's account matches the other children's testimony Might there be some truth in these testimonies that he judges and lawyers are overlooking
Organizations such as the the False Memory Syndrome Foundation have continually stuck to the premise that any memory generated as a result of therapy is based on a lie and should be classified as unintentional lying because the therapist induced it suggested it or guided it. They further state that as part of their training psychiatrists are taught mind control techniques therefore they can implant a memory that was not there and the judges or lawyers would not be able to know the truth when the patient testifies. (Murphy 1997)
For most advocates the best defense strategy against these cases is usually to claim the memories of trauma are all in the victims head. With the revelation of this research, defense lawyers can now cite the study. They can then move to file pre-trial motions challenging the reliability of the testimony based on recovered memories hence dismiss its admissibility in court. These motions should be filed early enough so as to dismiss and call for summary judgment. The defense can also seek to offer its own "expert "opinion based on this scientific study to the plaintiff's scientific theories that the brain can avoid or repress traumatic information and remember it later. The defense will further seek to bring forth evidence from published and unpublished studies purporting to demonstrate the existence of "false memory syndrome." And try to justify its existence in that particular child. The defense will also seek to introduce research allegedly showing that the mind can be "implanted" with false memories. Defendants may also try to offer evidence that traumatic events are highly memorable and cannot be repressed.
The plaintiff or the Childs legal representative would first seek to crash any motion flied that seeks to scientifically explain the child's state of mind and use it as evidence. Since none of the theories can evaluates and prove a child is capable of repressing memories. Accordingly, the evidence should not be used regardless of scientific reliability because it is irrelevant and cannot assist the jury in coming up with a concrete decision (Bauer 2002).
The plaintiff's best approach is to expect this defense strategy and take the first action by filing a motion to exclude the