False Memory Syndrome Foundation - Vol 07 No 01 - 1998 jan

Magazine Overview

This issue of the FMS Foundation Newsletter, dated January/February 1998, Volume 7, Number 1, is published by the FMS Foundation. It serves as a communication channel for individuals and families affected by issues surrounding false memory syndrome and recovered memories. The newsletter aims to educate, provide resources, and advocate for a more scientifically grounded understanding of memory.

Letters and Editorials

The "Dear Friends" letter expresses gratitude to volunteers, professionals, researchers, journalists, and donors who have supported the Foundation's work. It highlights the progress made in understanding memory science and improving psychiatric practice. The letter notes that due to the volume of events in 1997, a full summary is not possible, but focuses on appellate-level decisions and an article by Beth Rutherford. It also previews future issues that will cover events like the overturning of the Doggett conviction, the Peter Ellis case in New Zealand, the acquittal of Michael Kliman in British Columbia, the closing of the Rush Presbyterian Dissociative Disorders Unit, a '60 Minutes' program on Nadean Cool, and an investigative report by the San Jose Mercury News.

The newsletter shares anecdotes from phone calls received by Toby, illustrating the spectrum of experiences families face, from newly accused situations to resolved problems. One story details a family's successful reconciliation effort with their daughters, while another describes a father's failed attempt to reunite with his accusing daughter due to her insistence on an admission of guilt.

Pamela Freyd's "A REMINDER" section addresses a common misconception that the FMS Foundation claims all recovered memories are false. She clarifies that the Foundation's concern lies with the specific constellation of beliefs in 'recovered repressed memory syndrome' for which scientific evidence is lacking, not with all memories that are recalled after a period of forgetting. The section outlines the theory of repressed memory, questioning the lack of explanation for why individuals would not avoid trauma, the absence of physical evidence, and the normal functioning of individuals despite alleged abuse.

Articles and Features

"DEBUNKING TRAUMATIC MEMORY AS SPECIAL" by Allen Feld

This article reviews Katharine Shobe and John Kihlstrom's paper, "Is Traumatic Memory Special?" It argues that the hypothesis of traumatic memory being special lacks scientific evidence. The article discusses theories like Lenore Terr's Type II trauma and Jennifer Freyd's "betrayal trauma," critiquing their assumptions and methodological flaws. It emphasizes that memory is context-dependent and that techniques like hypnosis, age regression, and guided imagery are not scientifically validated for recovering accurate memories.

"A REMARKABLE CLAIM" by Pamela Freyd

This piece discusses a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry by Dorothy Otnow Lewis et al. concerning 12 convicted murderers with dissociative identity disorder. The authors claim to have established "once and for all" the relationship between dissociative identity disorder and early childhood abuse. Freyd notes that the study's focus on public domain legal documents and the lack of reporting on neurological exams raise questions about the interpretation of the findings, particularly regarding the cause of symptoms.

"WORLD CONFERENCE OF CHRISTIAN COUNSELORS" by Paul Simpson, Ed.D.

Paul Simpson reports on his participation in the World Conference of Christian Counselors, where he chaired a panel discussion on False Memory Syndrome (FMS). He conveyed the message that the false memory crisis is real and must be addressed. The presentation highlighted that theories of repression and dissociation are neither scientific nor Biblical, that recovered memory therapy constitutes malpractice, and that false memories are a scientific fact. He also stressed the importance of a balanced approach considering the accused.

"MAKE A DIFFERENCE"

This section features updates from local FMS groups and individuals working to counteract the harm done by FMS. It includes reports from California, Montana, and New York. In California, a local group is informing the Board of Behavioral Science Examiners about incompetent therapists. Montana reports on the publicity generated by the "60 Minutes" story and successful workshops for therapists. New York details how a letter to a senator influenced the decision not to reintroduce a "recovered memory" bill. Wisconsin shares how media coverage of the Nadean Cool case led to increased attention from reporters.

"Response to a Notice" and "Requesting Information"

These sections address specific reader inquiries. The "Response to a Notice" highlights the interest generated by a previous newsletter notice, leading to the formation of a group for individuals affected by "Confronting Abuse, LDS Perspective." The "Requesting Information" section seeks contact from individuals whose family therapy is connected to the church community or advertised as Religious Counseling/Christian Counseling.

Legal Corner

This extensive section summarizes recent court cases involving the scientific status of repressed memories. It details rulings from various state and federal courts, including:

• Lemmerman v. Fealk (Michigan): Held that the discovery rule does not extend the limitations period for tort actions allegedly delayed by repression of memory, citing the lack of objective verification.
• Borawick v. Shay (2nd Cir.): Affirmed dismissal of a complaint based on hypnotically-refreshed recollections, questioning hypnosis as a consistently effective means to retrieve accurate memories.
• Woodroffe v. Hansenclever (Iowa): Affirmed summary judgment, describing the plaintiff's claim as a "rolling statute of limitations."
• Blackowiak v. Kemp (Minnesota): Held that the statute of limitations for sexual abuse is interpreted under an objective reasonable person standard.
• Hunter v. Brown (Tennessee): Declined to apply the discovery rule to "repressed memory" cases due to the lack of verifiable and objective evidence.
• S.V. v. R.V. (Texas): Held that wrongful events and injuries must be "objectively verifiable" to invoke the discovery rule, finding no consensus on gauging the truth of "recovered" memories.
• Kelly, et al, v. Marcantonio (Rhode Island): Required determination of the reliability of repressed memory theory before extending the statute of limitations.
• Travis v. Ziter (Alabama): Ruled that alleged repressed memories do not qualify as disability to extend the statute of limitations, citing no consensus of scientific thought.
• Doe v. Maskell (Maryland): Held that "repression of memories" is not an "insufficient trigger" to justify extension of the statute of limitations, finding repression indistinguishable from normal forgetting.
• Comm. of Pennsylvania v. Crawford (Pennsylvania): Reversed a murder conviction based on testimony derived from repressed memories, noting the theory is widely debated and lacks jury familiarity.
• State of Rhode Island v. Quattrocchi (Rhode Island): Overturned a conviction, requiring a preliminary evidentiary hearing to determine the reliability of repressed memory testimony.
• M.E.H. v. L.H. (Illinois): Declined to apply the discovery rule to a "repressed memory" claim, reasoning that the nature of the assault puts the individual on notice.
• Knode v. Hartman (5th Cir.): Found a "repressed memory" claim barred by the statute of limitations.
• Logerquist v. Danforth (Arizona): Held that "repressed memory" claims may invoke the discovery rule if the evidence is admissible, remanding for further proceedings.
• Engstrom v. Engstrom (California): Affirmed dismissal of a claim, labeling the repressed memory theory and retrieval process "junk science."
• State of New Hampshire v. Hungerford (New Hampshire): Affirmed a ruling that the proponent of repressed memory testimony has the burden to prove its reliability.
• State of New Hampshire v. Walters (New Hampshire): Reversed a ruling that allowed repressed memory testimony, reaffirming the burden of demonstrating reliability.
• Barrett v. Hyldburg (North Carolina): Granted a defense motion to exclude all evidence derived from alleged repressed memories.
• Ramona v. Ramona (California): Ordered dismissal of a claim because testimony was tainted by sodium amytal, rendering it inadmissible.
• Dalrymple v. Brown (Pennsylvania): Refused to apply the discovery rule to cases involving "repressed memories," stating they do not provide objective evidence.
• Thomason v. Vice (California): Excluded expert testimony on repressed memory due to lack of general acceptance in the scientific community.
• State of Illinois v. Stegman, Rickman (Illinois): Murder charges were based on "recovered" memories, but the judge granted a motion to hold a pre-trial hearing on admissibility, leading the state to withdraw charges.

The section also includes trial-level decisions, such as State of New Hampshire v. Hungerford (1995), which found the State failed to prove general acceptance or reliability of repressed memory in the psychological community.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination of the scientific validity and legal admissibility of "recovered repressed memory" claims. The FMS Foundation consistently emphasizes the lack of scientific consensus and objective evidence supporting the theory of repressed memory syndrome as it has been presented in legal and therapeutic contexts. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards claims of repressed memories, advocating for rigorous scientific standards, external corroboration, and a balanced consideration of the accused. The newsletter highlights legal decisions that have excluded or limited the use of repressed memory testimony, reinforcing the Foundation's position. There is also a strong emphasis on the importance of distinguishing between genuine memories of abuse and potentially iatrogenic (therapist-created) memories. The issue also touches upon the importance of family reconciliation and the need for professionals to address the harms caused by the false memory crisis.

The FMS Foundation Newsletter, Volume 7, Number 1, published in January/February 1998, addresses the complex and often controversial topic of false memory syndrome and its implications. The issue features several articles, book reviews, and personal accounts that explore the nature of memory, the therapeutic practices surrounding recovered memories, and related phenomena such as UFO sightings.

Legal Cases and Expert Testimony

The newsletter opens with a report on a legal case, *J.M. v. Merkl*, where a District Court Judge ruled that testimony regarding the revitalization of repressed memories was not reliable, citing a lack of scientific evidence and failure to meet established standards like Frye and Daubert. It notes that other trial courts were also considering motions on the reliability of repressed memory claims.

Book Reviews

Two significant book reviews are featured:

"YOU THE JURY: A Recovered Memory Case"

Reviewed by Professor Ralph Slovenko, this book by attorneys Mark E. Roseman and William B. Craig, with Gini Graham Scott, takes readers through a trial involving a woman who accused her stepfather of sexual abuse, claiming repressed memories resurfaced. The review highlights the book's presentation of both the plaintiff's and defendant's arguments, the trial process, and the inclusion of a verdict form for the reader. Slovenko notes that while the book offers a primer on trial preparation, it doesn't delve deeply into the legal process beyond what is commonly known. However, he acknowledges the emotional resonance for parents accused of sexual abuse.

"STRANGER THAN FICTION: WHEN OUR MINDS BETRAY US."

Reviewed by Loren Pankrantz, Ph.D., this book by psychiatrists Marc and Jacqueline Feldman examines various mental disorders causing distorted thinking, with a specific chapter on the false memory syndrome. Pankrantz, familiar with the Feldmans' work on factitious disorders, found the chapter on false memory syndrome insightful. The review discusses the authors' critical stance on the extent to which repressed memories are reported to exist, their critique of unscientific methods like symptom check lists, and their view that such approaches give therapists an "intellectual blank check." The review also touches upon the book's discussion of facilitated communication, satanic ritual abuse, and John Mack's alien abductions.

Personal Account: Beth Rutherford

A significant portion of the newsletter is dedicated to "A RETRACTOR SPEAKS: Beth Rutherford's Story." Beth recounts her experience of developing "memories" of sexual abuse by her father during a 2 1/2 year therapy with a church counselor. She details the therapeutic process, which she describes as "P-R-O-C-E-S-S": Putting doubt in her mind, Remembering her childhood, Omitting the good and focusing on the bad, Commitment to dreams as reality, Emotionalizing memories, and Separating from family. Beth explains how suggestion, reinterpretation of events (like a peck on the lips being framed as inappropriate), and emotional manipulation led her to believe these memories were real. She describes physical symptoms and psychological distress that reinforced her belief. Ultimately, through a series of events, Beth came to realize her memories were false. She was medically examined and found to be a virgin. Beth is now speaking out to help others avoid similar experiences. The article also briefly mentions John Mack's work on alien abductions in the context of the broader theme of believing extraordinary claims.

Historical Context of Communication with the Unseen

The newsletter draws parallels between modern claims of recovered memories and alien abductions with historical accounts of spiritualism and communication with unseen entities. It references Swedenborg, who discoursed with spirits and angels, and Alphonse Cahagnet's experiments with mesmerism, where subjects described a world of heaven. The article notes how modern spiritualism, starting in 1848, involved messages from mediums, and how the idea of communication with beings "out there" has persisted, with John Mack's work being seen as a modern iteration.

Reader Contributions and Testimonials

The "FROM OUR READERS" section includes several letters:

• A Mom and Dad share a happy ending, reporting their family is reunited after a period of separation caused by false accusations of sexual abuse, and express hope for others.
• A Dad reflects on the finality of death and the importance of being there for children.
• A Mom and Dad recount their "long nightmare" of a legal case due to false accusations by their daughter, mentioning a favorable ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and expressing bittersweet feelings about their estranged daughter.
• A Happy Dad describes a rebirth of his family relationship after a period of separation and false accusations, attributing reconciliation to God's grace.

Editorial Stance and Commentary

An editorial from the Durham Herald-Sun is quoted, celebrating the Royal College of Psychiatrists' conclusion that recovered memories are almost certainly false. Mike Wallace from "60 Minutes" is also quoted, criticizing the "fad" of multiple personality disorder and the potential for therapists to plant false memories.

Events and Meetings

The newsletter lists various upcoming events and meetings hosted by or related to the FMS Foundation across Florida, Texas, Indiana, and other locations, including lectures, seminars, and regular group meetings.

Foundation Information

Details are provided regarding copyright, contact information for the FMS Foundation, its Scientific and Professional Advisory Board, and membership information, including subscription rates and how to join. A video tape order form for the "When Memories Lie" Colorado Seminar is also included.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the unreliability of recovered memories, the potential for therapeutic practices to create false memories, and the legal and psychological ramifications of such claims. The FMS Foundation's stance is clearly critical of "recovered memory therapy" and advocates for a more evidence-based and cautious approach to memory claims, particularly those involving alleged childhood trauma. The newsletter promotes the idea that many recovered memories are not factual but are constructions influenced by suggestion and therapeutic techniques. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards repressed memory theories and support for individuals and families who have been negatively impacted by such therapeutic approaches.