False Memory Syndrome Foundation - Vol 07 No 10 - 1998 dec

Magazine Overview

This issue of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) Newsletter, dated December 1998, Vol. 7 No. 10, provides an update on the ongoing discourse surrounding recovered memory and false accusation issues. The newsletter highlights increased media exposure, legal developments, and critical analyses of therapeutic practices and their scientific underpinnings.

Key Developments and Media Exposure

The newsletter begins by noting a significant increase in public awareness due to three television documentaries: "Dateline" (October 27, 1998) covering the Burgus v. Braun case, "Frontline" (October 27, 1998) on the Snowden case, and "48-Hours" (November 3, 1998) on the Amirault case. These programs exposed millions to the complexities of recovered memory and false accusation problems. The FMSF observes that new articles and books are deepening the understanding of memory, both true and false, and points readers to "Smoke and Mirrors: The Devastating Effect of False Sexual Abuse Claims" by Terence Campbell and "Believed-In Imaginings: The Narrative Construction of Reality" edited by deRivera and Sarbin.

The criminal trial in Texas concerning therapy practices that allegedly caused harm continues, with a trial date of May 18, 1999, set for the review of Dr. Bennett Braun's license in Illinois. The FMSF notes that more families are reporting communication from formerly alienated children and that more individuals are retracting accusations. While newly accused families are in crisis, the overall "recovered repressed memory" phenomenon appears to be moving past its crisis stage, with proponents seemingly in retreat on professional, scientific, and legal fronts, leading to a marginalization of this belief system.

Dateline Program and Rush Presbyterian Hospital

The "Dateline" program is highlighted for questioning the mental health community's role during the "cruel epidemic" of recovered memory. Specifically, it questioned how Rush Presbyterian Hospital could have allowed Dr. Braun's program to operate for so long, including the hospitalization of young children for years to protect them from a "cult" with no evidence. The program also raised concerns about the use of the hospital laboratory for testing ground meat and the use of hypnosis and experimental drugs to recover "memories," despite warnings from the American Medical Association about confabulations.

Dr. Jan Fawcett, head of psychiatry at Rush Presbyterian, is quoted defending the outcome for Mrs. Burgus, stating she had a "very good outcome." However, "Dateline" points out that Mrs. Burgus's recovery involved getting off drugs and seeking evidence that the events had not happened. Dr. Fawcett acknowledges that at some point, everyone questions their symptoms.

Expanding the Focus Beyond False Memories

After years of focusing on whether false memories develop in therapy, the "pathology" of patients, and family "dysfunction," the FMSF calls for an expansion of focus. The newsletter asserts there is ample evidence of false memories developed in therapy, the suggestibility of humans, and the historical existence of family issues. It argues that being human is not a pathology.

Future Concerns and Systemic Issues

The newsletter poses the question of whether FMS will happen again, suggesting that similar dangers to consumers could re-emerge due to a lack of fundamental changes in the mental health community to check "run-away belief systems." It criticizes the community for its silence during the "cruel epidemic" and questions their current actions.

Legal Corner: Criminal Trial Against Texas Therapists

A federal criminal trial is underway in Texas against five former employees of the Spring Shadows Glen private mental hospital, charged with insurance fraud. The indictment alleges that from 1991 to 1993, the defendants used hypnosis, drugs, and isolation to prolong patient treatment and collect insurance payments. Patients allegedly recovered memories of cult ritual abuse and torture. Nurse manager Sally McDonald testified that diagnoses were exaggerated to collect insurance, and that books describing torture and rape were accessible, leading teens to claim such experiences. Dr. Gary Miller, former commissioner of the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, expressed astonishment at the duration of hospitalizations and stated he has never seen a true MPD patient, believing the diagnosis has harmed patients and psychotherapy's reputation. Defense attorneys argue that the hospital provided appropriate care and that the case is an attempt to criminalize a form of therapy.

Former patient Karen Gauthier testified about her admission at age 13 due to fears of cult abuse. The prosecution played tapes of her therapy sessions. The defense argued hypnosis was for processing existing memories, not retrieving new ones. Gauthier had no prior memories of cult abuse. The case is expected to last until March.

Legal Corner: Hearing Scheduled in Licensure Case of Dr. Bennett Braun

An Illinois administrative judge has set a trial date of May 18, 1998, for Dr. Bennett Braun, a psychiatrist facing potential loss of his medical license. Allegations include using drugs and hypnosis to convince a patient of ritual cult abuse and multiple personality disorder. A separate trial is ordered for Dr. Elva Poznanski. Braun's lawyer requested independent psychiatric evaluations, arguing that the treatment was correct. The Burgus family had previously settled a civil case against Braun and Poznanski for $10.6 million.

Legal Corner: North Carolina Court Excludes "Repressed Memory" Testimony

In the case of Barrett v. Hyldburg, a North Carolina Superior Court Judge excluded all evidence derived from alleged repressed memories, leading to the dismissal of the case due to insufficient evidence. The court cited the lack of scientific support for "internal corroborative characteristics" of repressed memories and noted the debate within the scientific community regarding the phenomenon's validity. The court concluded that retrospective studies and self-reports lack scientific reliability and that the DSM's inclusion of "dissociative amnesia" does not equate to general scientific acceptance. The court also found no reliable corroborative evidence to distinguish true from false memories.

Legal Corner: Georgia Supreme Court on Expert Testimony

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in Barlow v. The States that a defendant in a child molestation case is entitled to introduce expert testimony on proper techniques for interviewing children and the potential effects of such techniques.

Reactions to a Primer on FMS

Allen Feld, MSW, reviews an article by J. T. Stocks in "Social Work" that informs NASW members about the hazards of FMS. Feld praises the article for addressing scientific shortcomings of memory recovery techniques and for being well-documented and objective. He notes that Stocks cites over 100 references and reviews ten so-called recovered memory techniques, finding no empirical evidence that they lead to accurate memory recovery. Feld highlights the risk of therapist suggestion in techniques like guided imagery and criticizes NASW for being slow to inform its members about the potential harm of false memories.

Analysis of "Internal Corroboration"

The newsletter critically examines the concept of "internal corroboration" as proposed by Charles Whitfield, M.D., as a means to establish the reliability of repressed memory claims. The analysis points out that this method relies on factors like the plaintiff's credibility, emotional reactions, and the consistency of the story, rather than independent, verifiable evidence. The Barrett v. Hyldburg case is used to illustrate how this argument lacks legal standing, with one expert likening it to a "judgment by an expert that the individual is credible." The court in Barrett found this type of evidence inadmissible.

Dr. Whitfield's assertion that a family history of alcoholism might provide corroborative evidence is also questioned for its lack of scientific support. His method of asking the plaintiff and her sisters to fill out screening questionnaires as if they were the defendant father from 1951 is described as questionable.

"Repressed Memory" Charges Dropped

In a case reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer, prosecutors dropped rape charges against a teacher, Michael Gallagher, after concluding the accuser, Margaret Powell, had fabricated the allegations. Assistant District Attorney Mary Fittipaldi stated that Powell changed her story and added details, raising suspicions. Powell failed a lie-detector test and admitted uncertainty about the alleged sexual intercourse. The district attorney noted that the allegations were based on "recovered or regressed memories," which their office does not believe in. The teacher is welcomed back to his job, and the district will provide back pay.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The FMSF Newsletter consistently adopts a critical stance towards the recovered memory phenomenon and related therapeutic practices. It emphasizes the lack of scientific evidence supporting these techniques, highlights the potential for harm to individuals and families, and criticizes the mental health community and professional organizations for their perceived inaction or complicity. The newsletter advocates for a more rigorous, evidence-based approach to mental health treatment and consumer protection. Recurring themes include media influence, legal challenges, the role of professional organizations, and the scientific validity of memory recovery claims. The editorial stance is one of skepticism and concern regarding the widespread acceptance and application of recovered memory therapies.

This issue of the FMS Foundation Newsletter, dated December 1998, Volume 7, No. 10, is primarily dedicated to detailing the FMS Foundation's involvement in legal cases through amicus curiae briefs. It highlights the Foundation's efforts to provide courts with scientific literature on recovered memories and addresses various legal decisions and arguments related to this complex issue. The newsletter also features personal accounts from individuals who identify as 'retractors' and discusses the broader implications of recovered memory therapy.

Amicus Curiae Briefs and Legal Decisions

The core of the newsletter presents a comprehensive list of amicus curiae briefs submitted by the FMS Foundation to appellate courts across several states, along with the final decisions in those cases. Each entry provides a case name, the date of submission, and a summary of the brief's arguments and the court's ruling.

Key legal themes explored include:

• Duty of Mental Health Professionals: Arguments that therapists may owe a duty to third parties, particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse stemming from recovered memories.
• Statute of Limitations and Discovery Rule: The application of the discovery rule to repressed memory claims, with many courts ruling that repressed memories do not constitute objective evidence sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.
• Scientific Reliability of Repressed Memory: Courts frequently questioned the scientific validity and general acceptance of repressed memory theory, often requiring evidentiary hearings to determine its reliability.
• Case Examples: Specific cases from Alabama, Rhode Island, Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Hampshire, and California are detailed, illustrating the varied judicial responses to repressed memory claims.
• In McDuffie v. Sellers-Bok (Alabama), the court affirmed a dismissal of counts related to malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.
• In Kelly v. Marcantonio (Rhode Island), the court mandated evidentiary hearings to determine the scientific reliability of repressed memory theory before allowing claims.
• In S.V. v. R.V. (Texas), the court held that repressed memories lacked objective verifiability, thus not meeting the requirement for extending the discovery rule.
• The U.S. Court of Appeals in Knode v. Hartman found a repressed memory claim barred by the statute of limitations, citing the lack of objective verification.
• The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Dalrymple v. Brown refused to apply the discovery rule, stating repressed memories do not provide objective evidence.
• The Illinois Supreme Court in M.E.H. v. L.H. affirmed dismissal, noting that the purpose of the statute of limitations would be undermined if applied to such claims.
• In State v. Hungerford (New Hampshire), the court affirmed that the party offering repressed memory testimony must prove its reliability, and the phenomenon had not gained general acceptance.
• An unpublished California Court of Appeal decision in Engstrom v. Engstrom affirmed a non-suit, finding that memories generated during therapy did not meet the Kelly-Frye standard.
• The Tennessee Supreme Court in Hunter v. Brown declined to rule on the general applicability of the discovery rule but found the claim time-barred.
• Hungerford v. Jones (New Hampshire) considered whether a mental health care provider owes a duty to a patient's father regarding diagnoses of sexual abuse.
• Doe v. McKay (Illinois) affirmed dismissal of a third-party claim, finding it would improperly enlarge physicians' duty of care.
• Sawyer v. Midelfort (Wisconsin) involved a therapist's alleged negligent 'memory recovery' practices leading to accusations of sexual abuse.
• Kohout v. Charter Peachford Hospital (Georgia) addressed malpractice actions by former patients of therapists practicing repressed memory therapy.

Updates of Cases We Have Been Following

• Wenatchee civil rights trial: Plaintiffs in the unsuccessful civil damage suit against police and social workers filed a motion for a new trial, citing errors and misconduct by defense lawyers. The trial had centered on allegations of ignored regulations and violated civil rights of individuals falsely accused of child sex charges. The motion was denied by Judge Michael Donohue.

Personal Stories and Reflections

Several sections of the newsletter feature personal narratives and reflections from individuals who identify as 'retractors'—those who believe their recovered memories of abuse were false.

• Opening Our Hearts: A letter from a 'retractor' expresses gratitude to other retractors for sharing their stories, which helps in understanding the phenomenon. The author shares her own experience with a therapist who was not supportive and discusses how her twin sister became involved in recovered memory therapy, leading to estrangement from the family. She emphasizes the importance of unconditional forgiveness and love in reuniting families.
• It Would Be Easier to Forget: Another 'retractor' recounts her five-year experience with mental health professionals who helped her 'recover' false repressed memories. She now feels compelled to educate others about the dangers of recovered memory therapy and the destruction it can cause to families.
• Reconciliation: This section details a 'retractor's' journey to reconcile with her family after realizing her memories were false. She describes the difficulty of admitting her past beliefs were wrong and the process of rebuilding relationships, eventually placing responsibility on the therapist.
• Mother of a Retractor: A mother shares her family's 'happy ending' after her daughter reconnected with them, highlighting the importance of persistent hope and family time.
• Food for Thought: A mother notes that information distributed about FMS often relates to ethics, suggesting that unethical practices are at the heart of the recovered memory scandals.

Resources and Information

• Exploring the Internet: Provides links to websites like StopBadTherapy.com for information on professional regulatory boards and resources, and FMSFonline.org for background on specific cases.
• Books! Books! Books!: An updated list of books related to trauma, memory, and legal controversies is provided, including titles like "Trauma and Memory," "Smoke and Mirrors," and "Memory Distortion."
• Smiling through Tears: A description of a book of cartoons by various artists that explores the complex web of psychological and social elements of the recovered memory movement.
• Psychology Astray: Fallacies in Studies of "Repressed Memory" and Childhood Trauma: A review of Harrison G. Pope, Jr.'s book, described as an indispensable guide to understanding research claims about recovered memories.
• FMSF Video Order Form: An order form for a video titled "When Memories Lie
• The Rutherford Family Speaks to Families."

Editorial Stance and Recurring Themes

The FMS Foundation Newsletter consistently advocates for a critical examination of recovered memory claims and therapies. The recurring themes include:

• Skepticism towards Recovered Memory: The newsletter highlights legal and scientific arguments questioning the reliability and validity of repressed memories, often citing expert testimony and court rulings that have dismissed such claims due to lack of scientific consensus or objective evidence.
• Critique of Therapeutic Practices: The publication frequently criticizes therapeutic techniques that may foster or reinforce false memories, leading to devastating consequences for individuals and families.
• Support for 'Retractors': Personal stories from individuals who have come to believe their recovered memories were false are prominently featured, providing a counter-narrative to the recovered memory movement.
• Legal Advocacy: The FMS Foundation actively engages in legal advocacy by submitting amicus briefs to influence court decisions and educate the judiciary on the scientific and psychological complexities of repressed memory.
• Family Reunification: A significant theme is the impact of recovered memory therapy on families and the efforts of 'retractors' and their families to achieve reconciliation and reunification.
• Ethical Concerns: The newsletter raises concerns about the ethics of certain therapeutic practices and the potential for malpractice within the field of psychology related to memory recovery.

The editorial stance is clearly one of caution and skepticism regarding the phenomenon of recovered memory, emphasizing the potential for harm and the need for rigorous scientific and legal scrutiny.