the museum?

They had a demonstration Ishihara test there.

They also had a Van der Graaf generator, which I found quite amazing. I eventually built myself one.

That would have been a strange day.

I used to do Kung Fu and a fellow student was hoping to join the army, but he delayed as he didn’t feel that his fitness was up to scratch yet. When he finally thought he had it and applied, he discovered his colour blindness. He was told that he could still do administrative tasks, but he was not interested, and really didn’t know what to do with himself after that :(

Speedy said:

Michael V said:

Speedy said:

How did you discover you were colour-blind at the museum?

They had a demonstration Ishihara test there.

They also had a Van der Graaf generator, which I found quite amazing. I eventually built myself one.

That would have been a strange day.

I used to do Kung Fu and a fellow student was hoping to join the army, but he delayed as he didn’t feel that his fitness was up to scratch yet. When he finally thought he had it and applied, he discovered his colour blindness. He was told that he could still do administrative tasks, but he was not interested, and really didn’t know what to do with himself after that :(

Interestingly, the army use colour-blind people as forward scouts. Camouflage is very obvious to us.