Paul Shanley Redux

as i mentioned earlier, i've been following paul shanley's trial all this week. the testimony finally wrapped up today with the one and only defense witness. her name is elizabeth loftis. elizabeth has made her living attempting to discredit people who recover memories of past abuse. even though (as far as i know) i have always known about all of the abuse inflicted upon me, i really loathe this woman.

as she was testifying today, she spoke about several studies she's conducted regarding memory. her studies involved things like showing someone photographs of a car accident or telling people they were lost in a grocery store when they were children when, in fact, those events never occurred. some of those people did believe they remembered those events. i don't think it's the same thing at all. i don't think they're even remotely similar to actual recovered memories from people who were abused in childhood. as a matter of fact, i find the comparison insulting.

i do know of at least one case where two teenagers were convinced they had been sexually abused by their father when no abuse (apparently) occurred. part of the reason i'm willing to entertain the idea that the girls were wrong is the circumstances in which the abused supposedly took place. the abuse involved sacrificing babies and a lot of other improbable events. i'm also aware that young children can indeed have things accidentallly implanted in their heads that they then believe to have actually happened. as a matter of fact, i read recently that children who believe but have not, in fact, been abused have exactly the same emotional difficulties as they would had they really been abused. however, i'm aware of many more instances in which people actually did recover memories of abuse years after the abuse occurred. my knee jerk reaction is that the people who would have us believe that recovered memories don't exist are the people who either abuse or shield abusers. that's a fairly extreme position to take, i know.

the jury is now deliberating. the main witness for the prosecution was a young man, now 27, who was one of four victims who reached settlements in their civil cases against the church. the witness was abused for many years, beginning around the age of 6. he believes that many of his problems in life were a result of that abuse. specificallly, he has problems with anger, problems with alcohol and steroids, problems with relationships. there may be more that i'm forgetting. i know that all of those problems could be caused by his sexual abuse. however, the jury may find it difficult to accept because he also had a very difficult childhood in other ways. he had a mom who wasn't there for him, who was into drugs and who physically abused him. his father physically abused him and neglected him.

one of the facts they were not given was that there had been other complaints about shanley as far back as the early 60's. given that fact and his history of being shuffled around from one parish to the next, my guess would be that the man is guilty. i tend to believe the victim unless i can see clear evidence that nothing happened. i would never be allowed to be seated in a child abuse case. it's just a matter of time before the verdict is reached. i'm sure i'll have something to say about it, one way or the other.

here's the quote of the day:
"Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander." ~ Holocaust Museum, Washington, D.C.

america held hostage day 1851
bushism of the day:
"It's a time of sorrow and sadness when we lose a loss of life."—Washington, D.C., Dec. 21, 2004website of the day: The Online Guide to Traditional Games
http://www.tradgames.org.uk/index.html