Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
I’d only planned to write one guest blog this weekend, but this morning on Huffington Post I saw a video from a TED lecture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_%28conference%29 The lecture was from Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus who has been studying false memories since the 1970’s. She links what she discovered with one of the failings of our Criminal Justice System, with the false memories reported in court. This is an 18 minute lecture but it is well worth your time and bears directly on the topics we discuss here on the Law Blog. I must note that in it she is critical of certain psychotherapy techniques and I am a psychotherapist. Despite my training and profession I believe her critiques are on point and illustrate one of the problems inherent in some psychotherapies. For any readers that are interested in our legal system and who care about its problems, viewing this will represent time well spent. My technical skills are such that I don’t know how to properly make the video appear in WordPress but if you click on the following link you will be able to see it: Mystery of Memory
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
theatre goon:
Thanks. You’re correct. It was the McMartin case.
Nick,
This discussion is not, and never has been about you. It is not about me either. The subject matter is memory and the misconceptions lawyers and judges have about memory, as well as the misconceptions of the lay public.
As for your calling me out publicly regarding welcoming Mark (mespo). back, that is socially inappropriate. You have no idea of what private communication any of the GBs have had with him or each other, and frankly it is none of anybody’s business. If we wanted to make our emails public, we would do so.
As I said before, you are more than welcome to have a discussion, either anecdotal or from research on memory, confessions and investigative techniques. That is the topic of this well-documented and well written post by Mike Spindell. There is a vast difference between ankle-biting, sniping with one-liners and genuine discussion. The latter requires thought and effort. There is very little I agree with David on, but his discussions are thoughtful, he never writes a simple throwaway line, and clearly puts effort into his near-essays. Additionally, he is capable of a sharply worded retort, but has NEVER been mean-spirited or snide about it. You might try DavidM’s approach to commenting. Your remarks remind me more of the comment threads on YouTube than what one expects to find on a prestigious law blog.
And oh yes, expect to find humor, irony, dry obscure jokes and some sarcasm here. As others have pointed out, you read far more into stuff than is really there and take things personally. That indicates both a lack of sense of humor as well as thin skin. I have pretty much ignored your crude digs up to this point. I suggest you dial back the crude sexism as well. When you have been called on some of that in the past you have responded that you are just, “busting balls.” Frankly that kind of sexist crude remark is offensive, not to mention disingenuous. Most of the men who post here, with the exception of a few obvious trolls, are well educated, as well as the women. I certainly think someone who has mentioned being a schoolteacher would be able to write a complete English sentence without resorting to crude misogynistic street slang.
Once again quite childish. Nothing I said would lead any rational person to believe I was, or am, the least bit touchy about my career. I quite simply told you how to verify what I have said, and pointed out how you have been wrong calling me an “English teacher,” over and over again. You seem to get stuck in OCD like loops, like always calling me a liar. I despise your doing that. But, every time you do it diminishes you and bolsters me in the eyes of people you SO DESPERATELY need to be loved and respected by. Like a few other folks, this is your world. I have invaded your world. And you are imploding trying to get me out of it. Shakespearean.
Instead of obsessing on me, you should have @ least taken a minute and welcome Mespo back like your fellow GBers.
Ah Nick,
Still seeking attention I see. Weren’t you supposed to be in Europe by now. If you are and still commenting then it seems you are the one obsessing.
One of the more interesting subjects to view when it comes to implanted, false, or confabulated memories is alien abduction.
It turns out that it’s very easy to craft false memories in a subject even when it comes to such extremes as being captured and experimented upon by extraterrestrial beings — how could it be difficult to do so when it comes to simple, everyday things like identifying a suspected criminal…?
Mike Appleton — I believe you are referring to the McMartin preschool incident, and it is an excellent example. The wiki article is fairly good on this one, though I’m not sure about posting links here, they seem to cause trouble.
This is a great topic, Mike. I recall a case out of California some years ago involving allegations of sexual abuse at a child care center. I don’t remember all of the details, but the allegations were ultimately shown to be false and virtually destroyed the lives of the people who owned the center. I do recall thinking when the truth emerged that it was though false memories had been created in the “victims” and combined to create a form of mass hysteria. You may recall the case. The ordeal was pretty frightening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs
Straw men are funny, OS.
Mike,
I saw this video late last week. Another in a long line of excellent TED talks. I check out TED a couple of times a week just to see what’s new. And thanks again to our very own Mark Esposito (mespo) for turning me on to TED all those years ago. It was a gift that keeps on giving.
He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it feels.
One of your techniques is to try and control who does and who does not comment in threads. That won’t fly. Mike or anybody else can, and will, comment whenever they please on any subject they please.
This is a discussion of memory and the problems of false or misleading memories. If you don’t have anything probative to add to the discussion that sheds light on the problems of memory, I guess we are done.
Check those oxygen levels, I’ve said @ least 20 times I was a history teacher. Those records are available online. I’m still a licensed PI, again public record online. You’ll have to check w/ the BOP. I worked @ Leavenworth in 1975-76. Lame and childish.
OS, I know your profession quite well. As I’ve said, I’ve helped defend more than a few of your colleagues for preying on vulnerable patients. Quite well, sir. Lot’s of sexual predators w/ that PhD behind their names. I know psych professors @ UW and UM and many shrinks. A few are very good.
I’m merely asking if OS has done any peer reviewed studies, I would be interested in reading them. I would think he would be pleased to share them. Why so touchy? And my question was to OS. Too many budinski’s here. You just passed the 3rd anniversary of your heart transplant. Stay calm and keep those anniversaries going for decades.
I don’t consider myself an expert on memory. I’m just interested in what fields OS is an expert and I would like to read his papers. And real classy swipe w/ the Viagra remark, OS. When I mentioned that a while back I wanted to see who would take the first swipe. You were my 3rd pick. I’d be careful in that category if I were you, glass houses and all.
Mike,
That is the oldest stunt in the world that lawyers pull in front of a jury. I am sure Nick makes similar demands to see his physician’s peer reviewed studies on impotence before he lets the doctor write his Viagra prescription.
Seriously, that type of thing makes me wonder if some people really don’t understand the difference between a university based researcher on a salary versus a practitioner. The question has two elements. One is that it is a thinly veiled attempt at a “gotcha.” In other words a blatantly transparent cheap shot. Second, it suggests the person asking really is that dim, that they don’t know the difference between a full time researcher and a practitioner.
A bit sensitive about your past Nick, I wonder why? In any event bluster and mis-direction won’t change the fact that you questioned OS credentials and tried to defame him. I guess your promise to behave to Jonathan was as false as you other lies.
I’ll take that as a no.
“I’ll take that as a no.”
So let me get this straight you doubt OS’s credentials as a Psychologist and want to see proof. What proof do we have that you were a Prison Guard, An English Teacher and a private eye? What credentials can you show other than your rather doubtful word?
Oh please. The size of a case is totally irrelevant to the facts of memory issues. So what. Face it. You are not an expert on memory, confabulation, or neuropsychological impairment. Your comments so far have established that. As for criminal cases, that is irrelevant too. In point of fact, those issues go equally to criminal and civil cases. There is no difference when it comes to the issues Elizabeth Loftus describes. Period.
And as for specific cases. Memory problems affect everything from property disputes to train wrecks. Bragging on big cases you worked on is like bragging on the size of your junk. Absolutely no one cares and it is irrelevant to anything having to do with memory.
If you want to read peer reviewed papers, Dr. Loftus has written a few.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=elizabeth+loftus+eyewitness+memory&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=3tBtUvnFMcSkkQeQm4Bw&ved=0CCoQgQMwAA
Have you done any peer reviewed papers I could read?
You’re talking criminal, I’m talking criminal and civil. That was made explicitly clear. The topic is memory as it pertains to testimony. I know you consider yourself above investigators, but I don’t. And I certainly know you consider yourself above me, but again, I don’t. Remember that great speech about the Scottish blood and bowing before no man the other night? Well, my maternal grandfather was Scottish and working the coal mines when he was 12. So, there’s that. I’ve worked the big city circuit, KC and Chicago, and AAA circuit in Madison. You’ve been A and AA ball. Maybe you’re a good shrink, I don’t know. Unlike some here, I won’t judge your abilities. But as I’ve said, I’ve worked w/ too many shrinks to be deferential. In civil cases, shrinks are pretty much whores, and they know it. But, the pay is pretty good.
So, if you want to have a regular discussion w/ someone who was the lead investigator on cases worth up to $75million, [Central Storage Warehouse Fire Dane County Circuit Court] I’ll be happy to engage. But, if you want to play that “I’m the expert here,” then just save your time. I don’t dance. I’ve been around, ya’ know.
Gathering intelligence is one thing. Hanging the outcome of a case on somebody’s memory or eyewitness account is a recipe for disaster. And as for persons with alleged eidetic memory, as Martin Orne proved conclusively, their “perfect” memories are as much subject to confabulation and errors of recall as anyone else. Anyone and everyone is vulnerable to having false memories implanted.
Gather the intelligence and look for corroborating forensic evidence. Additionally, I don’t believe some of the confessions I have heard. Some people lie when they are confessing. Sometimes they believe they did it (false memories again), but sometimes for other reasons, including mental illness. The increasing number of people who confessed but have been exonerated by DNA and other physical evidence is proof of the phenomenon happening.
AY, Just providing the polar opposite. If the person has no monetary interest, or has not been in contact w/ someone w/ a criminal or monetary interest, their memory can be good, or in the case of the voluptuous Elaine Nardo, incredible. I’m talking ALL types of cases. I would interview nurses on med mal cases involving a juvenile about a baby delivery that happened 5 years ago or more. They have left the hospital, maybe even left the state. They have no dog in the fight/ Firstly, you have to motivate them to try and remember. Then you use your craft trying to pick their brain. You’re simply trying to get their recollection and then comparing and contrasting it w/ other evidence. You’re assessing them as a person and how they will come across to a jury.