Post by Optimus on Jan 14, 2018 2:27:08 GMT -5
Okay, my title is obvious clickbait. But, you're already here, so you might as well stick around and read this.
I've mentioned in a few threads the problems with false memories, especially when it comes to eye witness testimony and the unethical ways in which witnesses are questioned by law enforcement sometimes. I've also questioned whether this could be an issue in the current milieu of the #MeToo movement for at least a small portion of claims of alleged incidents from decades ago. "Recovered memories" isn't nearly the problem it was 20 - 30 years ago, but "those who do not remember the past..." and all that (an unintentionally ironic quote to use here, given the subject of the article/book).
Well, a new book is suggesting that a false memory effect might have led to the conviction of Jerry Sandusky. If anything, it's at least thought-provoking.
I have no idea if any of this is actually true but, if it is, this sounds a lot like the same type of manipulative bullshit that was going on during the "repressed/recovered memory" rage of the mid-90s. Especially this part...
I'm also left wondering why, if the claims made in this book have any merit, that Sandusky's lawyers haven't used this information to try to get his conviction overturned? Is that evidence that it's all bullshit, evidence that there's just no hope he could get a fair hearing from a judge on it, or evidence that his legal team is incompetent?
Also, even if he wasn't guilty, some of his more chummy, physical behavior (as described) with some of the boys seems a bit weird, if not somewhat creepy, which leaves me with even more questions.
So...I dunno. I haven't read the book but it does seem like the author is making a compelling, controversial, but seemingly well-researched set of claims with it.
There's a lot of other interesting information in this review of the book, that you should read for yourself if you're interested. Be warned, though. The article is rather long.
I've mentioned in a few threads the problems with false memories, especially when it comes to eye witness testimony and the unethical ways in which witnesses are questioned by law enforcement sometimes. I've also questioned whether this could be an issue in the current milieu of the #MeToo movement for at least a small portion of claims of alleged incidents from decades ago. "Recovered memories" isn't nearly the problem it was 20 - 30 years ago, but "those who do not remember the past..." and all that (an unintentionally ironic quote to use here, given the subject of the article/book).
Well, a new book is suggesting that a false memory effect might have led to the conviction of Jerry Sandusky. If anything, it's at least thought-provoking.
The whole initiative against Sandusky had begun in November 2008 when Fisher, a former Second Miler whose delinquent tendencies had included a frequently rebuked penchant for lying, began at age 14 to feel that Sandusky’s attentions to him might have betrayed an aspect of perversion. Fisher had confided his worry to his mother, Dawn Daniels, who had taken advantage of Sandusky’s mentorship of her son to party hard in local bars. Until then, she had regarded Sandusky as “a real dumb jock with a heart of gold.” Now, however, she wanted to know whether he had ever molested her son.
The answer she received from her son was an unequivocal no. Aaron did hold a grudge against Sandusky, but on further questioning it transpired that the source of resentment was Sandusky’s insistence on staying in supportive contact with him after the boy had become exasperated with Second Mile moralism and positive thinking. It was his mother, now, who pursued the seduction theme. According to her next-door neighbor, Joshua Fravel, she once boasted, “I’m going to get a lawyer and make a million dollars off Jerry Sandusky.” She is also said to have told him, “I’m gonna own the motherfucker’s house.” Likewise, in Pendergrast’s words, “Aaron Fisher later allegedly told Fravel that he planned to buy a big house in the country for his mother and family….”
The problem, however, was that Aaron couldn’t initially bring himself to declare that Sandusky had ever molested him. Yes, Sandusky had hugged him to “crack his back” after wrestling around, but they had both been fully clothed. That was all. Social workers in Clinton County’s Children and Youth Services urged Aaron to say more, but when he still showed reluctance, they deduced that his memory needed enhancing. And so they sent him upstairs to the psychotherapist Mike Gillum, who was, in all respects except the name, a recovered memory psychologist.
Gillum believed, as did the tutors of the mass “recovered memory” delusion in the 1980s and 1990s, that the usual response to a trauma is to “dissociate,” blocking awareness of the event in progress while nevertheless storing a repressed recollection of it in the unconscious. The therapist’s imagined task was to bring that repressed memory into consciousness and thus, in theory, to restore psychological health. Typically, a sexual abuse specialist would build trust in him- or herself while subtracting it from the alleged abuser, most often a father, stepfather, or other caretaker. As this disorienting process rendered patients more agitated and depressed, their unraveling would be offered as proof that the repressed memories were approaching the surface at last. The unraveling, anyway, was genuine. Aaron Fisher, for example, suffered panic attacks, became suicidal, and nearly killed himself in a car wreck.
The answer she received from her son was an unequivocal no. Aaron did hold a grudge against Sandusky, but on further questioning it transpired that the source of resentment was Sandusky’s insistence on staying in supportive contact with him after the boy had become exasperated with Second Mile moralism and positive thinking. It was his mother, now, who pursued the seduction theme. According to her next-door neighbor, Joshua Fravel, she once boasted, “I’m going to get a lawyer and make a million dollars off Jerry Sandusky.” She is also said to have told him, “I’m gonna own the motherfucker’s house.” Likewise, in Pendergrast’s words, “Aaron Fisher later allegedly told Fravel that he planned to buy a big house in the country for his mother and family….”
The problem, however, was that Aaron couldn’t initially bring himself to declare that Sandusky had ever molested him. Yes, Sandusky had hugged him to “crack his back” after wrestling around, but they had both been fully clothed. That was all. Social workers in Clinton County’s Children and Youth Services urged Aaron to say more, but when he still showed reluctance, they deduced that his memory needed enhancing. And so they sent him upstairs to the psychotherapist Mike Gillum, who was, in all respects except the name, a recovered memory psychologist.
Gillum believed, as did the tutors of the mass “recovered memory” delusion in the 1980s and 1990s, that the usual response to a trauma is to “dissociate,” blocking awareness of the event in progress while nevertheless storing a repressed recollection of it in the unconscious. The therapist’s imagined task was to bring that repressed memory into consciousness and thus, in theory, to restore psychological health. Typically, a sexual abuse specialist would build trust in him- or herself while subtracting it from the alleged abuser, most often a father, stepfather, or other caretaker. As this disorienting process rendered patients more agitated and depressed, their unraveling would be offered as proof that the repressed memories were approaching the surface at last. The unraveling, anyway, was genuine. Aaron Fisher, for example, suffered panic attacks, became suicidal, and nearly killed himself in a car wreck.
I have no idea if any of this is actually true but, if it is, this sounds a lot like the same type of manipulative bullshit that was going on during the "repressed/recovered memory" rage of the mid-90s. Especially this part...
This was to be Aaron Fisher’s development under the watchful eye of Mike Gillum. The latter, noting Aaron’s nervousness in his company, classified him at once as a survivor of molestation. Gillum began spending many hours each day with the boy and making himself available by phone around the clock. He told Aaron that he would help and protect him until the memory of abuse could be safely expressed. As Fisher would later avow, “It wasn’t until I was 15 and started seeing Mike that I realized the horror.” Nor was it necessary for Aaron to tell Gillum what he thought had happened. The psychologist prided himself on guessing the truth and stating it to the boy, who would simply nod his head or say “Yes” or “No”—and “No” was clearly not an acceptable answer.
....
Having seen Aaron Fisher every day for weeks, Gillum felt frustrated when he was excluded from Aaron’s first police interrogation, which yielded meager results. After that setback, though, Gillum became in effect a tool of the prosecution, sitting in on every interview and, by his very presence, reminding Aaron of what he was expected to say.
....
Having seen Aaron Fisher every day for weeks, Gillum felt frustrated when he was excluded from Aaron’s first police interrogation, which yielded meager results. After that setback, though, Gillum became in effect a tool of the prosecution, sitting in on every interview and, by his very presence, reminding Aaron of what he was expected to say.
I'm also left wondering why, if the claims made in this book have any merit, that Sandusky's lawyers haven't used this information to try to get his conviction overturned? Is that evidence that it's all bullshit, evidence that there's just no hope he could get a fair hearing from a judge on it, or evidence that his legal team is incompetent?
Also, even if he wasn't guilty, some of his more chummy, physical behavior (as described) with some of the boys seems a bit weird, if not somewhat creepy, which leaves me with even more questions.
So...I dunno. I haven't read the book but it does seem like the author is making a compelling, controversial, but seemingly well-researched set of claims with it.
There's a lot of other interesting information in this review of the book, that you should read for yourself if you're interested. Be warned, though. The article is rather long.