The article discusses the oddly selective memory of this legendary memory researcher, and omits the fact that she taught for years at California State University Fullerton, where I encountered her many times.
I read the article. I don't get it. I read the article before I posted here. I read the wiki page about her as well, and went looking for her citation index.
Why can't 2 things be true? That Weinstein is a horrible person and that memories of something 20 years ago can be flimsy and vague.
The same thing happened in that Ivan The Terrible trial. Horrible as it is, people in their 80s recollecting what happened in their 20s is hardly reliable.
They are both true, but that's the problem. It's not enough to know Weinstein is a terrible person; we want to punish him for specific acts of wrongdoing. However, our evidence for those acts is inherently unreliable. Our desire to punish wrongdoers must be tempered by the fact that memories are not reliable evidence.
How thoughtful of you! It's funny though that people like you never show up when the accused doesn't have an army of lawyers. In those instances, no one ever goes "guys, our desire to punish the accused must be tempered by the fact htat memories are not reliable evidence! Maybe she kinda wanted to be raped and can't remember it"
Either memories are reliable or they are not. It seems they are not. You're free to deny that fact or to refute it with counter-arguments, but claiming "people like me" are discussing it because we fear "an army of lawyers" puts you a step away from tin foil hat territory.
Really good read. And what a dodgy character, in my opinion.
> The only time she has ever turned down a case for reasons of repugnance was when she refused to testify for a man accused of operating the gas chambers at Treblinka.
( ... )
> Loftus said, “I was reeling. How about the presumption of innocence? How about ‘the unpopular deserve to have a defense’?”
Maybe in the latter case, the fact that she was promised $14k made the difference? Or maybe rape isn't bad enough that you lose the presumption of innocence, and genocide is? Or maybe she just wanted to participate in something so high profile.
> “I have to admit,” she told me later, “that it is fascinating to be, you know, in the trenches with the trial of the century.”
19 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 60.4 ms ] threadWhats the issue about her time at Fullerton?
What's her oddly selective memory. Her research speciality is memory, what are you trying to say about her?
Then I read the article and it did.
I feel like there should be a tick box, 1. "Have read the article", 2. "Have flicked over it" and 3. "Have not read the article"
[2]
https://ucirvine-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/eloftus_ad...
Her 50-page CV lists 4 speaking engagements in Fullerton in the last 50 years. No teaching or faculty positions.
The same thing happened in that Ivan The Terrible trial. Horrible as it is, people in their 80s recollecting what happened in their 20s is hardly reliable.
> The only time she has ever turned down a case for reasons of repugnance was when she refused to testify for a man accused of operating the gas chambers at Treblinka.
( ... )
> Loftus said, “I was reeling. How about the presumption of innocence? How about ‘the unpopular deserve to have a defense’?”
Maybe in the latter case, the fact that she was promised $14k made the difference? Or maybe rape isn't bad enough that you lose the presumption of innocence, and genocide is? Or maybe she just wanted to participate in something so high profile.
> “I have to admit,” she told me later, “that it is fascinating to be, you know, in the trenches with the trial of the century.”