OK, I'm split on the Shanley verdict. On the one hand, he sounds like a right ripe NAMBLA-founding chickenhawk. On the other hand, if there's two dozen accusers out there, how come the only one they went to court with resulted in a case built on "recovered memory" testimony? Is it some sort of statute-of-limitations bullshit? (I guess so.) As far as I can tell, "recovered memory" is nothing more than guided confabulation with an agenda; the idea that it can be used in a court of law is about as welcome to me as the prospective return of spectral evidence.