Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be fucking appalled by Dr Loftus

61 replies

NewtoHolland · 16/12/2021 20:46

Imagine being a privileged and educated woman and deciding to put your expertise to use in defending rich and powerful rapists and paedophiles. Being paid to essentially tart up facts that most lay people know, that memory changes over time. And using that fact to try to discredit victims accounts. Honestly out of all the things she could do. Bet her mama Is really proud.

AIBU to be appalled by this woman and her grimey choice of job?

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/ghislaine-maxwell-false-memory-witness-b1977599.html%3famp

OP posts:
CayrolBaaaskin · 16/12/2021 23:02

She is a research scientist whose position is that recovered memories are not reliable. I don’t think we should attack her for her position. Nor should we attack défense lawyers. The purpose of a trial is to hear all relevant evidence before deciding abs to have both the prosecutions and defences position put forward well. It does us credit to have such a system.

tara66 · 16/12/2021 23:14

So according to her everything we know that is not recorded in some way such as written down or on tape and is therefore a 'memory' may not be/is not true?

Dogshark · 16/12/2021 23:18

Your comment is ignorant. Firstly, she isn’t a lawyer.

Defence lawyers in the vast, vast majority of cases aren’t making “huge money”, although I accept that in this (high profile, US) case they inevitably are. It is very common in the uk for the experts (forensic, psychiatric etc) to make more for a days work than the defence team make in several months work.

Legal aid has been consistently eroded in the uk. Few young solicitors/ barristers are choosing it as a profession.

Anyone can be accused of an offence. Just because the police/media believe they are guilty doesn’t mean they are. Would you fancy trial by media if you genuinely believed you were innocent? Defence lawyers don’t lie for their clients, contrary to popular belief.

Actually, anyone can commit an offence. The best example is death by careless driving. I doubt any drivers can say they haven’t been distracted for a few seconds. It is very much a ‘there but for the grave of god’ offence, but can result in a prison sentence of many years. Do you not think you would want a defence team to mitigate on your behalf, and put forward your remorse, the effects on your family etc? That is what lawyers do.

Dogshark · 16/12/2021 23:19

Sorry- that was to Suzanne999

Toplowlight · 16/12/2021 23:22

Lawyers don’t have access to some kind of divine foresight which allows them to work out who is lying. That’s what trials are for. Our entire justice system would collapse if lawyers decided who to defend on the basis of who is ‘obviously’ guilty. It’s such an important principle that barristers aren’t actually allowed to refuse to represent someone just because they think they’re ‘obviously’ guilty. The taxi cab rule means they have to take the next case in line, regardless of who the accused is or what the circumstances are, provided they don’t have a conflict of interest. It’s not up to them to decide who they want to represent.

And they don’t act ‘regardless of the truth’. They proceed on the basis that what their client tells them is true, but their first duty is to the court. They can’t tell the court something they know to be untrue.

BrownMilk · 16/12/2021 23:41

Is it not for the prosecution to challenge or counter what she says? Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to make the case and that includes challenging the defence?

madisonbridges · 17/12/2021 00:02

I haven't read anything about the Maxwell case and know nothing about Dr Loftus but there's a lot of evidence that memories can be very unreliable and can be influenced by a number of factors. The accused is entitled to mount a defence and it's the prosecution's duty to counter that.
Would you feel the same if your child were accused of a crime and an expert had knowledge to prove them innocent but because people had read stuff in a newspaper and "knew" what the facts were, your child was not allowed to use that witness? In any case, if it's so obvious to you that the expert is giving some form of enhanced facts, it will also be obvious to the jury.

terrywynne · 17/12/2021 00:06

There was an interesting thread a while back on defence lawyers in realtion to a horrific crime. I don't remember the details but the gist was you want even the worst criminals to have a good defence team because then they can't appeal on the grounds of being denied a fair trial because they didn't have. And that means allowing them to present their expert witnesses. And then the prosecution will try and shed doubt on those witnesses and/or parent their own.

I guess she believes her research and it's a field where there are probably experts who disagree. And maybe the prosecution team will find one of those.

Lineofconcepcion · 17/12/2021 00:11

Yes she shouldn't be allowed a lawyer. In fact let's not bother with a trial and imprison her straight away. . .

imthenextinline · 17/12/2021 00:15

@Lineofconcepcion

Yes she shouldn't be allowed a lawyer. In fact let's not bother with a trial and imprison her straight away. . .
She isn't a lawyer.
imthenextinline · 17/12/2021 00:16

Lineofconcepcion

Yes she shouldn't be allowed a lawyer. In fact let's not bother with a trial and imprison her straight away. . .

She isn't a lawyer.

Sorry I misread. I thought we were on the subject of Loftus but the thread appears to have deviated way off course.

MyDogLovesBiscuits · 17/12/2021 01:48

I agree in principle, because the people they are defending are absolute scum and some of the tactics used to discredit victims shouldn't be allowed and really are completely awful... but also think everyone deserves fair legal representation.

I do think it's a bit weird that you have picked a female defense lawyer as an example to put forward your opinion when there are thousands of male defense lawyers doing the same thing.

MyDogLovesBiscuits · 17/12/2021 01:50

Ah should have RTFT, so she's not even a defense lawyer, she's a scientist presenting scientific evidence.

Well no then we shouldn't be attacking her at all for presenting facts to a court... WTF? Confused

Original poster
NewtoHolland · 17/12/2021 05:40

She's a scientist who specialises in discrediting victims of abuse...I'm amazed at the level of support to be honest.

It has all gone a bit wrong though, at no point was my agenda that anyone shouldn't have a defense team.

It's about choosing to act as a self styled expert witness with the specific agenda of discrediting victims of past trauma and abuse.....who generally have a hard time being believed any way!

Not everyone having a defense team which is clearly an essential part of making sure courts are as fair as possible.

Random 'expert' witnesses, less essential.

Some of the comments are so random and haven't even read the first post through before reacting let alone the full thread.

OP posts:
FrenchFancie · 17/12/2021 06:56

But there is reasonable scientific doubt about memory - it’s not infallible and people do, unintentionally, have false memories. There was a very interesting study done about memories of 9/11 in the USA and many people, for example, report watching the first plane strike on live TV - it’s impossible because it wasn’t broadcast live.

So if many many people can misremember things like that, other memories can be distorted- and that needs ‘putting to proof’ by the defence team. I’m not saying that victims are lying, purposely or otherwise, but it’s true that memory isn’t always perfect and the jury needs to consider that.

Provided what the witness is saying can be backed up by reasonable scorn evidence then it’s right that it’s considers - the jury are of course free to dismiss that evidence as BS…

LaBellina · 17/12/2021 07:03

This woman is some type of expert in her field and in this case used by the defense team as a witness expert. As distasteful as I find it, we can’t police which experts should be allowed to be expert witnesses on which cases as it’s a slippery slope towards robbing suspects of their right to defend themselves in court with the help of people with a certain expertise.

Toplowlight · 17/12/2021 07:06

I’m not specifically defending Loftus here, but expert witnesses are often an essential part of a person’s defence team.

If you have person A saying ‘I remember it this way’ and person B saying ‘I remember it this way’, you need someone acting from a position of impartiality to offer some kind of view on which account is more likely to be accurate.

Loftus’s role isn’t to say ‘the victims of this crime are lying’. Her role is to present credible scientific research in support of a proposition, which is that memory isn’t always an accurate reflection of fact. I completely understand why that feels unpalatable in this case, and I also understand why you might consider there to be a moral justification for her having refused to be an expert in these circumstances. (For what it’s worth, I wholly believe the women testifying in this trial that they were victims of Epstein and Maxwell, and I hope Maxwell is found guilty).

But, I also think we have to be careful about chipping away at the rights of an accused person to present a full defence, including expert witnesses. That means I don’t talk it’s fair to excoriate expert witnesses who present evidence on behalf of an accused. Whether or not we support the use their conclusions will be put to, they’re an essential part of a defence, and justice systems rely on those charged with offences being given the right and the opportunity to present the best possible defence.

SickAndTiredAgain · 17/12/2021 07:08

@NewtoHolland

I think in my mind defence lawyers are needed because obvs not everyone is guilty and everyone should have access to defence should they need it...but this role isn't a necessary one.
What do you mean the role isn’t a necessary one? The role of expert witness? I’d imagine you can see the importance and relevance of some expert witnesses, but if you have some then you can’t pick and choose. Because then you’re in the area of deciding which expert witnesses a defendant can have. Loftus hasn’t done anything wrong to the extent that she shouldn’t be allowed to be a witness. You may disagree with her, and the prosecution can obviously question what she’s said but I wouldn’t want a situation where expert witnesses with certain opinions weren’t allowed.
user478843898 · 17/12/2021 07:15

This technically shouldn’t work though, how can all witnesses have false memory and basically similar experiences?

PiglingBlonde · 17/12/2021 07:24

@user478843898

This technically shouldn’t work though, how can all witnesses have false memory and basically similar experiences?
That is one of the points the prosecution should be looking at in detail when they cross examine.
WeeFae · 17/12/2021 07:25

I have quoted and referenced her work in many research papers, and I am saddened by this. I agree OP.

DottyDoge · 17/12/2021 07:29

If you care so much about women, start to remove slurs such as tart from your vocabulary

Off topic, but this is ridiculous. Surely this remains a predominantly English language website.

Original poster
NewtoHolland · 17/12/2021 07:58

I find it so weird that there needs to be paid expert for this though...when it's a commonly known fact that memories change over time..
Do you have to get one in to say an orange is a fruit?
Or that a day is 24 hrs long.
It's a weird model to me.
I would be gutted if my daughter's became scientists and then used their science in this way ..I just can't shake that it's shady and just ick.
I think especially because with this case and Harvey W there are so many victims with very similar testimonies so it invalidates the argument about memory really anyway..so to still put that forwards..and to choose to be the person paid for doing so..I mean it's not going to be very impactful except on your pocket, and perhaps on how you make those individual victims feel.

OP posts:
SickAndTiredAgain · 17/12/2021 08:05

You simply cannot compare the research on the complexities of memory to knowing a day is 24 hours long. They are completely different.

Griefmonster · 17/12/2021 08:45

@NewtoHolland

I find it so weird that there needs to be paid expert for this though...when it's a commonly known fact that memories change over time.. Do you have to get one in to say an orange is a fruit? Or that a day is 24 hrs long. It's a weird model to me. I would be gutted if my daughter's became scientists and then used their science in this way ..I just can't shake that it's shady and just ick. I think especially because with this case and Harvey W there are so many victims with very similar testimonies so it invalidates the argument about memory really anyway..so to still put that forwards..and to choose to be the person paid for doing so..I mean it's not going to be very impactful except on your pocket, and perhaps on how you make those individual victims feel.
I'd be interested if anyone knows to what extent you can refuse to present your research when requested in a court case. OP, you are describing it as her hustling for business around the seediest defendents. I have no idea if that's an accurate representation of her actions.

I think your observations above are limited though. The science of memory is not a commonly known fact. That's the point. It's an area of research. With people presenting theories on what happens when people describe memories.

And you can indeed end up with court cases (albeit generally not criminal) where people will contest what we think of as commonly known facts. I imagine somewhere in the history of court cases someone has argued that an orange isn't a fruit and a day isn't technically 24 hours....

In any case - what you are describing is distaste in this woman's choices. That is a personal reaction and so of course not unreasonable. I wonder though if the situation is as simplistic as you initially viewed it.

And the responses from posters who have been damaged by the theories of this Prof provide compelling witness to the impact of her research. I feel very moved by those words. And I am so sorry for your experiences.