Wow, the Washington memory lapse epidemic appears to be spreading.
I swear, there is so much going on right now, I am on overload; can't keep up. This must be what Libby was experiencing in the late spring of '03, you think?
Now that I've established my
So you won't be confused (and hopefully, not insulted), the witness in question was one Dr. Robert Bjork. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, who got summarily trashed by Fritz several days back (discussed earlier here), was laying the groundwork for Dr. Bjork's testimony, as emptywheel astutely pointed out in those comments.
All this now means that the trial will go forward in January, without Libby's ability to use any confusing or obfuscating "expert" memory witnesses to explain to the jury just how it was that he forgot all those key aspects of his testimony to the Grand Jury while up to his eyeballs in
Promises to be quite the show (if he's not pardoned); I'm already stocking up on popcorn.
[FMS aside: There has been a lively discussion of this topic, germaine to Loftus and her controversial research and position on memory, on the Rigorous Intuition discussion board. You'll quickly see why I did not open that can of worms here, though it is a fascinating one. For what it's worth, my professional point of view has always been that her research was pretty shallow and narrow; essentially, crap. To use a technical term.]
1 comment:
Yah. Well, there's one line that Libby used while on record with Fitz that will carry the whole memory problem defense in the tubes they belong. Can't remember the exact quote but it was something along the lines of, "I remember distinctly because...." And that very line is what makes his whole memory argument bogus, like, "I remember exactly what was said because that was the day my bother died," kind of thing. One might back off such a statement if one were other than Fitz. Wish I could remember what it was. But no matter, Fitz does.
Miss P.
Post a Comment