Repressed Memories Questioned in Priest Abuse Appeal

A lawyer for a former priest convicted of child molestation raised questions about the validity of recovered memories in oral arguments yesterday before Massachusetts’ highest court.

Street priest Paul Shanley was convicted in 2005 based on testimony by a suburban Boston firefighter who said he didn’t remember the abuse until the age of 25. Shanley’s lawyer, Robert Shaw Jr., told the court that repressed memories are unreliable, the New York Times reports.

“You have prominent scientists, psychologists and psychiatrists saying this is not generally accepted. So why allow it in a court of law in a criminal proceeding?” Shaw argued.

An amicus brief signed by nearly 100 psychiatrists, psychologists and scientists has called the notion of people recovering repressed memories “one of the most pernicious bits of folklore ever to infect’’ the fields of mental health, the Boston Globe reports.

Taking the other side, a brief by the Leadership Council, a group of lawyers, academics, and scientists, says the phenomenon of repressed memories is valid.