False Memory Syndrome Foundation - Vol 19 No 02 - 2010 spring

Magazine Overview

This issue of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) Newsletter, dated Spring 2010, Volume 19, Number 2, critically examines the persistent influence of repressed and recovered memory theories in culture and the legal system, despite a lack of scientific consensus.

Key Articles and Discussions

The DSM-V and the Persistence of Unscientific Beliefs The newsletter opens by discussing the American Psychiatric Association's draft of the proposed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-V (DSM-V). It expresses disappointment that the section on Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly Multiple Personality Disorder) shows no significant change, despite evidence suggesting iatrogenic increases. The FMSF suggests that progress toward scientific understanding in the area of repressed memories is more likely to come from the courts than from the mental health profession.

An article in The Psychotherapy Networker is cited, which describes the political processes involved in the DSM-V, including the proposed but rejected 'Developmental Trauma Disorder' (DTD). The chair of the DSM Trauma Subgroup, Matthew Friedman, M.D., is quoted emphasizing the need for prospective identification of diagnostic criteria and rigorous field testing, raising questions about the validity of the DID diagnosis.

Susan Clancy's Challenge to the Trauma Model Psychologist Susan Clancy, author of "The Trauma Myth," is featured. She argues that after more than twenty-five years, predictions based on the trauma model of sexual abuse have not proven accurate. Clancy suggests that understanding how sexual abuse damages victims has more to do with what happens in its aftermath than the abuse itself. She contends that the idea of repression ultimately hurts victims by reinforcing the notion that sexual abuse is inherently traumatic, leading to feelings of isolation and shame.

Legal Battles and the Courts The newsletter highlights recent legal decisions that continue to grapple with repressed memory claims. Despite a general trend in the courts toward recognizing the lack of scientific evidence for such claims, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the conviction of Paul Shanley, based on the recovered repressed memories of Paul Busa. This decision was made despite an amicus curiae brief signed by one hundred scientists challenging the scientific support for repressed memory.

Another legal development in Indiana is noted, where a judge ruled that repressed-memory testimony could be heard by a jury in a clergy sex-abuse trial. This ruling is seen as potentially forcing state appellate courts to address the issue.

The Mohler Family Case: A Deep Dive into Allegations A significant portion of the newsletter is dedicated to the case of the Mohler family in Missouri, where six men were arrested based on accusations of ritualistic crimes against Ed Mohler's adult children, dating back to 1988-1995. The allegations include child rapes, sodomy, bestiality, kidnapping, murders, and the production of child pornography. The case gained public attention through media reports and a press conference by Sheriff Kerrick Alumbaugh.

The newsletter scrutinizes the evidence, noting that the charges are primarily based on recovered memories and that no physical evidence of murder has been found despite extensive searches. The article questions the motivations of Sheriff Alumbaugh and suggests that the case might be influenced by the pervasive climate surrounding clergy abuse scandals.

It details the initial accusations made by Ed Mohler's daughter, T.A., and the subsequent statements from other siblings. The search of the Mohler family farm yielded limited physical evidence, including a broken jar and a bone fragment. The newsletter also discusses the role of the newly appointed prosecutor, Kellie Ritchie, and her specialization in sexual abuse cases.

Expert Opinions and Skepticism The newsletter includes commentary from various experts. R. C. Barden, J.D., Ph.D., emphasizes the need for multidisciplinary practice in legal cases involving repressed memories and criticizes attorneys who lack scientific expertise. Kenneth Lanning of the FBI is quoted regarding the lack of physical evidence in multidimensional child sex ring cases. Dr. Gail Goodman's research on group cult sexual abuse is cited, noting that none of the 12,000 accusations studied could be substantiated.

The Role of Therapists and Books The newsletter points to the influence of repressed-memory therapists and their books, particularly those associated with Brigham Young University (BYU). Books by Lynn Finney, Beverly Engel, and Neomi Mattis are mentioned as recommended reading by the BYU Counseling Center. The work of Martha Beck, a former BYU professor, is also discussed. Carol Tavris is quoted criticizing the cycle of misinformation and faulty statistics perpetuated by authors in this field.

Other Cases and Concerns Briefly mentioned are other cases and issues, including the settlement involving therapists Corydon Hammond, Bennett Braun, and Roberta Sachs in a malpractice lawsuit related to repressed-memory patient Elizabeth Gale. The newsletter also touches upon the role of the internet in disseminating sensationalized stories, replacing daytime talk shows.

New Books Reviewed

The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children and Its Aftermath by Susan A. Clancy is reviewed. The book challenges the cultural belief that child sexual abuse is inherently traumatic, suggesting that the causes of long-term psychological harm are more complex.

From Birth to Rebirth: Gnostic Healing for the 21st Century by C.V. Tramont is also discussed. The book explores past-life regression and future-life progression, with the author believing patients can accurately predict the future. The newsletter expresses skepticism about the verifiability of these predictions.

An excerpt from the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault website regarding ritual/satanic/sadistic abuse is included, noting that while such abuse is difficult to document, it is important not to deny its existence.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The FMSF Newsletter consistently adopts a skeptical stance towards repressed and recovered memory claims, viewing them as lacking scientific basis and potentially harmful. The publication advocates for evidence-based approaches in both mental health and legal contexts, criticizing the continued influence of unscientific theories and the potential for miscarriages of justice. There is a strong emphasis on the importance of scientific rigor and multidisciplinary expertise in addressing complex psychological and legal issues. The newsletter appears to be a platform for disseminating research and commentary that challenges the prevailing narratives around trauma, memory, and abuse, particularly when they diverge from empirical findings.

This issue of the FMS Foundation Newsletter, Volume 19, Number 2, from Spring 2010, features a conversation with R. Christopher Barden, Ph.D., J.D., focusing on his significant role in the "memory wars" of the 1990s and his pioneering work in "science-intensive litigation" concerning recovered memory therapy (RMT) cases.

A Conversation With R. Christopher Barden, Ph.D., J.D.

Dr. Barden explains his initial interest in how people cope with complex stress, which led him to pursue legal studies to implement systemic changes in medical care. He co-drafted legislation to reform U.S. Emergency Medical Care and Injury Prevention Systems for Children, which gained national recognition. While practicing corporate and health care law, he began receiving calls from former colleagues concerned about the "treatment" approach of recovered-memory therapy, which they described as "quackery" destroying families.

Initially, national experts in litigation deemed winning RMT malpractice lawsuits "impossible" due to the lack of clear standards of care and the difficulty in proving damages. Large law firms were unwilling to front the substantial costs required for such "experimental" lawsuits. Barden, however, became convinced that many JD lawyers lacked the scientific understanding and experience in multidisciplinary science-law teams necessary to handle these cases effectively.

The $500,000 plaintiff's verdict in the Ramona case in California generated some interest but did not resolve the core issues. The plaintiff had self-funded the litigation and reportedly lost money, and the case was an unusual "third party" claim likely to be overturned on appeal. Thus, a financially viable RMT malpractice lawsuit remained "impossible."

However, the Ramona story led to Barden being interviewed by national media outlets, which softened the resistance of his law firm's prominent litigator, Edward M. Glennon. Glennon's support enabled Barden to secure financing for two "impossible" jury trials with team member Christopher Yetka. The Hamanne (1995) and Carlson (1996) jury verdicts, which were records at the time for trial length and verdict size (over $2 million each), garnered worldwide media attention and established the financial viability of such suits.

From that point forward, Barden was able to place cases nationwide with solid law firms, establish science-law teams, and litigate hundreds of "science-intensive" litigation cases in over 30 states, achieving success in about 98% of them.

The "war" effectively ended when the team's $10 million settlement in the Burgus v. Braun case was reported on the front page of the NY Times in 1997. Following this, hospital executives informed Barden that they were shutting down all MPD and related hospital units, viewing "recovered memory patients" as "walking multi-million dollar liabilities." This led to thousands of patients being freed from RMT programs, and the RMT industry subsequently collapsed.

While abuse scandals in the Catholic Church briefly revived some "recovered memory" issues, some attorneys defending the church struggled to distinguish reliable abuse claims from RMT cases, often using outdated legal methods with negative results.

Frye-Daubert-Kumho Legal Hearings

Barden explains that Frye-Daubert-Kumho legal hearings are crucial for examining the reliability and usefulness of expert witness testimony. If a theory or testimony is not proven reliable and helpful, it must be excluded to protect the legal process. He co-authored an article on this topic in the Harvard Journal on Legislation (1993).

These hearings played a significant role in the success of RMT malpractice suits by blocking "junk science" testimony, destroying the opposition's arguments, and leading to dismissals.

The "A Team" Method and "Horse and Buggy" Legal Methods

Barden contrasts the "science-intensive litigation" approach with the "horse and buggy" methodology still prevalent in the legal system, particularly in family law and RMT cases. He argues that JD-only attorneys often control these trials without fully comprehending the complex science involved.

He elaborates on why some Frye-Daubert-Kumho hearings on RMT are still lost, emphasizing the need for a multidisciplinary "A team" of national science and legal experts. He criticizes the tendency of JD-only attorneys to believe they can handle complex social science information in real-time verbal battles, stating they are not capable of effectively cross-examining RMT experts or conducting redirect examinations of their own experts.

Barden provides specific examples of how this "A team" approach works: misstating research by pulling out peer-reviewed articles, identifying methodological errors in expert testimony (like using outdated MMPI scales), and thoroughly presenting the history of misconduct by RM experts. He notes that some prominent RM experts refuse to participate in cases examined by attorneys who are also national experts in their field.

He acknowledges that while a "half-baked" solution of having a medical or psychological expert assist in court is better than going it alone, it is not as effective as the full "A team" method. The complexity of the issues requires a broad range of expertise, including clinical judgment limitations, lie detection, research methods, statistical issues, and more.

Barden expresses concern that lawyers continuing to use "horse and buggy" legal methods will lose cases they should win, potentially fueling attempts to revive the RMT industry.

Why Not All Lawyers Use These Methods?

Barden finds it difficult to understand why more lawyers do not adopt these successful methods. He suggests that some attorneys fail to investigate the history of successes, while others mistakenly believe their JD-only expertise is sufficient. Economic considerations also play a role, with some attorneys being "penny wise and pound foolish" by trying to save costs and ultimately losing much more.

He concludes that while future Frye-Daubert-Kumho hearings may become more complex, the current choices and consequences are clear.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The newsletter consistently advocates for rigorous scientific standards in legal proceedings, particularly concerning psychological and memory-related testimony. The editorial stance clearly opposes "junk science" and supports the use of multidisciplinary expert teams and scientific legal methods to ensure justice and protect the integrity of the legal system. The FMS Foundation appears to be dedicated to exposing and combating what it views as pseudoscience in the legal and psychological fields, with a particular focus on the "recovered memory" phenomenon.

Books of Interest and FMSF Resources

The newsletter also includes a section on "Some Books of Interest," listing titles related to trauma, memory, and pseudoscience in psychology. Additionally, it promotes an FMSF DVD titled "The Rutherford Family Speaks to FMS Families," which covers a story of accusation, retraction, and reconciliation, offering family members' coping strategies and insights into retraction. Ordering information for the DVD is provided.

Bulletin Board

The "Bulletin Board" section provides contact information for FMS Foundation chapters and associated groups across the United States, Canada, Australia, Belgium, France, Israel, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, facilitating communication and support within the organization and its network.