sexual abuse ~ sexual assault ~ child molestation ~ rape of child
sexual offender
profiles ~ pedophiles ~ supervised visitation ~ custody
fathers'
rights
~ grandparents' rights ~ men's rights
stranger
rape
~ student rape ~ spousal rape
sexual
harassment
~ executive separation agreement
|
|
| Consistent Statement |
|
|
|
|
||
While
an inconsistent statement by
itself is
indicative of unreliability, a consistent statement by itself is NOT
indicative
of reliability. And while consistent or inconsistent
statements
are very important, the context in which the statements are made is
more
important -- absolutely important. In the
November 1998 issue of
Psychological Science,
in which Memory for Nonevents was a focus, Charles
J. Brainerd and V.F. Reyna's article, "When Things That Were Never
Experienced
Are Easier to `Remember' Than Things That Were" appeared.
Under
that provocative title, the
University of
Arizona authors reported "research on two issues that are often central
to the credibility of witnesses' testimony in abuse cases: (1)
whether
inconsistent testimony is more apt to be false than consistent
testimony
and (2) whether neutral interviews that are not infected by suggestive
questioning may nevertheless induce false memories in children."
Brainerd, in email to Johnson (Jan. 10, 1999).
That same article "details
three specific conditions that may be the
factors that lead to high rates of memory falsification in
psycholotherapy
and police interviews. It is my belief that the presence of these
factors should be explored by both plaintiffs' and defendants'
attorneys
in connection with testimonial evidence in abuse cases." Brainerd,
in email-2 to Johnson (Jan. 10, 1999).
NOTE
between "therapy" by social workers and "therapy" by psychologists In a chapter in a book to be
published shortly, Brainerd and
colleagues
detailed "some of the principal ways in which modern memory research
challenges
four basic assumptions that the courts make about memory."
Id..
". . . the
scientific evidence supports the claim about the
potential
unreliability of consistent testimony BUT it challenges the claim that
inconsistent testimony has an inherently higher probability of being
false,"
Brainerd clarified. "I've worked on some very interesting cases
where
the validity of these claims was crucial," he added, "In all instances,
it was difficult to get the scientific data into testimony because
(naturally)
opposing counsel argued that such data infringed on the jury's
consistutional
responsibility to judge credibility rather than going to the issue of
reliability
of evidence."
Id..
|
||