Minnesota Supreme Court rejects ‘Repressed Memory’ junk-science used against priest
From Media Report:
Minn. Supreme Court Rejects ‘Repressed Memory’ Junk Science Against Priest, Media Yawns
Last Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court flatly rejected the psychological theory of “repressed memory” as bogus. The Court declared that scientific studies that have tried to prove the bogus theory have “lacked foundational reliability.”
Church-suing lawyers and accusers of abuse have attempted to use “repressed memory” as a way to circumvent statutes of limitations in order to file big-money lawsuits against the Catholic Church.
According to proponents of the discredited belief, some people completely forget instances of extreme trauma or abuse. Then, years or decades later, an event or thought – often directed by a convincing therapist – causes one to suddenly “remember” having been abused or traumatized.
In the case in Minnesota, an accuser – represented by high-profile, Church-suing attorney Jeff Anderson – tried to claim that his case of abuse against a Catholic priest should not be limited by the state’s statute of limitations because he was simply unable to remember being abused because he “repressed” the memory of it happening. Fortunately, the Minnesota courts didn’t buy it.
The theory of “repressed memory” is bizarre, indeed. The world’s leading experts in memory have roundly debunked the wild theory.
Read the rest there.