Article on repressed memory therapy

[francofan]

Matt Sandusky went to court to give Jerry access to his own kids. Guess that makes him an idiot and doesn't raise any questions.

I don't think Matt Sandusky is at all an idiot. I am just not sure how much of a conscience he has.

Matt Sandusky and AM had a huge impact on Sandusky's trial. Both of these individuals flipped from being a ardent supporters of JS when he was first arrrested to accusers after Penn State admitted culpability and shyster lawyers entered the picture. The demeanor of these key players are now vastly different. Matt seems to relish the attention he has received and doesn't seem to be bothered by his apparent betrayal of the Sandusky family. On the other hand, AM has keep an extremely low profile and it seems to me like he is bothered by his role in the fiasco.

 

[L.T. Young]

Has anyone read Pendergrast's books? Is he a kook, or does he have actual credibility?

His daughters have accused him of abuse. The book is essentially a defense against that.

OP misrepresented what he's talking about. It's not simply "repressed memory", it's false memory. He and the majority of people involved in trumpeting the prevalence of false memory in CSA cases have been accused themselves.

The most disturbing thing I found was one of the founders of False Memory Survivors, a group MP belongs to, eventually had to resign after calling pedophilia "God's will" and that pedophiles were finding "the best way to love". Look it up, Ralph Underwager. MP included RU's conclusions and data in his book Victims of Memory.


To be honest I'm even more skeptical about Sandusky's argument for repressed memory after reading up on the author and where it leads. It's a defense that's been used successfully when the accuser never even claimed to have any repressed memories.

 

[WDLion]

His daughters have accused him of abuse. The book is essentially a defense against that.

OP misrepresented what he's talking about. It's not simply "repressed memory", it's false memory. He and the majority of people involved in trumpeting the prevalence of false memory in CSA cases have been accused themselves.

The most disturbing thing I found was one of the founders of False Memory Survivors, a group MP belongs to, eventually had to resign after calling pedophilia "God's will" and that pedophiles were finding "the best way to love". Look it up, Ralph Underwager. MP included RU's conclusions and data in his book Victims of Memory.


To be honest I'm even more skeptical about Sandusky's argument for repressed memory after reading up on the author and where it leads. It's a defense that's been used successfully when the accuser never even claimed to have any repressed memories.

The more i read about repressed memories, the more it sounds like the same thing the Chinese and North Koreans did to POWs during the Korean War.

 

[L.T. Young]

The more i read about repressed memories, the more it sounds like the same thing the Chinese and North Koreans did to POWs during the Korean War.

I'm not exactly sure how a post that points out it's not just "repressed memory" or RMT would elicit this response?

The guy who wrote the article, and a book, is part of movement that seeks to paint most CSA accusations that come from therapy, legitimate therapy that has nothing to do with RMT, are false memories.

As I stated in my first post, one of the leading experts in the field of false memory openly advocated for pedophiles. He testified in over 200 cases throwing out stats that made it seem like the majority of CSA claims are false memories created by therapists.

The first time false memory was successfully used as a defense, a case in Britain, turned out to be nothing more than a legal argument. They painted the claims as something they weren't. The victim's medical records showed this conclusively. For some reason the author of the article in question neglected to include that case in his comprehensive book.

And again, the author himself has been accused by his daughters. Nobody is disputing that RMT has largely been debunked. What I take issue with is the idea that therapy can't bring certain aspects/details of the abuse to the surface. Or that therapy can't allow someone to accept what happened and face it in the real world rather than denying it took place.

 

[MoonOverMyHammy]

He and the majority of people involved in trumpeting the prevalence of false memory in CSA cases have been accused themselves.

Yeah, if you were falsely accused you would want to clear your name.

As I stated in my first post, one of the leading experts in the field of false memory openly advocated for pedophiles

Which doesn't change the fact that "repressed memories" are bullshit

 

[PSUEngineerx2]

FYI...current opinion of the American Psychological Association.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

FYI...current opinion of the American Psychological Association.

View embedded media

FWIW - the same parameters apply to ALL memory "modifiers"
Most of the time there is nothing nefarious or conflicted wrt such modifications - - - it's just the way a human brain works

When modifications are "motivated"......ie, someone has a reason/agenda which prompts active attempts to "modify" memory..... It is relatively easy to create the "memory" you want

 

[indynittany]

So again these victims testified as ADULTS (not toddlers like some try to use as an example of "similar cases") made it up and just took the money is what you are saying. They were all forced to say this stuff by the prosecution and lawyers with the promise of a payday. They all fabricated everything and Jerry who couldn't stop showering with young boys and touching them is just misunderstood to everyone outside of a tiny subset(thankfully) of PSU fans. The lawyers forced these people to testify under oath against a man that tried to help many of them as children. They all agreed to it and now are sworn to secrecy. Best scam and cover up in history...poor Jerry.

No. Like McQueary, I think they were convinced that Sandusky was a monster by an OAG that was desperately trying to build a case against Sandusky the monster instead of Sandusky the creep. They were all convinced that they'd be putting away a monster, even if he wasn't a monster to them individually. That made taking the money an easy choice.

 

[L.T. Young]

Yeah, if you were falsely accused you would want to clear your name.




Which doesn't change the fact that "repressed memories" are bullshit

Didn't I post that RMT has been debunked? Yes.

What you're ignoring is it's just a defense argument until it's proven that RMT was used. They're alleging it and want to see the videos of therapy in Sandusky's case.

The expert I keep bringing up, Ralph Underwager, didn't just testify in cases where it was established fact that RMT was used. He was a gun for hire to claim any accuser that was in therapy had false memories.

This same expert, which the author of that article uses as a source in his book, claimed 60% of women sexually abused in childhood reported
the experience was good to them.

75% of mothers alleging sexual abuse in custody proceedings suffered from a personality disorder that resulted in false allegations.

Child protection investigations were "an assault on the family as an institution".

So when one of founders of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation does that in court, and then says this in an interview with pro pedo publication:

Q: Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individual?"

A: "Certainly it is responsible. What I have been struck by as I have come to know more about and understand people who choose paedophilia is that they let themselves be too much defined by other people. That is usually an essentially negative definition. Paedophiles spend a lot of time and energy defending their choice. I don't think that a paedophile needs to do that. Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: "This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I've made." Paedophiles are too defensive. They go around saying, "You people out there are saying that what I choose is bad, that it's no good. You're putting me in prison, you're doing all these terrible things to me. I have to define my love as being in some way or other illicit." What I think is that paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will." They have the right to make these statements for themselves as personal choices. Now whether or not they can persuade other people they are right is another matter."

You should probably question the motives of those who align themselves with him. Especially those who've been accused of sexual abuse. Which is pretty everyone that does.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Didn't I post that RMT has been debunked? Yes.

What you're ignoring is it's just a defense argument until it's proven that RMT was used. They're alleging it and want to see the videos of therapy in Sandusky's case.

The expert I keep bringing up, Ralph Underwager, didn't just testify in cases where it was established fact that RMT was used. He was a gun for hire to claim any accuser that was in therapy had false memories.

This same expert, which the author of that article uses as a source in his book, claimed 60% of women sexually abused in childhood reported
the experience was good to them.

75% of mothers alleging sexual abuse in custody proceedings suffered from a personality disorder that resulted in false allegations.

Child protection investigations were "an assault on the family as an institution".

So when one of founders of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation does that in court, and then says this in an interview with pro pedo publication:

Q: Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individual?"

A: "Certainly it is responsible. What I have been struck by as I have come to know more about and understand people who choose paedophilia is that they let themselves be too much defined by other people. That is usually an essentially negative definition. Paedophiles spend a lot of time and energy defending their choice. I don't think that a paedophile needs to do that. Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: "This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I've made." Paedophiles are too defensive. They go around saying, "You people out there are saying that what I choose is bad, that it's no good. You're putting me in prison, you're doing all these terrible things to me. I have to define my love as being in some way or other illicit." What I think is that paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will." They have the right to make these statements for themselves as personal choices. Now whether or not they can persuade other people they are right is another matter."

You should probably question the motives of those who align themselves with him. Especially those who've been accused of sexual abuse. Which is pretty everyone that does.

I am searching for a way for you to get any further off-track in this c-j of yours.

Nope.................can't do it

 

[LaJolla Lion]

No. Like McQueary, I think they were convinced that Sandusky was a monster by an OAG that was desperately trying to build a case against Sandusky the monster instead of Sandusky the creep. They were all convinced that they'd be putting away a monster, even if he wasn't a monster to them individually. That made taking the money an easy choice.

I was in the Playbook chats in 2001 well before the law got involved years later and MM wasn't forced to say a thing back then to total strangers in a chat. People were freaking out in those chats saying this would kill PSU football and I said no way...he's retired so who cares. Well I was wrong about that as it did blow things up almost a decade later. Now it was not specific to ME as to what was seen by MM, but nobody was coaching him up then. In fact he was doing it on his own as everyone who attended those chats knew his screen name. Your theory also doesn't take into account some of the graphic testimony a few of the victims had. Were they convinced to make those things up too?

Your putting out a theory that fits your story which is fine, but it really is just that a theory. It's not really a sound one at this point in time to be honest and a few here are holding out hope that it was all just made up. From the OAG, MM, and the actual victims. The previous incidents of being told to stay away from kids in the shower, but he could not do it. It's fine to believe that if you have to, but it doesn't rally have a ton of merit to it currently IMO. If the victims someday say this was all made up and forced down their throats, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. The problem is nothing in 4 years has really come out other than some pushing an alternate theory in hopes this was all a bad dream. You still have to get a ton of people out there just trying to bury Jerry for no real reason at all if none of this was true. You can point to the money as you kind of have to in order to hold out hope your bad dream isn't true.

 

[Legion of Lions]

I 100% believe a number of the victims were lying for the millions of dollars on the table and they were coached to do so by slimy lawyers like Shubin. I believe Sandusky was railroaded at his trial, but I also believe he is guilty of some of the charges thrown at him and is a pedophile. Except for the millions of dollars PSU improperly paid out, it doesn't matter as Jerry belongs in jail anyway.

How can you say ANYTHING about Sandusky considering that ALL information alleged by his "victims" have come from a pool of information that has a high probability of "contamination" - if not fabrication. We know NOTHING which is direct face-to-face testimony vetted by a competent legal defense team. All we know is what the PA courts and HIGHLY questionable (factually bogus) OAG "presentment" permit us to know! Personally, I can not see how a balance of justice can be achieved (or was achieved) in anything having to do with Sandusky.

Now before someone starts the "how can you not honor the victims" -OR- "...Sandusky was convicted in a Court of Law and therefore is Guilty-as-hell..." diversion...I am NOT saying Sandusky is innocent.

What I am saying is it is nearly impossible for anyone to OBJECTIVELY refute the fact that Sandusky's basic legal and personal citizen's rights were bulldozed by a group with both a motive for his quick conviction as a "Monster Child abuser" AND the ability to aid in "influencing" public opinion through highly suspicious public actions by the State of PA agencies.

Something is CRIMINALLY wrong here and the State is (ironically) using the law itself (a resource that it alone controls) to HIDE the truth. There are MULTIPLE crimes that have been CONTINUOUSLY committed by State activities - the complexity of the interaction of these multiple crimes is what is being used as a "cover" under the "letter of the law". This method is "...unless you can 100% PROVE something done by the State is criminal - and give DETAILED, CERTIFIABLE LEGAL PROOF of these criminal activities..." then you can't refute any part of the current "Story" or evidence. This is the means being used to protect the REAL crimes from being exposed in the overall issue of "Sandusky Legal abuse".

Sometimes you can not see something and therefore, it is hard to prove it really exists. That is where we are now with both Sandusky and anything having to do with "Sandusky's Crimes". But just as science uses "...observing the way that external objects react to an unseen "Black object", it is totally impossible for ANYONE to ignore the consistency of "oops" activities committed by the State (and State connected "contributors"). It is the resulting pool of "misinformation" (fueled only on speculation and accusation) that create what is the absurd overall LEGAL activities used to convict Sandusky and convict PSU in the public's eyes.

My response to anyone questioning the "Black Hole Proof" that both Sandusky's LEGAL conviction and Penn State's PUBLIC conviction are a fraud must first refute the following fact:
WHY AFTER 5 YEARS are all the State owned or influenced entities (Freeh and OGBOT included) STILL hiding key information - information that would CONCLUSIVELY PROVE the public story that they support????

If what is public is both true and legally supportable drove the legal processes conducted and this untainted information formed the cornerstone of the existing "Story".... all these who are withholding key information should all be tripping over themselves to release this conclusive "confirmation" to the public. THEY ARE NOT.....The answer is obvious..... This is an engineered illusion designed to the hide activities that the existing "Story" covers up in the public's mind. The Black Hole Proof of this can not be refuted!!!!!!

 

[L.T. Young]

I am searching for a way for you to get any further off-track in this c-j of yours.

Nope.................can't do it

I replied to a post that quoted 2 parts of my post. I answered both assertions.

You want to pretend that it's been established RMT was used in Sandusky's case. You put stock in the article claiming RMT and memory distortion occurred.

I'm simply pointing out that:

A. It hasn't been proven that RMT techniques were used. Acting as though it has is wrong.

I've already said if it turns out it was I would be the first to say those verdicts should be overturned.

B. The article is not only biased, but the author's connections and work is shaped by people who are (at the very least) sympathetic to pedophiles.

C. That the defense of "false memory"due to RMT isn't only used when applicable. It's a defense that is often used with no basis to try and fool the jury.