| |
| | [No title] |
 | | Professional associations, as well as experts in psychiatry and psychology, have warned that "repressed memories" and their "recovery" have not been scientifically documented to allow a determination that the "recovered memories" are real memories rather than pseudo-memories, confabulations or otherwise false memories. |
 | | Where a witness plans to testify regarding his or her "recovered repressed memories," the relevancy, probative value, and personal knowledge aspects of the proposed testimony are necessarily intertwined with the determination of whether the concept of "recovered repressed memories" meets the test of State v. |
 | | Because the "recovered repressed memory" hypothesis is fatally flawed under Alberico and Daubert, it necessarily follows that testimony of fact witnesses based on "recovered repressed memories" is inadmissible as not relevant, not probative, unfairly prejudicial, and likely to confuse or mislead the fact-finder. |
| www.dcfpd.org /motions/alaska/exclude/represse.htm (3087 words) |
|