Another Note of Caution
| Published date | 01 March 2001 |
| Author | Mike Redmayne |
| DOI | 10.1177/136571270100500204 |
| Date | 01 March 2001 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Another note
of
caution
By Mike Redmayne*
London School
of
Economics and Political Science
I
f readers of
E
&
P
know just one thing about recovered memories, it is
doubtless
this:
that they have generated enormous controversy.’ They may
therefore be relieved to hear that the debate between Lewis and Mullis
(LM)
and me is not really about recovered memories: it was formerly about the
mechanics of corroboration, but is now largely about the nature ofjury reasoning.
Nevertheless, that may not cheer readers up very much.
For
if they know just one
thing about published debates between academics, it is doubtless this: that by
the time they have reached an author’s response to a response to a response,
misunderstanding is being entrenched rather than diminished. That is certainly
my view.
So.
finding myself in the position of writing a response to
LM’s
response
to me,
I
shall
try
to abide by the presumption that readers are intelligent enough
to study our contributions carefully and to sort out for themselves where the
better view lies. In this short article,
I
shall endeavour to be constructive.
I
start
by responding to a very good point that
LM
make, and then attempt to explain
the new turn that our disagreement has taken.
The
silent
complainant
In my original article,
I
suggested that if one takes the view that the probative
value of recovered memory evidence is nonexistent
or
slight, the argument for
its automatic exclusion is forceful. Note the hedge: forceful, not unanswerable.
I
continued by pointing out that where there is strong supporting evidence. the
supporting evidence may be enough to gain a conviction by itself.
LM
are right to point to a problem with automatic exclusion? If the complainant’s
recovered memory testimony is excluded, it will be very difficult to secure a
1
am grateful to Penney
Lavis
and Alastair Mullis for engaging in discussion
of
the points raised
in this article.
1
For a review
of
some of the latest turns in the debate. see J.D. Read. ‘The Recovered Memory
Debate: Three Steps Forward,
Two
Steps Back’?’
(1999)
7
Expert
Evfdence
1.
2
P.
Lewis
and
A.
Mullis. ‘Supporting Evidence and Illusory Double-Counting: Recovered Memory
and Beyond’
(2001)
5
E
81
P
111 at
119
and n.
39.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE
&
PROOF
121
To continue reading
Request your trial