This is, unequivocally, rubbish.<p>Denouncing recovered memories is precisely how the Baltimore Archdiocese covered up years of sexual abuse by Catholic priests. Only utter dirtbags like Paul McHugh [1], who astoundingly still has an ~emeritus position at Hopkins after helping the Archdiocese continue their cover-up, denounce the suppression and later recovery of memories. Such dirtbags are outliers, and there is no legitimate debate about this as far as I'm aware.<p>Sadly, I can give a personal example of this phenomenon. My brother and I were both subject, from different rooms, to something utterly abhorrent when we were young. For reasons beyond me, other than maybe our age disparity, and the fact he also saw what I only heard, he suppressed what happened and I did not. It was horrible enough that it was only ever discussed once or twice over the intervening decades before, in his 40s, he called me crying, indicating he remembered. Having not seen it myself, there wasn't any detail for me to add or fill in for him in the scant discussions we had, yet he remembered in detail what he had seen. Yes, this is anecdotal, but there are many other similar cases.<p>This sort of unscientific spew has no place on HN, except maybe to incur a pile-on to shine a light upon it.<p>1. <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._McHugh" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._McHugh</a>
This reminded me of the movie The Hunt from 2012 [1] in which the words of a child gets twisted by social workers and therapists into child molestation accusation.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_(2012_film)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_(2012_film)</a>
There are way too many people why think they are smarter than everyone else just because they take an unpopular/contrarian position, I’ve come to believe it’s just human nature.<p>We have a Justice system which isn’t perfect, but Sandusky was able to afford the best lawyers, they made their case, they lost. Given the verdict, the stories and the behavior pattern (he did the same thing the other monsters do preying on a specific type), it’s pretty self evident that he’s guilty, attempts to “prove” otherwise rely on peoples inability/laziness to go back to primary sources or experts.
(2019)<p>I think there was some recent attempts to revisit/appeal this case. Is that why this is linked?<p>I'm not super familiar with the case but some of the language used here is super sketchy and sounds more like excuses and victim blaming than an attempt to look at the evidence clearly.