FMSF NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE - April 1, 1996 - Vol. 5, No. 4, HTML version

Return to FMSF Home Page

3401 Market Street suite 130,  Philadelphia, PA 19104,  (215-387-1865)

This address and the phone numbers have changed as of July 15, 2000
    The FMSF Newsletter is published 10 times a year by the  False
    Memory  Syndrome  Foundation.  A hard-copy subscription is in-
    cluded in membership fees (to join, see last page). Others may
    subscribe  by  sending  a  check  or  money  order, payable to 
    FMS Foundation, to the address above. 1994 subscription rates:
    USA: 1 year $30,  Student $10;  Canada: $35 (in U.S. dollars);
    Foreign: $40;  Foreign  student  $20;  Single issue price: $3. 
    ISSN #1069-0484
    APA Final Report
      Legal Corner
        Make a Difference
          From Our Readers
Dear Friends,

  "In sum, the literature on repression and recovered memory syndrome
  establishes that fundamental theoretical and practical issues remain
  to be resolved. These issues include the extent to which
  experimental psychological theories of amnesia apply to
  psychotherapy, the effect of repression on memory, the effect of
  screening devices in recall, the effect of suggestibility, the
  difference between forensic and therapeutic truth, and the extent to
  which memory restoration techniques lead to credible memories or
  confabulations. Opinions in this area simply cannot meet the
  'objective verifiability' element for extending the discovery rule."
        Texas Supreme Court, S.V. v R.V. March 14, 1996

The Texas Supreme Court decision from which the above quote is taken
is important, not only because it is at a state supreme court level,
but more so because of the great care with which the arguments are
presented and explained.  The FMS Foundation filed its first amicus
brief in this case. We received the Texas decision in the same week as
we received the _Final_Report_ of the American Psychological
Association Working Group on the Investigation of Memories of
Childhood Abuse which became available in March. In this document also
great care was taken to present and explain the different positions.
The APA report documents that the clinicians on the committee do not
agree with the scientists on the committee as to what is to be taken
as scientific evidence nor on the specifics of memory. The Texas
Supreme Court decision and the APA _Final_Report_ are discussed in
detail in this newsletter because they are important reflections on
the current state of the repressed memory debate. The clinicians on
the APA group want to have special rules that apply for repressed
memories of abuse. The Texas Supreme Court argues that rules of
science and law must be consistent and apply to all topics.
  The scientific memory research community extending far beyond the
FMSF has stated clearly and unambiguously what is and what is not
known scientifically about memory and what constitutes scientific
evidence. That community has now stated in hundreds of scholarly
articles what may legitimately be inferred and what may not be
inferred from behaviors and symptoms and memories. We summarized those
points in the March newsletter.  The courts have taken that
information and are making decisions according to legal standards of
scientific evidence.  The courts use the standards of science set
forth by the US Supreme Court. These establish that to be admissible,
a scientific theory should be (1) testable, (2) falsifiable, (3)
capable of meeting peer review and (4) if involving a methodology or
process, have a known rate of error. (See FMSF Newsletter, Legal
Corner, July 1995). We expect that interest in the legal issues of
recovered memories will peak next September when the retrial of George
Franklin is scheduled to begin.
  An indication of the the steady progress in the issues of concern to
the Foundation can be seen in the desperation of some members of the
mental health community who continue to respond with a smear campaign
against the FMSF and members of the FMSF Scientific Advisory Board. In
this issue as the last, we go into some depth about the smear for two
reasons. First, it is important for readers to understand the process
of smear tactics and who uses them. Second, because the internet has
qualitatively changed the speed and nature of written communication,
rumors spread at an incredible rate. It is important to provide the
full story to people who may be confused by the rumors and innuendo.
  While so much is happening at the professional level, most families
tell us they are still struggling with very personal issues: with
grief because of the loss of a child, with financial devastation
caused by a lawsuit, with staying healthy under tremendous stress,
with the anger of being falsely accused, with the shame that an
accusation of sexual abuse brings, with guilt wondering what they
might have done wrong, with questions about how to reach a child who
refuses to communicate or with the challenges of accepting a child
back into the family. Former accusers tell us they are struggling with
guilt, with loss of confidence in their own judgment, with trying to
make amends and sometimes with trying to cope with the grief of having
a parent die before they had an opportunity to tell that person of
their love. Reports from parents and children who have begun the
process of reconciliation, with or without retraction, tell us that
the resumption of communication is important. What can help in that
process? One of the questions that many families and retractors have
asked is whether mediation would be helpful. We hope that the
following article about mediation by Susan Robbins will answer many of
the questions families have asked the Foundation. We think it may also
be helpful to professionals who wish to help families resolve their

                       Susan P. Robbins, D.S.W.
                        University of Houston
                    Graduate School of Social Work
              Reprinted with permission from the author

  As parents seek to reestablish contact with daughters and sons who
have severed family ties due to "recovered" memories of childhood
sexual abuse, many are turning to mediation as a potential method of
family reconciliation. This article addresses some of the most
commonly asked questions about mediation, in general, and family
mediation, in particular.

  Mediation is a process in which a neutral party (the mediator)
assists people in conflict in communicating openly with each other for
the purpose of coming to a mutually agreeable resolution of their
problems. When family members are involved in an emotional dispute,
the mediator provides a neutral forum and ensures that each person
will have the opportunity to speak and be listened to. Once
communication barriers are removed, the mediator assists people in
examining solutions that will help resolve their conflict.

  In the purest sense, the term family mediation is self explanatory -
it refers to mediation with families. General mediation training
prepares most people to mediate disputes with a wide variety of
clients, including families. However, the term "family mediation" is
sometimes misleading because it is often used to denote divorce
mediation. Many people who receive specialized training in divorce
mediation refer to themselves as "family mediators" and their advanced
training typically includes basic knowledge about child development
and family law. Most family mediations (other than divorce, child
custody or visitation) can be done by a person who has received
general mediation training and has experience in mediating with
families. Family mediation can include any type of dispute including
those arising out of family businesses or relationships.

  If everyone agrees to mediation, the mediator schedules a meeting
with all parties involved and usually begins by explaining the rules
of confidentiality and how the mediation will proceed. Each family
member is then given uninterrupted time to tell his or her side of the
story. As each person takes turns in speaking, the mediator asks
questions for clarification and facilitates discussion between family
members. Once specific issues and problems are identified and
prioritized, the mediator assists people in bargaining and negotiating
so that family members develop trade-offs in order to get each of
their needs met. When solutions are reached, a written agreement is
signed by each person and the mediator.
  In some cases people who refuse to meet with each other face-to-face
will sometimes agree to what is called a "caucus" style mediation. In
a caucus mediation, the mediator meets with each party separately,
helps them identify and prioritize issues, and acts as an intermediary
in bargaining and negotiating. This is accomplished by the mediator
speaking with each party and bringing offers and counter-offers back
and forth between the two until a mutually agreeable settlement is
reached. Although most mediators prefer to meet directly with each
person, a caucus mediation can also be done on the telephone if
  Mediation is often helpful in resolving long-standing family
disputes because mediated solutions are future oriented. Rather than
focusing on guilt or innocence, mediation typically addresses issues
such as: will there be future contact between the parties?; if so,
what type of contact?; how frequent?; under what conditions?; will
grandparents be allowed visitation with their grandchildren?; how
often?; and are certain topics "off limits"?  Importantly, mediation
involves people in the process of using their own problem solving
skills to discover solutions that will work for them.

  Many adults who have recovered memories of childhood abuse are
finding that family mediation provides them with a safe forum to meet
with their parents to discuss issues pertaining to possible future
contact with family members, grandparents' visitation and, for some,
family reconciliation.
  Mediation provides accused parents with a non-threatening way to
begin to initiate contact with their daughters or sons who have
refused to see them or speak to them. Many adults who have "recovered"
memories have now started to doubt the accuracy and veracity of these
memories. Despite these doubts, it is often difficult for them to
fully acknowledge that the memories might not be true. For many, it is
especially difficult to face the pain that they have caused other
family members. Likewise, family members often carry a burden of guilt
in not knowing what they did wrong. Mediation provides the entire
family with a safe forum in which they can re-initiate contact with
each other and begin to negotiate terms of their future relationship
as a family. Past events are only discussed if the entire family is
willing. This allows family members to reunite on their own terms
without having to immediately face issues of guilt or innocence.

  There is a great deal of variability from state to state regarding
the educational and training criteria required for someone to become
qualified in mediation. Because there is so much variation, it is
advisable to find out the specific requirements in your state. As a
general guideline, a mediator should have, at a minimum, 35-45 hours
of formal training in general mediation. This training should include
explicit content on professional ethics for mediators, the mediation
process, and agreement writing.
  There are several sources that you can turn to when looking for a
qualified mediator. Many states have formal organizations for
mediators and maintain listings of mediators certified in that state;
the same is true for State Bar Associations. Most large cities
throughout the U.S. also have dispute resolution centers that provide
free or low cost mediation services. Many of these centers, however,
are staffed by volunteer mediators with varying levels of experience.
  Another resource can be found in the national and international
organizations that maintain listings of mediation professionals. The
Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution can be reached at
(202) 783-7277 or by EMail at The Academy of Family
Mediators can be reached at (503) 345-1205 and the Association of
Family and Conciliation Courts at (608) 251-4001.
  In choosing a mediator I believe that although advanced training is
sometimes helpful, it is more important that the mediator be able to
remain truly neutral. It is critical that the mediator not bring her
or his personal agenda or ideological beliefs into a mediation
session. A mediator should never insist to either party that a
specific solution must be followed (i.e. you should apologize; you
should accept this apology). Although it is important for mediators to
be able to help people "brainstorm" about solutions that they have not
thought of, mediators should never impose their solutions on you.

  Most mediators set their own fees and base them on an hourly or
daily rate. The national average is between $100-200 per hour.
Typically, attorney/mediators charge more than other mediation
professionals because their fees are often structured to be consistent
with their legal fees. However, some attorney mediators may charge
less for their mediation services. Mental health professionals
typically charge between $100-150 per hour.
  You can expect to pay an initial fee, usually between $35-100, for
the mediator to open and set up your file. This fee sometimes includes
all initial phone calls and correspondence between the parents, the
mediator and the estranged child. Once it is determined that all
parties agree to a mediation, you can expect to be charged by the hour
(or day) for the actual mediation services. The amount of time and the
number of sessions may vary widely, depending on the number and
complexity of the issues to be addressed.

  Because the issues involved in FMS are extremely complex, it is
helpful if the mediator is familiar with both sides of the recovered
memory/false memory debate. However, the mediator should in no case
take sides with either the parents or accusing child or try to
determine whether or not the abuse actually occurred. Since the role
of a mediator mandates neutrality, the mediator acts as an advocate
for all parties in the mediation.  Readers may wish to read a recent
article by Dr. Robbins about false memory issues in Families in
Society, October 1995, Vol. 76, No. 8, "Wading through the muddy
waters of recovered memory." 
/                                                                    \ 
|                      A CHALLENGE TO MEDIATION                      |
|                                                                    |
| These are my needs for reconciliation and healing of the           |
| relationship with my father and mother. Restoration can happen     |
| only when this process is followed.                                |
|                                                                    |
| 1. When the details of the abuse are reviewed it must be agreed    |
| that the abuse occurred.                                           |
| 2. My father must accept the complete responsibility of the abuse  |
| without excusing or blameshirting.                                 |
| 3. When past and current damage of the abuse is described, my      |
| father must evidence some grief and acknowledgement of harm.       |
| 4. My father must express a willingness to pursue the path of a    |
| new kind of relationship and seek additional help through church,  |
| counseling, seminars, or reading.                                  |

                              FMSF Staff

  The _Final_Report_ of the APA Working Group on the Investigation of
Memories of Childhood Abuse is now available through the American
Psychological Association.  (Contact: Paul Donnelly at APA
(202-336-6055), email:, 750 1st NE, Washington,
DC 20002.)

  This _Final_Report_ is a remarkable document and it is "must"
reading by anyone who is interested in the methodology and the
research base of both sides of the repressed memory debate. The report
opens with the final conclusions of the Working Group:

  1. Controversies regarding adult recollections should not be allowed
  to obscure the fact that child sexual abuse is a complex and
  pervasive problem in America that has historically gone
  2. Most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or
  part of what happened to them.
  3. It is possible for memories of abuse that have been forgotten for
  a long time to be remembered.
  4. It is also possible to construct convincing pseudomemories for
  events that never occurred.
  5. There are gaps in our knowledge about the processes that lead to
  accurate and inaccurate recollections of childhood abuse.

The Working Group concluded that they differed markedly on the
following issues of the conception of memory:
  (a) the constructive nature of memory and the accuracy with which
  any events can be remembered over extended delays;
  (b) the tentative mechanisms that may underlie delayed remembering;
  (c) the presumed "special" status of memories of traumatic events;
  (d) the relevance of the basic memory and developmental literatures
  for understanding the recall of stressful events;
  (e) the rules of evidence by which we can test hypotheses about the
  consequences of trauma and the nature of remembering;
  (f) the frequency with which pseudomemories may be created by
  suggestion, both within and outside of therapy; and
  (g) the ease with which, in the absence of external corroborative
  evidence, "real" and pseudomemories may be distinguished.
This is followed in tennis-match fashion by the arguments and research
evidence of each group in the following sections:

  (Alpert, Brown, Courtois)
  AND COURTOIS (Ornstein, Ceci, Loftus).

                     FMSF Comment on this Report:
  The three clinical members of the Working Group insist throughout
the _Final_Report_ that "recovered memory therapy" (RMT) is not
standard therapy but "exemplary only of what good therapy is not."
They repeatedly complain that the three research members of the
Working Group gave "the impression" that:

  "...most clinicians working with adults who allege abuse conduct
  treatment that is suggestive, leading, and almost exclusively
  focused on the retrieval of memory to the exclusion of other
  therapeutic tasks. For example, the statement is made that the task
  of some therapeutic orientations is the 'hunt for the missing
  memory.' We suggest that this position is due to the misapplication
  and overgeneralizaiton of material from the lay literature for abuse
  survivors to all psychotherapists, whatever their level of training
  and technique...[The researchers] cite only one source on the
  treatment of adults who allege a history of sexual abuse (e.g.
  Fredrickson 1992) a book that advocates an extreme position that is
  at odds with the more mainstream literature." (page 204)

  We applaud the clinicians for taking the opportunity to distance
themselves from Fredrickson. Her book, the very title of which
identifies repressed memories as "a Journey to Recovery from Sexual
Abuse" is nothing less than a manual for RMT (Fredrickson's term for
RMT is "Memory Recovery Work"). It's a pity that the Working Group
didn't take the opportunity to go on record about some of the other
widely used RMT manuals. The most infamous of these is, of course, The
Courage to Heal. Just a year ago, at a conference at the Kansas
University Medical College, the clinical chair of the Working Group,
Judith Alpert, publicly criticized one of the researcher members of
the Working Group, Elizabeth Loftus, for using it as an example.
Dr. Alpert's point then was that The Courage to Heal is just a "pop
psychology" book. Perhaps so, but it is the single most highly
recommended book by therapists (according to "The Guide to Self-Help
Books" published by Guilford Press in 1993). What an opportunity was
lost: if this most-used RMT manual is, in fact, just "pop psychology"
why shouldn't the APA go on record?

  But not all RMT manuals are in the "lay literature." The American
Psychological Association, itself, published one of them: Lenore
E.A. Walker's "Abused Women and Survivor Therapy: A practical guide
for the psychotherapist," complete with a foreword by Working Group
clinician member Laura Brown. It includes a section on hypnosis in
which it is reported with apparent approval that "Hypnosis is often
used as an adjunct to verbal therapy in order to gain access to buried
memories, particularly buried memories of incest and other early
abuse." (p.425) Most disturbing in this APA publication is its
endorsement of check-lists. On page 113 Walker endorses and gives her
own version of the infamous Blume checklist. Thus the APA finds itself
selling a book -- not as part of " the lay literature for abuse
survivors" but as "A practical guide for the psychotherapist" -- which
endorses one of the most infamous of the RMT manuals, "Secret
Survivors: Uncovering Incest and its Aftereffects in Women" by E. Sue
Blume. This is the book that starts out not with a title page but with

      Do you find many characteristics of yourself on this list? 
            If you do, you could be a survivor of incest.

  On the first page of the introduction the reader is told that most
"incest survivors DO NOT KNOW THAT the abuse has ever occurred!...Most
survivors need many years, and often many therapists, before they can
face the truths of their past." On the second page: "it is not
unlikely that MORE THAN HALF OF ALL WOMEN are survivors of childhood
sexual trauma." And on the third page: "Through the Incest Survivors'
Aftereffects Checklist, numerous incest survivors have finally been
able to piece together the disjointed fragments of their lives:
difficult though it is to face that one is an incest survivor, this is
the first step in ending confusion and finding a direction for
healing." (For the complete list of "aftereffects" -- ranging from
alcohol abstinence to baggy clothing -- see the February, 1995 FMSF

  As embarrassing as the Walker and Blume books are to the clinicians,
consider the following:

  "Should the woman deny knowledge of abuse despite indication to the
  contrary, the therapist can gently probe, suggesting that the
  symptoms she has described are sometimes related to a history of
  abuse. The therapist might also describe what constitutes incest. At
  times, therapist and client will conclude that incest occurred even
  without conscious validation or memory on the part of the client...
  Hypnosis can assist in the recapturing of lost memories...Hypnosis
  can be used to assist in bringing material to consciousness...
  Participation in an incest therapy group usually stimulates the
  memory recovery as members 'chain' from each other's experience."

These embarrassing words are to be found in "Healing the Incest Wound:
Adult Survivors in Therapy," Norton, 1988. The author is Christine
Courtois who claimed with her two fellow clinicians in the Final

  "Psychotherapy can be substandard, as can research. Asking a patient
  without abuse memories to picture some kind of abuse or suggesting
  abuse as the sole explanation for a patient's symptoms are examples
  of substandard treatment." (page 199)

  1988 is the publication date for both the Blume and the Courtois
books. One may argue that eight years is a long time ago and that it's
possible for people to see the error of their former ways. These early
books may be embarrassing to the clinicians' cause but not fatal. All
they have to do, after all, is point out how much they've learned
since then and go on record about the value of such RMT manuals. More
embarrassing is the more recent APA publication of the Walker book.
But most embarrassing of all is a publication just two years ago by
the clinician/chair of the Working Party, Judith Alpert. It appeared
in the Psychoanalytic Review, 81(2) Summer, 1994 under the title,
"Analytic Reconstruction in the Treatment of an Incest Survivor." It
documents Alpert's treatment of a patient she calls Mary, which
treatment began as follows:

  "Her concerned ex-boyfriend consulted a psychologist. When the
  psychologist heard about Mary's symptoms, he suggested that Mary was
  an incest victim.  Apparently quite fortuitously, her ex-boyfriend
  had consulted with a specialist in sexual abuse. After reading an
  article the psychologist gave Mary's boyfriend, Mary reported she
  knew she was a victim of father-daughter incest It was then that her
  chronic symptoms became acute. She immediately searched for a
  clinician who specialized in sexual abuse. Thus, at the onset of
  treatment, Mary was convinced that she was an incest victim although
  she had no available memory of sexual abuse by her father."

What was the phrase? " ...suggesting abuse as the sole explanation for a
patient's symptoms [is an] example of substandard treatment."

  Judith Alpert and her two fellow clinicians were able, in the _Final_
Report_, to criticize the research members for ignoring the many
clinicians who "...advocate for treatment oriented to the symptom
management and stabilization of the patient and the enhancement of ego
strength and personal resilience prior to or in lieu of work on
available and/or retrieved memories." (page 205) But the same Judith
Alpert tells us that in the case of Mary the "focus" of the first
eight months of Mary's treatment "... was on recovering,
reconstructing, and reintegrating tragic memories with their
associated affects. During those initial eight months, I saw
25-year-old Mary two times a week." [Footnote: There is a bit of a
mystery concerning how many therapists Mary had consulted. On page 219
Alpert writes "She had no prior treatment." But by page 230 Alpert can
write "There were ... 'tests' in the course of treatment,
unconsciously designed to determine if I would abandon her as her
mother had. In fact, the first such test occurred in our first
session, and my 'passing' it was one of the major reasons she chose me
for an analyst. The test involved her telling me, as Mary had told her
mother, that her father had merely kissed her on the lips at age
17. The analysts [sic] who accepted the merely were experienced as
abandoning her." There is no other explanation of the "analysts" who
had previously failed the test.]

  Alpert would seem to agree that the historical reality of incest is
of importance: "Did the events occur as they have been retrospectively
reconstructed? This question can be asked following any analysis. It
is particularly relevant to retrospective incest victims with complete
or almost complete amnesia for the abuse experience."

  So how did Alpert verify her theory about the origin of Mary's

  "I am convinced that she is an incest survivor. This conviction is
  based on the criss-crossing of validation from numerous sources: the
  content and manner of her defenses, the reoccurrence in nightmare
  after nightmare of the traumatic events, the fragments of memory,
  the repetition of the abuse in her life patterns, and the
  transference that took place. All of these indicated the reality of
  some experience that was being worked on in the unconscious, and all
  of these repetitive representations and fragments of memory pointed
  to the accuracy of the narrative, as it unfolded. While the abuse
  may not have taken place exactly as it has been woven in the
  analytic situation, the network of convergence from many lines
  convinces me that it is a reconstruction in the arena of historical
  truth, capturing the core of reality."

  "Numerous sources"? Alpert mentions, in fact, only one source: what
she heard from her very disturbed patient. Look at Alpert's words:
"validation from numerous sources...the reality of experience...the
accuracy of the narrative...the network of convergence from many
lines...the arena of historical truth...the core of reality."

  In the Final Conclusions the working group writes: "Many of the
difficulties that we have encountered in attempting to achieve
consensus reflect profound epistemological differences...If we are to
go forward toward the promotion of clinical practice that is truly
rooted in psychological science, some steps must be taken to resolve
these epistemological differences." Indeed.

/                                                                    \ 
|                        What's in a word-I:                         |
|                 Not fierce or robust but massive.                  |
|                                                                    |
|    "We note, for the record, that the concept of 'fierce' or       |
|    'robust' repression is an invention of members of the False     |
|    Memory Syndrome Foundation's scientific and professional        |
|    advisory board, and not generally accepted terminology. It is   |
|    certainly not a concept that we have ever encountered in the    |
|    scholarly literature on repression, nor do we believe that this |
|    concept has informed clinical descriptions of possible          |
|    recovered memories for trauma."                                 |
|                                                                    |
| Judith L. Alpert, Laura S. Brown, Christine A. Courtois in  "The   |
| Politics of Memory: A Response to Ornstein, Ceci and Loftus," part |
| of the _Final_Report_ of the Working Group  Investigation of       |
| Memories of Childhood Abuse, 1996                                  |
|                                                                    |
|    "Massive repression seems to be the main defensive operation    |
|    available to very young children and/or the violently abused."  |
|                                                                    |
| Christine A. Courtois in "Healing the Incest Wound: Adult          |
| Survivors in Therapy," Norton, 1988.                               |

/                                                                    \ 
|                        What's in a word-II:                        |
|                 Not archeological but buried deep.                 |
|                                                                    |
|    "We are fully aware...that there exist a number of poorly-      |
|    informed therapists, untrained lay counselors, and self-help    |
|    books whose authors endorse an archeological strategy, which we |
|    have ourselves criticized."                                     |
|                                                                    |
| Judith L. Alpert, Laura S. Brown, Christine A. Courtois in  "The   |
| Politics of Memory: A Response to Ornstein, Ceci and Loftus," part |
| of the _Final_Report_ of the Working Group  Investigation of       |
| Memories of Childhood Abuse, 1996                                  |
|                                                                    |
|    "The analyst's intent is not to create something new but to     |
|    attempt to bring out the past that is buried deep in the        |
|    present."                                                       |
|                                                                    |
| Judith L. Alpert in "Analytic Reconstruction in the Treatment of   |
| an Incest Survivor," Psychoanalytic Review, 81(2) Summer, 1994     |

                              MORE SMEAR
                            by FMSF Staff

  The willingness to accept something as fact based solely on belief
-- without further verification -- is a hallmark of what has been
called the "false memory syndrome phenomenon." Last month, we reported
on the smear printed by the Toronto Star that led readers to assume
that Elizabeth Loftus resigned from the American Psychological
Association in order to avoid responding to some ethical complaints.
We noted that Dr. Loftus wrote to the APA and expressed her
willingness to deal with these complaints that she knew nothing about.
The APA explained that: "...With very few exceptions, it is only when
it is determined that a formal case shall be opened or that a
preliminary investigation is begun, that the member is regarded as
being 'under the scrutiny' of the Ethics committee and the member
complainee is barred from resigning." In other words, when Elizabeth
Loftus resigned from the American Psychological Association there were
no formal ethics investigations pending, nor were there even any
preliminary investigations. Further, the APA does not acknowledge
whether or not specific complaints have even been filed.

But that does not stop the "smearers." In an article published in
David Calof's journal, "Treating Abuse Today," [Footnote: "Notes from
the Controversy," Treating Abuse Today, Vol 5 no 6 & Vol 6 No 1
(double issue, Nov-Dec & Jan-Feb).] we learn who made the complaints
and what they are about. This article has also been disseminated over
the internet. One of the people who volunteered that she has
complained about Dr. Loftus is Jennifer Hoult who won a $500,000
judgment against her father. Ms. Hoult complains that Dr. Loftus
misrepresented her in an article that Loftus wrote. [Footnote:
"Remembering Dangerously," Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 1995.]
According to Treating Abuse Today:

  [Ms Hoult] "pointed out that Loftus claims that 'Jennifer was a
  23-year-old musician who recovered memories in therapy of her father
  raping her from the time she was 4 ..Actually, Hoult began to
  remember the abuse at 24, at which time she was an artificial
  intelligence software engineer. Records in the case show that the
  bulk of her memories emerged outside of therapy. Furthermore, Hoult
  never stated that the rapes began when she was four, a 'fact'
  apparently created by Loftus for the purposes of her article."

Following is the passage Ms. Hoult complains about. 

  "Some writers have offered individual cases as proof that a stream
  of traumas can be massively repressed. Readers must beware that
  these case "proofs" may leave out critical information. Consider the
  supposedly ironclad case of Jennifer H. offered by Kandel and Kandel
  (1994) to readers of Discover magazine as an example of a
  corroborated de-repressed memory. According to the Discover account,
  Jennifer was a 23-year-old musician who recovered memories in
  therapy of her father raping her from the time she was 4 until she
  was 17..." (Kandel & Kandel, 1994 (May) "Flights of Memory,"
  Discover pp 32-37)

 In other words, the details that Ms. Hoult questions were published
in Discover magazine, an article that cited her case as evidence for
corroborated recovered repressed memories. "Treating Abuse Today" says
Ms Hoult also disputes:

   "In another passage, Loftus claims that Hoult 'remembered one time
  when she was raped in the bathroom and went to her mother wrapped in
  a towel with blood dripping' (1995, p.27). A review of court records,
  however, shows that Loftus has added two elements of her own making:
  the memory of the rape itself (the trial transcript shows that Hoult
  never claimed to remember a 'rape') and the blood-soaked towel (again
  the transcript shows that Hoult only reported a small amount of blood
  between her legs, which wasn't visible to the mother until Hoult
  dropped the towel from around her body). Hoult argues that these
  misstatements by Loftus put her in violation of several APA ethics
  guidelines, among them ethics in media presentations and ethics
  regarding matters of law."

If Ms. Hoult never claimed to have been raped, it's remarkable how
many think she did. For example in Newsday, November 28, 1993 an
article by Kessler began:

  "In another era, therapy might not have helped Jennifer Hoult
  recover memories of being raped by her father -- memories that led
  her to believe he raped her as many as 3,000 times between the ages
  of 6 and 16." p. 5

As for the blood soaked towel, we have no idea where "Treating Abuse
Today" thinks that was written. Loftus wrote, "remembered one time
when she was raped in the bathroom and went to her mother wrapped in a
towel with blood dripping." Loftus does not refer to a "blood-soaked
towel." "Treating Abuse Today" introduced "blood-soaked towel."
  "Treating Abuse Today" informed us that the second person who said
she had complained about Dr. Loftus to APA is Lynne Crook who was
awarded $149,580 by a judge in a civil suit against her father.
Ms. Crook is apparently upset with a quote that appeared in the
January/February 1995 issue of Psychology Today in an article by Jill
Neimark called, "It's Magical. It's Malleable. It's...Memory." We
will not comment on this since it is our understanding that it will be
addressed in a future issue of Psychology Today.
  We repeat what we have said many time before: those who cannot argue
on the merits of the issues resort to smear.

/                                                                    \ 
|                           Before therapy                           |
|                                                                    |
| Dear Dad,                                                          |
|   But - you know what? I can't seem to find anybody as good as you |
| yet! I suppose if I did, I'd marry him and I'm not ready yet, but  |
| either the guy isn't as honest as you or they're too harsh or not  |
| aggressive enough, not as ambitious or not as down-to-earth and    |
| child-like. You are such a tremendous man!                         |
|                                                    Love "T"        |
|                           After therapy                            |
| Dear Dad,                                                          |
|   Dad, when are you going to truly humble yourself, get real       |
| honest with yourself, and, from the depth of humility and heart,   |
| REPENT of all the evil you have done? When are you going to repent |
| and truly get right with God? And you have done PLENTY of evil-to  |
| my mom, to all us kinds, to others. You've done stuff we don't     |
| even know about -- and you know it.                                |
|                                            Love always  "T"        |

                Clinical Psychology News, January 1996

  The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Ad Hoc Committee on
Adult Delayed Recall has prepared some recommendations. The author of
the article, Bruce Jancin, notes that "solid scientific evidence
demonstrates that in the absence of third-party corroboration, there
is no reliable way to tell real memory from the product of
suggestion." He notes that forensic psychiatrists need to look for as
much evidence as they can find such as medical, police, school and/or
therapist records from the time of the alleged abuse. He notes also
that diaries, journals, employment histories and prior litigation
records may be helpful as well as interviews with acquaintances. The
committee also recommended that:

  * The use of hypnotism, amobarbitol-assisted interviews, or
experiential techniques to recover previously buried traumatic
memories should be viewed as precluding subsequent litigation.
Carefully controlled psychological studies have shown it's all too
easy for therapists using these techniques to implant suggestions that
result in elaborate, believable, but false memories.
  * Patterns of current symptoms cannot legitimately be used as
evidence for the truth of a memory.
  * The forensic evaluator should not be the same person doing the
therapy. The evaluator should look for possible contaminating
influences within the therapy as expressed in the therapist's bias,
ideology, and techniques.
  * The litigant's current psychiatric status should be thoroughly
assessed through clinical interviews and standardized scales measuring
symptoms, functioning, hypnotic suggestibility, and dissociability.
Nonspecific terms such as "sexual abuse syndrome" are not acceptable.
  * The memories at issue should be subjected to close scrutiny. It is
particularly helpful to document how the memories evolved over time.

                         LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS

MISSOURI - According to the St Louis Post-Dispatch Feb 5, 1996 there
is a bill pending in the Legislature to extend the statute of
limitation in sexual-abuse cases involving young people to 50 years
from the current limit of 10 years. The sponsor of the bill,
Representative Bonner believes that current statute of limitations are
a "loophole that protects molesters." He believes that by extending
the statute to 50 years, he is effectively eliminating the statute of
limitations making child sexual abuse a crime similar to that of
  Defense lawyers have expressed concern that the change will not
allow people confronted with criminal charges to have the opportunity
to find witnesses and evidence to defend themselves. Dan Viets, past
president of the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers was
quoted as saying "Any prosecutors who is asked to prosecute something
that happened more than 10 years ago, where there was no complaint[at
the time of the incident] and where the only evidence is the evidence
of the alleged victim, and the prosecutor has to prove that this event
occurred beyond a reasonable doubt -- any prosecutor would shrink from
taking that kind of case...It's a shame, but not all crimes are going
to result in convictions

NEW JERSEY - New Jersey has ended the statute of limitations in sexual
assault cases. All sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault are
now added to the list of homicide and manslaughter for which
prosecutions can be commenced anytime.

                      RECENT ARTICLE OF INTEREST

ONE- TO TWO-YEAR-OLDS, Patricia J. Bauer, University of Minnesota
American Psychologist, 51 (1) pp 29-41, January 1996 An outstanding
summary of child memory research. Author notes "Although it now is
apparent that young children form specific episodic memories, there is
little evidence that these memories survive the transition from
infancy to early childhood and become integrated into the presumably
later developing autobiographical or personal memory system."

ABUSE. Katherine Beckett, U of Michigan, Dept of Sociology, Social
Problems, Vol 43(1) February 1996, pp 57-76.For those interested in
the impact of FMSF on the media discourse of issues of child sexual
abuse. The author presents an analysis of the changing image of child
sexual abuse from the 1980s.

August Piper's mail box is overflowing with responses to his last two
columns. Keep a watch for this hot correspondence in May.

                             LEGAL CORNER
                              FMSF Staff

(Tex. 1996), Petition No. 94--856, decided March 14, 1996)

  In a precedent-setting decision, 8 of the 9 justices of the Texas
Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, and held
that a daughter's action against her father, based on a recovery of
repressed memories, was barred. The court held that the discovery rule
did not extend the statute of limitations because "there was no
physical evidence in this case to satisfy the element of objective
verifiability for application of the discovery rule."
  Due to the legal significance of this exhaustive, well-written
opinion and because the Foundation has been following this particular
litigation since its inception at the trial level, our legal staff
felt it appropriate to provide our readers with an in-depth synopsis
of the holding. The case is persuasive authority which can be cited by
attorneys throughout the country. The court decided, due to the
sensitive nature of the allegations, to refer to the parties only by
initials, R. being the accusing daughter and S. the defendant father.
  In a nutshell, the Texas Supreme Court's holding was that the
discovery rule did not save R.'s cause of action from being barred by
the statute of limitations. In order for the discovery rule to apply,
R.'s claim must have been (1) inherently undiscoverable within the
limitations period and (2) objectively verifiable. Because of the
procedural posture of the case at the appellate level, the court
assumed, but did not decide, that R. could satisfy the
undiscoverability element for application of the rule. The court,
therefore, focused on the second element of objective verifiability
and after a review of much of the current scientific literature on the
issue concluded: "In sum, the literature on repression and recovered
memory syndrome establishes that fundamental theoretical and practical
issues remain to be resolved. These issues include the extent to which
experimental psychological theories of amnesia apply to psychotherapy,
the effect of repression on memory, the effect of screening devices in
recall, the effect of suggestibility, the difference between forensic
and therapeutic truth, and the extent to which memory restoration
techniques lead to credible memories or confabulations. OPINIONS IN
  At the trial level, S. won with a directed verdict on the grounds
that the discovery rule does not apply and that R. offered no
objective evidence to support her claim of abuse. This means that at
trial, immediately after R., the plaintiff, presented her evidence,
the judge held in favor of S. and dismissed the case. It never reached
consideration by the jury. However, the record indicates that
R. presented expert testimony that some traumas are by nature
impossible to recall for a time. Accordingly, since that testimony was
unrebutted at trial the appellate court had to assume its
truth. Nonetheless, the supreme court points out clearly in its
opinion that it did not decide that element of the case.
  The case then progressed to the Texas Court of Appeals which, by a
divided vote, reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded
the case for further proceedings. In its brief opinion, that court
wrote that the application of the discovery rule was controlled by its
en banc decision two months earlier in L.C. v. A.D.,
No. 05-92-02867-CV, 1994 WL 59968 (Tex. App.-Dallas March 1, 1994,
n.w.h.). (A motion for rehearing in L.C. is still pending before the
Dallas Court of Appeals.)
  S. then sought and was granted a review of this case of first
impression by the Texas Supreme Court. (The Foundation supported S. in
the appeal by filing an amicus curiae brief on his behalf.) The
supreme court's majority opinion addresses six areas: (1) an analysis
of Texas discovery rule jurisprudence; (2) a recitation of the
relevant facts; (3) a review of the court of appeals' interpretation
of the discovery rule in L.C.; (4) a summary of the scientific
literature on repressed memories; (5) a comparison of case law and
enacted statutes of other jurisdictions; and (6) a critique of the
dissenting and concurring opinions. Each of these areas, we believe,
deserves some brief comment.
  Regarding the statute of limitations, the supreme court emphasized
its purpose (to establish a point of repose and to terminate stale
claims) and made clear that enactments of such statutes are the
prerogative of the legislature. These statutes begin to run when a
cause of action accrues, that is, when the wrongful act occurs. They
require a case to be brought to court within a specific period of
time. However, if a person is injured without being aware of his
injuries, the discovery rule permits a filing beyond the normal
limitations period. The court clarified that in Texas there are two
types of cases in which the discovery rule can be invoked, (1) those
cases involving fraud and fraudulent concealment and (2) cases in
which the nature of the injury is inherently undiscoverable and the
evidence of injury is objectively verifiable. Referring to one of its
earlier decision, Robinson v. Weaver, 550 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1997), the
court concluded that expert testimony alone could not supply the
objective verification necessary for application of the discovery
  In addressing the facts pertaining to the litigation between R. and
S., the court noted that R.'s claim was for negligence rather than for
an intentional tort and presumed that this could be to obtain coverage
available under S.'s homeowners' insurance policy. The decision
summarizes the backgrounds and relationships of the parties as well as
the circumstances under which R.'s memories of childhood abuse
developed. In 1990 R.'s parents separated and in May of 1990 R.'s
mother shared with R. that she, the mother, had been abused as a
child.Two weeks later R. saw Alice Frazier, a licensed professional
counselor whom the mother had also been seeing for some time. R.
testified that in November of 1990, just after she turned 20, she had
her first image of incest. Three months later, R. intervened in the
divorce action between S. and his wife. She claimed that she had
repressed memories of sexual abuse by her father from ages 3-20. The
allegation of abuse at age 20 was not included in R.'s allegations of
the present case.
  R. had an admitted interest in incest, writing papers on the subject
in both high school and her freshman year of college. The court
concluded its review of the facts by noting that "Before she entered
therapy, R. had no memories of abuse. She recovered her memories with
Frazier, a licensed therapist who was not a specialist in memory.
Some of Frazier's views may have influenced R.: Frazier had never had
a patient make an untrue allegation of childhood abuse, did not know
of an instance when anyone had made such an untrue allegation, and did
not think it could happen; she felt it was not her role to question
the veracity of R.'s memories; she accepted the idea that R. could
recover memories from around age three; and she had already found that
R.'s mother had been the victim of childhood sexual abuse. In addition
to Frazier's possible confirmatory bias, her technique to recover
memories may have increased R.'s suggestibility." The court opined
that Frazier's use of such techniques as "imagery work" or free
association, "guided imagery," and interpretation of R.'s "body
memories" may have influenced R. "The record does not show that other
possible causes were sufficiently explored. Other possible influences
on or sources of R.'s recovered memories include: B.'s detailing of
her own abuse, R.'s research on incest, her anger with her father, and
Frazier's comment that R.'s relationship with a boyfriend 'sounded
like incest' to her."
  When the supreme court reviewed the decision in L.C., it determined
that the decision of the court of appeals in that case was not
entirely clear. While 8 of the 13 justices would apply the discovery
rule in childhood sexual abuse cases, 10 of the justices would require
objective evidence of abuse before applying it and 7 would not
recognize expert testimony as objective evidence. The supreme court
also wrote that the balancing test formulated by the court of appeals
to apply the discovery rule - weighing the availability of objective
evidence against the injustice of requiring suit to be filed before
injury is discovered - did not correctly state Texas law. As
previously stated, the Texas Supreme Court held that the correct test
is "inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable."
  The court devotes a full 10 pages of its decision to a discussion of
the current scientific literature on memory in general and recovered
memory in particular. The court stated that while "there is some
agreement among psychiatrists concerning psychiatric treatment in this
area, there is little agreement on the validity of recovered memories
or on the techniques used to retrieve them." Researchers and
therapists view the question of repressed memory from disparate
vantage points, and with strong disagreements about the phenomena. The
decision, citing specific medical articles throughout, touches on the
complexities of memory and the theory of repression and concludes that
"science has simply not evolved to the point that it can give definite
guidance in determining whether childhood sexual abuse has occurred in
a particular instance."
  The court comments that "recovered memories come to be regarded as
true for a variety of reasons. Therapists who expect to find abuse
often do." The court then evenhandedly writes: "In short, the
preconceptions of the therapist, the suggestibility of the patient,
the aleatory nature of memory recall, and the need to find a clear
culprit for a diffuse set of symptoms may lead to false memories. Or
they may not. Even assuming the reliability of all the studies and
reports on the theory and techniques underlying recovered memory, the
possibility of confabulation still exists. But it does not always
occur. The point is this: the scientific community has not reached
consensus on how to gauge the truth or falsity of "recovered"
memories....To rely on memories alone for objective verification, this
gauge [objective verification] is necessary. For purposes of applying
the discovery rule, expert testimony on subjects about which there is
no settled scientific view -- indeed, not even a majority scientific
view -- cannot provide objective verification of abuse."
  The court also contrasts examples of objective evidence, such as a
confession, with the supporting evidence presented by R.: expert
testimony regarding R.'s symptoms and behavioral traits. The court
held the latter "inconclusive" and noted that "there is no physical or
other evidence in this case to satisfy the element of objective
verifiability for application of the discovery rule." The court
specifically stated that "The discovery rule is an exception, and a
narrow one at that....Because plaintiff relies on the discovery rule,
the evidence must rise to a higher level of proof."
  The Texas Supreme Court examined the case law and statutes of all of
her sister states on this issue of whether to apply the discovery rule
in childhood sexual abuse cases and concluded that the case law of
other jurisdictions is a "confusing patchwork that does not seem to
indicate any overwhelming trend." The trend in case law is "simply too
small, contradictory and intermixed with legislative initiative to
provide clear guidance as to the rule a court should adopt." Dozens of
cases previously reported in our newsletter are cited in the decision.
Likewise, although the legislatures have been far more active in
addressing the problem, newly-emerging complexity of legislation
indicates that categorically adopting or rejecting the discovery rule
does not address the "welter of public policies surrounding late-filed
childhood sexual abuse claims." The court also notes that the Texas
legislature recently enacted a special statute of limitations for
civil actions of sexual abuse which extends the filing period from 2
years to 5 years. Since the law did not prescribe an application of
the discovery rule, the court assumed that the legislature did not
intend for sexual abuse to be treated any differently from any other
case in applying the discovery rule. In all other discovery rule
cases, the injury must be objectively verifiable.
  The majority took the position that the opinions of the concurring
justices mistakenly take up the debate over the admissibility of
scientific evidence under the United States Supreme Court's decision
in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 125 L.Ed.2d 469
(1993) and its adoption in Texas in E.J. duPont de Memours and
Company v. Robinson, ___S.W.2d ___ (Tex. 1995). The majority found
that these issues had not been raised within the framework of this
case. The majority also sharply attacks the position of the dissenting
justice who wrote that the discovery rule should apply when "there is
direct testimony from the victim, supported by the opinions of
reputable, experienced specialists that [the victim] has been sexually
abused and that she exhibits traits and behavior associated with
sexual abuse." The majority was highly critical of vesting such power
in an expert. To do so would bar no claim of sexual abuse as long as
a competent expert thinks it may have merit.
  The court summed up its opinion in the following way: 

  We do not, of course, impose any additional requirements on proof of
  a childhood sexual abuse case brought within the applicable
  limitations period. The objective verifiability requirement of the
  discovery rule does not apply in proving the case on the merits. Nor
  are we insensitive to the terrible wrong of childhood sexual abuse
  and the strong public policies condemning it as reflected in the
  criminal statutes. False accusations of abuse are equally
  devastating to families, however. As several state legislatures have
  already realized, the law must approach these difficult cases with
  an appreciation of all the interests affected. We believe the best
  approach is to apply the discovery rule in the same manner that we
  have applied it today in Computer Associates (Computer Associates
  International, Inc., v. Altai, Inc., 1996 Tex. LEXIS 29 (March 14,
  1996))* and would apply it in any other case.

Decision is available as FMSF pub # 840.
  * This is another case with the same legal issue on which the Texas
Supreme Court made a decision on the same day.
 Pennsylvania Superior Court Applies Objective "Reasonable Diligence" 
        Standard and Finds Repressed Memory Claim Time-Barred 
         Dalrymple v. Brown, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 
      1628 Philadelphia 1995 (J.A52010/1995) February 21, 1996.
  A Pennsylvania Superior Court recently concluded that the "discovery
rule" does not operate to toll the statute of limitations when a
plaintiff claims psychological repression of alleged sexual abuse. The
Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed summary judgment granted by
the Court of Common Pleas in this repressed memory case. Plaintiff,
age 34, had claimed sexual assault between ages 6 and 8 while she went
on vacation with defendant's family. She claims that she had
repressed all memories of the incidents until August 1990.
Defendants' family state she never went on vacation with them. Suit
was filed in December 1992.
  The court held, citing Seto v. Willits, 432 Pa. Super. 346 (1994),
that the discovery rule permits tolling only where a "reasonable and
mentally competent person in the plaintiff's position would have been
unaware of the salient facts." The person who wishes to assert a claim
has a "duty to use all reasonable diligence" to discover all facts on
which their claim might be based and to file a suit within the
statutory period. The court held that in applying the discovery rule,
the objective standard of "reasonable diligence" is to apply.
  Decision is available as FMSF publication #839.
   Decision of Wisconsin Supreme Court stands as U.S. Supreme Court
          Declines to Review Appeal in Repressed Memory Case
  On February 20, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an
appeal of a decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a "Type 1
memory case." Therefore, the June 22, 1995 ruling of the Wisconsin
Supreme Court stands (Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194
Wis.2d 303, 533 N.W.2d 780 (Wis, 1995).
  The Wisconsin Supreme Court had found the claim time-barred because
Pritzlaff knew of all the elements of her claim at the very latest by
the time the relationship between the two ended. In this case,
plaintiff, by her own admission, knew the identity of the defendant
and of the sexual relationship during her high school years. She
claimed, however, that she did not perceive the connection between her
emotional difficulties and a coercive sexual relationship with a Roman
Catholic priest until April 1992, some 27 years after the alleged
  The court, restating its ruling in Hansen v. Robins, Inc., 113
Wis.2d 550 (1983), emphasized that "the discovery rule will apply only
when allowing meritorious claims outweighs the threat of stale or
fraudulent actions....Any time a claim is raised many years after the
injury occurred, the potential for fraud is exacerbated." The court
noted that in most cases where the discovery rule has been applied,
such as medical malpractice claims or environmental injury claims, the
plaintiff suffered from physical symptoms which could be objectively
observed and traced back to a particular cause associated with
defendant's action. The court noted that the damages alleged by
Pritzlaff were all 'emotional' and 'psychological', with the
plaintiff's experts claiming that damage exists and was caused by the
defendant. The court expressed its concern over whether psychiatry
could prove the issues before the court and that even careful
cross-examination was unlikely to reveal the truth. (citing Steele v.
State, 97 Wis.2d 72, 97, 294 N.W.2d 2 (1980).
  Two dissenting justices said it was improper to decide the truth of
the plaintiff's allegations on a motion to dismiss rather than at

                            LEGAL UPDATES
                Date of Franklin Retrial Has Been Set:
  Retrial of George Franklin on murder charges has been set for
September 16, 1996. The San Mateo County court has appointed Douglas
Horngrad as the defense attorney for George Franklin. According to the
San Mateo Times, Judge Lawrence Stevens will set a maximum amount
which the County will pay for defense attorney and expert witness
  The defense has presented a motion which seeks to disqualify the San
Mateo County district attorney's office from retrying Franklin for
murder. They argue that two main prosecutors and an investigator
became too closely involved with Franklin's daughter, Eileen
Franklin-Lipsker, to be objective. Franklin's daughter claimed to have
recovered memories of the murder of her childhood friend decades
earlier. Prosecutor Elaine Tipton invited Franklin-Lipsker to her
wedding and they have gone shopping and to Mass together, according to
the motion. Prosecution investigator, Robert Morse, is said to have
been a paid bodyguard for Franklin-Lipsker during her book tour and
also advised her on her book and movie deals.
  Two prosecutors in the case are currently being investigated by the
state Bar Association on charges of violating George Franklin's civil
  A defense motion detailed Franklin-Lipsker's "memories" of
additional murders by her father. Police investigation had ruled out
Franklin as the murderer in at least one murder. The motion noted,
with regard to another memory of Eileen's that "the prosecution has
been unable to identify any missing person that might correspond to
the recollected murder of Eileen's." The defense motion called the
allegations of additional murders "irrefutable evidence that Eileen
Franklin's 'memory' is an unstable machine that generates wildly
contradictory images."
          Menendez Brothers Found Guilty of Killing Parents
       (The New York Times, March 21, 1996, Kenneth B. Noble):
  Erik and Lyle Menendez were convicted on 3/20/96 of murdering their
wealthy parents by shotgun blasts in 1989. On retrial, the Los Angeles
Court jury found that they had committed multiple murder and had lain
in wait for their victims. Because of these "special circumstances,"
the brothers may be subject to the death penalty under California law.
  The original trial in 1994 ended with separate juries deadlocked and
unable to choose between murder and manslaughter verdicts. The
brothers depicted their father as tyrannical and sexually
abusive. They admitted killing their parents but said they had acted
in misguided self-defense, mistakenly fearing their parents would kill
them after years of abuse.
  Early in the twenty-week-long retrial, Judge Weisberg ruled that the
defense had shown insufficient evidence that the brothers had been
sexually and psychologically abused by their father and had killed out
of duress and fear. Hoping to reduce the brothers' culpability,
defense lawyers had argued that because of the prolonged nature of
their suffering, their fear of attack was genuine, even if there was
no real threat. But citing a legal footnote from a recent State
Supreme Court decision, Judge Weisberg found that the argument did not
apply because the brothers, not the parents, initiated the final
physical confrontation.
                   Souza Appeal Held January, 1996:
  A Massachusetts Appeals Court held a 30-minute hearing, 1/22/96, on
the second appeal raised by attorney Daniel R. Williams on behalf of
Ray and Shirley Souza. Williams argued that their convictions should
be overturned because the child witnesses against the Souzas were
seated in such a way that eye contact could not be made. Williams
argued that by seating the children so that the defendants could see
only the profile or back of the head of their accusers did not satisfy
the defendants' rights to "face to face confrontation" under state
law. The Souzas had been convicted in 1993 of sexual assault of their
young grandchildren and have been under house arrest since Feb.
1993. If successful, the Souzas will be granted a new trial. If the
appeal fails, the Souzas may appeal to the state Supreme Court. If
that fails they will most likely begin to serve their nine to 15-year
                  Ingram Clemency Hearing Scheduled:
  A clemency hearing for Paul Ingram before a panel chosen by the
Washington state governor is scheduled for June 4th, 1996. Mr. Ingram
is asking for his sentence to be overturned by Washington Gov. Mike
Lowry, or for a special counsel to look into reopening the case. Mr.
Ingram was accused of molesting his two daughters, age 22 and 18, and
sentenced to 20 years in 1988. Richard Ofshe worked on the Ingram
case and says that Ingram is innocent and is the victim of his
confused daughters attention seeking, wrong-headed police work,
brainwashing by his minister, and delusional self-hypnosis.
             Six Formerly Accused Individuals File Claims 
                 against State Agencies in Wenatchee:
  Six people who had been arrested and charged with child sex abuse in
the Wenatchee area filed claims in mid-February against state and
local agencies. The suits, filed in U.S. District Court in Spokane ask
for $80 million in damages for civil rights violations. They say they
were innocent victims of a witch hunt and that child welfare
authorities "maintained a system of investigating child abuse
allegations resulting in constitutional deprivations of those
  The Robersons, an East Wenatchee minister and his wife, are going to
court to prove they were wrongly charged with sexually abusing
children in their church and home. A jury acquitted the Robersons on
all charges on December 11, 1995. Joining the Robersons' claim is
Honnah Sims, a Sunday school teacher at the church who was acquitted
of molesting children by a jury last summer. Three other people who
faced charges also filed claims this week: Donna Rodriguez and Karen
Lopez, who had charges against them dismissed, and Susan Everett, who
pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in exchange for dismissal of felony
charges. Attorney for the Plaintiffs in this suit is Robert Van
Siclen, who had successfully defended the Robersons.
  The U.S. Justice Department decided recently that it would not
intervene in the case. Attorney Van Siclen, stated in an interview
that the Justice Department did not thoroughly investigate before
deciding whether to intervene.
       Jennifer Wilcox Charges Overturned And New Trial Ordered 
        State of Ohio v. Wilcox and State of Ohio v. Aldridge, 
   Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery Co., Ohio, Case No. 84-CR-1594
  The convictions of a couple serving the 11th year of life sentences
on child molestation charges were thrown out, 3/7/96, and new trials
ordered. A hearing was held on February 13, 1996 upon Petition to
Vacate or set aside their respective sentences. Robert Aldridge, 31,
and Jennifer Wilcox, 35, had asked that their convictions be thrown
out after three of the six children who testified against them in 1985
recanted their testimony in 1994. Judge Richard Parrott concluded that
the Dayton couple did not get a fair trial because evidence favorable
to them was not disclosed by the government. Although the State was
aware prior to trial of medical examination which showed no evidence
of penetration, the defendants were not advised of either the
examination or its results. Withholding impeaching evidence
constitutes a constitutional error if it deprives the defendant of a
fair trial and undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial. The
judge said he could not say whether the recantations alone would
warrant throwing out the convictions. However the judge wrote, "Based
upon the recantation of the various important victim witnesses,
coupled with the additional evidence adduced which confirms that the
witnesses are now telling the truth, the Court finds that the
witnesses are now truthful, and that there is a strong probability of
a different result at trial....The Court further finds that the
violation of the Petitioner's constitutional rights, so pervaded the
original prosecution and trial that the convictions of each of the
Petitioners, on all counts tried at the original trial should be
vacated and set aside." A new trial is granted.
  Testimony at the hearing by Drs. Elizabeth Loftus and Melvin Guyer
described evidence that false memories had been created. Dr. Guyer
noted that no recordings or written notes were made during the child
interviews, which were done repeatedly, resulting in wildly changing
stories. Defense attorney was Jay Milano of Cleveland.
              Jury Clears Teacher in Civil Rights Suit: 
       Pennsylvania Case stems from recanted sex abuse charges 
                   against girl's parents in 1992.
  A U.S. District court jury ruled (3/13/96) that a Senior High School
teacher did not violate the civil rights of a 15-year-old student's
parents, who claimed that the teacher manipulated their daughter into
accusing them of bizarre sexual abuse in 1991 and was instrumental in
having her removed from the family home.
  In 1990, high school student Nicole Althaus was troubled about her
mother's ordeal with breast cancer. Nicole's world cultures teacher,
Priscilla Zappa, became her confidant in the autumn of 1990. The
Althauses and their attorney Charles Scarlata claimed that Zappa tried
to work out issues from her own childhood through Nicole, telling
Nicole that she couldn't be so upset just due her mother's illness.
The Althauses contend that Zappa helped to plant in Nicole's mind the
idea she had been abused. Nicole testified that Zappa was the first
person to suggest to her that she had been abused by her parents, that
she frequently discussed abuse with Zappa and became dependent on
Zappa. Nicole was removed from her home and lived in the foster care
of Zappa. She eventually accused her parents and another family of
ritualistic abuse, and criminal charges were brought. In April 1992,
14 months after Nicole had been placed in Zappa's home, She retracted
the allegations and the charges were dropped.
  The Althauses filed suit against Zappa in December 1992 and contend
that Zappa violated their privacy and nearly destroyed their
family. They claim Zappa violated their civil rights by using her
position as teacher to unduly influence Nicole to make the charges
against them.
  Zappa claimed she was merely trying to help an impressionable
student who began confiding in her. She stated she acted as a teacher
between 7:15AM and 3:30PM each weekday but as a friend or foster
parent at all other times.
  Judge Gary Lancaster's charge to the jury specified a very narrow
criterion to be met in order to find Zappa guilty of civil rights
violation: First the jury had to decide whether Zappa was acting
"under color of state law," i.e., in her official capacity as a
teacher and state employee when she allegedly influenced Nicole to
make the abuse accusations. Lancaster instructed the jury that
anything Zappa allegedly did in her roles as "foster parent" or
"friend" was not considered to be "under color of state law."
Lancaster further instructed the jury that if it determined Zappa
wasn't acting "under color of law," even if her actions led to
Nicole's removal from the Althaus home, Zappa's actions were not a
civil rights violation and the jury must rule in Zappa's favor. The
jury apparently found that Zappa had not acted in her capacity as a
teacher and state employee and therefore did not have to answer the
second question: whether Zappa had intentionally misled Nicole to get
her away from her parents and into Zappa's custody.
  The Althauses may appeal the verdict. If they do, pretrial rulings
could also be appealed. One pretrial ruling on 2/21/96 dismissed
Nicole's claim against Zappa. Other rulings released other defendants
including the police, the school district, the District Attorney and
Children and Youth Services.
  In 1994, a suit filed by the Althauses against their daughter's
treating therapist and a clinic ended with a verdict against
Dr. Judith Cohen and Western Institute and Clinic. The Althauses were
awarded $272, 232 in compensatory damages.


#395  Kihlstrom, J.                                $2.00 
  "The Trauma-Memory Argument". Consciousness & Cognition. Vol 4, Nos
5/6 1995 Concludes that available scientific evidence is too weak to
support global assertions about trauma and memory, amnesia and
recovery, and the like. Discusses 3 studies on amnesia for childhood

#397  Lindsay, S.D. & Read, J.D.                   $4.50
  "'Memory Work' and Recovered Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse:
Scientific Evidence and Public, Professional, and Personal Issues".
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol 1, No 1 1995 A review and
critical evaluation of scientific evidence regarding "recovered
memories" of childhood sexual abuse. Offers recommendations for
training of therapists, guidelines, and legislative actions.

# 519  Slovenko, R.                                $1.50
  "Assessing Competency to Stand Trial". Psychiatric Annals. Vol 25,
No 7 July, 1995 Concludes that if a defendant is capable of meeting
the articulated requirements for competence, the presence or absence
of mental illness is irrelevant.

#580  Perry, C.                                    $3.00
  "The False Memory Syndrome and 'Disguised' Hypnosis". Hypnos. 1995
Addresses some of the controversial issues associated with FMS, in
particular the role of other "forms" of hypnosis in eliciting false
memories, such as guided imagery, "relaxation", dream analysis,
regression work and sodium amytal.

#612  Howe, M. et al.                              $4.50
  "How Can I remember When 'I' Wasn't There: Long-Term Retention of
Traumatic Experiences and Emergence of the Cognitive Self".
Consciousness and Cognition. Vol 3, Nos 3/4 1994 Focuses on the
nature and onset of very early personal memories for traumatic events,
Refers to 25 cases of young children's long-term retention of early
traumatic events involving emergency room treatment.

                            April 1, 1996

#836 State of New Hampshire v. Hungerford, Superior Court,
Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, Case No. 94-S-045 thru 94-S-047,
May 23, 1995
  After a Frye/Daubert hearing and a thorough factual review, Judge
Groff concluded that repressed memory testimony is not sufficiently
reliable under Frye or Rule 702 to be admitted as evidence."The Court
finds that the testimony of the victims as to their memory of the
assaults shall not be admitted at trial because the phenomenon of
memory repression, and the process of therapy used in these cases to
recover memories, have not gained general acceptance in the field of
psychology; and are not scientifically reliable." Additional filings
from this case can be ordered as Brief Bank #10. [$3.50]

#837 Lemmerman v. Fealk, Williford v. Bieske, Michigan Supreme Court,
532 N.W.2d 695, July 5, 1995
  The Michigan Supreme Court held that neither the discovery rule nor
the disability statute extends the limitations period for tort actions
allegedly delayed because of repression of memory of assaults. The
Court held that "while it is proper to apply the discovery rule in
cases in which the objective nature of the evidence makes it
substantially certain that the facts can be fairly determined, even
though considerable time has passed since the alleged events occurred,
such circumstances do not exist where a plaintiff brings an action
based solely on an alleged recollection of events that were repressed
and there is no means of independently verifying the allegations in
whole or in part. Placing a plaintiff in a discretionary position to
allege the onset of the disability or repressed memory and the
termination of that condition within an applicable grace period would
vitiate the statute of limitations as a defense....It cannot be
concluded with any reasonable degree of confidence that factfinders
could fairly and reliably resolve the questions before them, given the
state of the art regarding repressed memory and the absence of
objective verification." Additional filings may be ordered as Brief
Bank #39. [$4.50]

#838 Hunter v. Brown, Tenn. App. LEXIS 95, 1996 WL 57944, February 13,
  In this case of first impression, the Tennessee Court of Appeals
declined to apply the discovery rule to toll the statute of
limitations in "repressed memory" cases. The Court noted that the
"inherent lack of verifiable and objective evidence in these cases
distinguishes them from cases in which Tennessee courts have applied
the discovery rule" previously. "We find that there is simply too much
indecision in the scientific community as to the credibility of
repressed memory. " [$2.00]

#839 Dalrymple v. Brown, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1628
Philadelphia 1995 (J.A52010/1995) February 21,1996.
  The Superior Court of Pennsylvania concludes that the "discovery
rule" does not operate to toll the statute of limitations when
plaintiff claims psychological repression of alleged sexual abuse. The
court held that in applying the discovery rule, the objective standard
of "reasonable diligence" is to apply. [$2.00]

#840 S.V., v. R.V., Supreme Court of Texas, 1996 Tex. LEXIS 30, March
14, 1996.
  The Texas Supreme Court held that in order to apply the discovery
rule to any set of facts, including repressed memory claims, the
wrongful event must have been "inherently undiscoverable" and the
event and injury must be "objectively verifiable." The court assumed
without deciding that Plaintiff could satisfy the inherent
undiscoverability element but found that "there is no physical or
other evidence in this case to satisfy the element of objective
verifiability for application of the discovery rule...The discovery
rule is an exception, and a narrow one at that....Because Plaintiff
relies on the discovery rule, the evidence must rise to a higher level
of proof." The Court held that the discovery rule did not apply.

BB#58 Doe, Roe v. Maskell,, Circuit Court, Baltimore City,
maryland, Case No 94-236030-1/CL185155-6, May 5, 1995
  After a week-long evidentiary hearing, Judge Hilary Caplan dismissed
the suits and concluded that the claims did not meet the test of the
discovery rule not was testimony regarding repressed memory found to
be of sufficient scientific reliability under Reed/Frye or Daubert.

BB#63 Engstrom v. Engstrom, Superior Court, Los Angeles Co.,
California, Case No. VC016157, October 11, 1995.
  Judge James M. Sutton granted a motion to exclude the testimony of
plaintiff and his witnesses, including expert witnesses, regarding
"repressed memories," "repression" or "dissociation", finding that
"the phenomenon of 'memory repressions' is not generally accepted as
valid and reliable by a respectable majority of the pertinent
scientific community and that the techniques and procedures utilized
in the retrieval process have not gained general acceptance in the
field of psychology or psychiatry." Testimony proffered by plaintiff
and his expert witnesses was not found to meet the standard required
under Kelly/Frye. A judgment of non-suit followed this ruling.

BB#82 Barrett v. Hyldburg, Superior Court, Buncombe Co., North
Carolina, Case No. 94-CVS-0793, January 23, 1996.
  Judge Ronald Bogle granted defense motion to exclude all evidence
derived from alleged repressed memories and left the order open for
such additional findings of fact as may be appropriate. "[T]his court
is of the opinion, considering all of the evidence that has been
presented, the arguments of counsel, the scientific evidence, the
deposition evidence, the case law, and the matters contained in the
file, that the evidence sought to be introduced is not reliable and
should not be received into evidence in this trial." The suit was
dismissed following granting of motion to exclude. [$12.50]

/                                                                    \ 
|                                                                    |
| Terence Campbell, Ph.D., a member of the Foundations's             |
| Professional and Advisory Board, is the featured presenter at a    |
| continuing education program, "Appropriate Standards of Care in    |
| Working with Memories." Psychologists can earn seven continuing    |
| education credits and application has been made for ED credit for  |
| social workers. The program will be held in Stiteler B21 on the    |
| University of Pennsylvania campus. Members, who register by May 10,|
| pay the reduced $60.00 fee (non-members $80.000. For registrations |
| received after May 10, member's fee is $75.00 (non-members         |
| $95.00). If you want a brochure, call the Foundation at            |
| 215-387-8663 (or 900-568-8882). Please specify that you want a     |
| brochure and leave your full name and a complete address including |
| zip code.                                                          |
|  _______________________________________________________________   |
|                           ARE CANCELLED                            |
|                  due to very low preregistration.                  |

/                                                                    \
| When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall |
| one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.      |
|                                                       Edmund Burke |
|    Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontent Vol. i. p. 526. |

                          MAKE A DIFFERENCE
  This is a column that will let you know what people are doing to
  counteract the harm done by FMS. Remember that three and a half
  years ago, FMSF didn't exist. A group of 50 or so people found each
  other and today more than 17,000 have reported similar experiences.
  Together we have made a difference. How did this happen?

CALIFORNIA - We had a very successful seminar on March 9th with about
90 people in attendance. We invited Paul Simpson, Mark Pendergrast and
Eleanor Goldstein as speakers. A reporter came and wrote an article
for the Santa Barbara paper about the meeting and efforts at
reconciliation made by Dr. Simpson. While these people were in our
city, we arranged some book signings for them. These resulted in some
excellent discussion. We also arranged a meeting for Dr. Simpson with
the Chair of Psychology at a local college and spoke to three
classes. It appears that the college will arrange a seminar on the
topic of false memories as a result.
  Families can do a tremendous amount to help educate the public and
professionals about the problems of false memories.

MISSOURI - We listen to radio a lot! Anytime anything is mentioned
that touches on False Memory Syndrome (Mental Health Cost, Mental
Health, Women's Issues, Satanic Ritual Abuse, Child Sexual Abuse,
Multiple Personality Disorder) we call and try to make a connection
and give the FMSF phone number on the air.

TEXAS - After hearing about the $2.5 million award settlement (January
24, 1996, Humenansky v E. Carlson in Minneapolis, MN) I made copies
and sent them to the Law School in our area. I specifically sent them
to the professor who teaches the medical malpractice course. I also
sent some brief information on our personal situation. He called me
and we had a nice visit on the phone. He suggested that I come to his
class and tell my story. I am planning on sending material on the
Souza's and K. Michaels' case to the professor who teachers
appeals. Maybe he will call me too.

UTAH - In March our local FMS Group had a wonderful time with Eleanor
Goldstein and Elizabeth Carlson in town. We thank them for coming. We
had about 72 people present to hear these ladies' stories and
counsel. Having Eleanor and Elizabeth in town enabled us to get them
and the FMS story on two radio talk shows, a TV news program, a
newspaper story and meeting with some legislators. In all of these
instances, there was much greater knowledge, acceptance, and
understanding than just two years ago. Yet we must not relax. From
this week's effort, we received 8 or 10 contacts from people affected
by the FMS phenomena who did not know of the existence of any FMS
groups,either national or local. We are glad they found us and the
information we have, but we are again saddened that such information
and comfort are necessary.

VERMONT - I wrote to the Attorney General of our state, expressing my
concerns about all the families who are afraid of lawsuits based on
claims of recovered memories. I included a packet of information with
my letter. The reply I received was very encouraging. The Attorney
General said that he hoped he could alleviate the fear because "The
cases of child sexual abuse brought by the Child Protection Unit of
the Office of Attorney General neither would not can be brought
without a sufficient evidentiary foundation." We are arranging to

WISCONSIN - Our local newspaper has gone through a change of ownership
and thus a new format. They have a new Health Section and are asking
for ideas. When I called and spoke to the lead writer, she was very
interested and asked for some information. I sent the Most Frequently
Asked Questions brochure and a tape on False Memory Syndrome. The
reporter called me back and is interested in doing an article.

  You can make a difference. Please send me any ideas that you have
  had that were or might be successful so that we can tell others. 
  Write to Katie Spanuello c/o FMSF.


  Whenever you send us a check, money order, or a credit card charge,
please, PLEASE tell us what the money is for, otherwise we will assume
it is a donation. Is it to renew your membership dues? Is it for the
purchase of an article? Is it a donation? Is it for a newsletter

Always be sure to include:
           Is this a new address?  __ yes   __ no
           and if the payment is by Visa or MasterCard:
  What is your card number?
  What is the card's expiration date?
  How much do you want us to charge your card?
                           ADDRESS CHANGES
We must have your address change notice one month before you move.
Newsletter labels are printed at the beginning of each month, and we
must have your address change notice before then if we are to mail
your newsletter to the correct address.

  /                                                                \
  |                     Free Library Displays                      |
  | are now available through SIRS Publishers. Call 1-800-232-7477.|
  | This is an attractive and positive way to inform people about  |
  | the many new books that are now available about false memories |
  | and the devastating effects this is having on families.        |

                           FROM OUR READERS
                        Reconciliation Efforts
  My therapist and I recently met with my daughter and her therapist.
I was nervous about the meeting and had talked with several FMSF
friends for encouragement including some of the FMSF staff. My initial
meeting with my with my daughter and her therapist had been a
nightmare. Having my therapist with me this time had a very helpful
effect. My daughter's therapist was objective and had a good attitude.
My daughter stated during the meeting that she wasn't sure, but she
could have been wrong about her original accusation. I would encourage
all parents accused to take their own therapist with them when they
meet with their daughter's therapist. I'm hopeful and I'm thankful for
                                                              A Dad 
                            A Happy Ending
  This letter closes the record in my case. Fortunately, it has a
happy ending. Last month when my accusing daughter visited she left
me a picture that she had drawn. I read the picture daily. It says,
"Thank you, For holding me on your lap, safe in my little house, For
staying up all night trying to save my bunny, For rubbing my back when
I was afraid to go to sleep, For helping me to go to college, For
endless bike rides, For drying my eyes, For hearing my cries, For
loving me when I didn't love myself, For forgiving me, For loving me
through my anger, my fears, my pain. You have shown me what it is to
truly care for another, You have shown me how to love. For you I am
ever grateful. In my heart forever, Dad."
  I hope this happy ending is an inspiration to you in your hard work
on this incredible evil. You and the Board and the volunteers and
staff are performing an extremely valuable service. The newsletter is
important to us falsely accused persons, for it helps us to hang on to
reality. I am sure it has saved many lives. I am ever grateful to
                                                              A Dad
                     The Truth Shall Set You Free
  I am writing to share that, though it still seems too good to be
true, my daughter talked to me last fall in September, begged my
forgiveness and claimed her aberrant behavior was caused by a
therapist she saw for several years.
  Now we talk weekly and unlike many of your readers, I discuss her
accusations when it seems appropriate. I feel, that to not do so,
would not only be dishonest on my part, (it would be like silently
admitting what she said was true), it would also deny her the
opportunity to divest herself of guilt feelings.
  I somewhat doubt I will ever again fully trust this daughter but I
am enjoying hearing from her lips many things I myself have said in
the past. She tells me all her anger was misdirected towards me
because I was the safest one to be angry with as I'd love her
regardless of what she said or did.
  This daughter was quite religious when young and I used to wonder
how she reconciled what she was doing to the commandment to "Honor
your Mother and your Father." Now she tells me how she eventually came
under conviction that she was in great error not to uphold that
  And she talks of hearing about something called "false memory
syndrome." Can you believe it? Just hearing about such a syndrome
introduced to her the idea that her "memories" might be false!
Hallelujah! Tis True, that the truth shall set you free and your
organizations being bold enough, flying in the face of currently
popular untruth, does free people! Even accusers! Thank you for all
you are doing.
                                                             A Mom
                      What Fms Did To Our Family
  About 3 1/2 years ago our daughter went for counseling help. Soon
she told us she could have no contact and not much later, her four
brothers called crying and upset because of the accusations made
against them. There were some things in our family that were not good,
but she accused them of things that were not true. About a year later,
she asked my husband and me to travel 12 hours and meet with her to
help her resolve her problems. We asked to have the meeting with her
counselor but that was not possible. Because we loved her and wanted
so much to help restore her to the family again, we went.
  She had a stack of cards from which she read her accusations. When
it ended and we went to our motel room I was crying and very upset. My
husband was very calm, but all of this sent him into a mental illness.
He has never been the same since. He continued his work as a research
scientist for 2 years and then was forced to retire. He has now left
me and is a cowboy, hardly able to function at times. I used the
principles I have learned from your organization and I am now on good
terms with my daughter and she has made amends with her brothers. We
have tried desperately to reach my husband, but cannot. Perhaps he
already had some trouble with mental illness before which we did not
                                                      Mom and Dad
                      Meeting With No Conditions
   I can't tell you how grateful I am to you and the FMS Foundation for
giving me the kind of help and encouragement which has enabled me to
keep hoping and praying for a happy ending to this tragedy. About 9
months ago, my daughter wrote a letter to her father telling him she
was sorry for the pain she had caused him. But in the ensuing months,
she has pretty much ignored him, failing to remember Father's Day or
his birthday. She even changed her maiden name and took my maiden
name. Two months ago she asked to come home and talk to her Dad but he
refused to see her until she assumed her own maiden name. She refused
to do this. I spelled out my own feelings about her lack of sincerity
about putting the family back together again. This offended her and
she sent me a registered letter saying I didn't understand at all. Her
Dad decided to write and this prompted a card back to him saying she
wanted to talk but without any condition. He agreed and I agreed so
we will meet in a few weeks to try to start the healing of our family.
  I've been visiting with my son since last June. We hadn't seen each
other in three years. We have been meeting with a mediator who is a
MFCC. It's been progressing slowly, but it is progressing. The best
part is we recently received a note from him that began with the
greeting, "Dear Mom and Dad" and signed "Love." To put it mildly, we
were thrilled. I hope that he and his dad make the big plunge soon.
                                                            A  Mom
                         Trying To Understand
  A few days ago, my daughter (29) and I finally had our talk about
the events leading up to her experience with recovered memories. She
had had a number of traumatic experiences while in college and she had
a friend who had been sexually abused. Drugs were never an issue.
About three years ago, the young man who lived next door to her was
arrested on pedophile charges. That is when she read Courage to Heal.
  She never completely broke contact with us. She did read my
letters. Her turning away from her memories was a process that started
about a year before she came home. It was a gradual process. She began
to tire of her incest survivor group. She concluded that one should
not stay there forever and that enough was enough. She tried a wide
range of new age healing and inspirational activities, but did not
find great satisfaction. She was ready for a change and went on a
vacation trip to a distant place. This trip away helped the process.
  She returned home for a brief visit last spring. At that time she
acknowledged that neither her mother nor I have ever done anything to
her overtly. That was over 9 months ago and she is still here. In our
recent conversation, she reaffirmed that. When I asked her about the
rape memory, it almost seemed as though she did not remember it other
than in terms of vague feelings. When pressed to say that she knew
that nothing inappropriate ever happened, she said that she could not
honestly say that. She still thinks that maybe in a previous life, I
did something to her.
  We are deeply grateful for the work of the FMS Foundation and the
many new and old friends that have been so supportive to us and have
worked to eradicate this terrible menace of "recovered memories."
                                                          A Dad
                         Not Ready To Accept
Dear Father,
  I hope you are well. I wish to renew our relationship if that is
possible and something that you want also. For myself, I am done with
the past and have no further need to speak of it or do anything about
it. I have had a hard journey these last two years, as we all
have. And for me it's over.
  There are large differences between us -- some perhaps
unresolvable. And there have always been differences. At the same
time, you are my father and I care about you -- very deeply. I have
missed you. It is my hope that at some point in time we can see each
other again.
  The way that I can see that happening is if we can both set our
differences aside and reach in love to heal the hurts between us. I
only want to walk with you and see the fruit trees again. If this is
something that you want also, please let me know. I will be leaving
for Europe again soon. In Peace and love "B"
  Father's comment to the letter above: "I feel I can only take her
back if she will at least give some. Not a Christian attitude and my
conscience hurts, but my feelings are hurt -- worse from the damage
she has done to our younger son. It broke his marriage. My daughter
treated my wife despicably with a nasty letter accusing her of
condoning my supposed actions. My wife ignored the slurs and continues
her contact saying, "I know it's not so, but that's where she is at
present, and she needs help." I can't! I'm sorry. What do I do?
                                                             A Dad
  We would like other families who have been hurt by FMS to know there
is hope. On Thanksgiving Day as I prepared dinner, the phone rang with
a call that we waited for nearly four years. In a voice I hardly
recognized I heard, "Hi Mom, I miss you. I love you."
  It was wonderful to have a conversation with our daughter. We talked
about what had been going on in our lives while we were apart. She
told about her husband, whom we haven't met. It was just like it used
to be. Like many of the others, we never mentioned the accusations.
She talked with her father also and told him she loved him. She said,
"We'll start like this. I'll call on holidays."
  Although it is on her terms now, we accept with gratitude to God
that we hear from her again. We don't understand how she could go from
writing in a national magazine that she is recovering from the
"horrible things" her father did to her as a child to saying "I love
you, and, mom and dad, I never doubted that you loved me."
  At Christmas we had another similar phone call and a promise that
she would call again. It's not over yet, but our hearts are no longer
so heavy. We hope so much for all this hurt to be over for the FMS
  Thank you so much FMS Foundation for being there for us when we
needed you.
                                           A Grateful Mom and Dad.
                          Concerned Citizen
  I got the name and address of your organization from an article that
appeared recently in the paper. I thought you might be interested in
the recent experience I had with a therapy group.
  A a single person who avidly participates in life, I called for
information in response to an ad for a weekend workshop called
"Keeping the love you find." The person with whom I spoke on the phone
convinced me that this workshop would be of benefit to me in my life
as a single.
  Thirty minutes into the first day's session, I realized that this
was not what I expected. The opening hours were spent with each person
introducing themselves. This was followed by an outpouring of emotion
like I have never seen. Everyone was told to close their eyes and
envision their childhood with the suggestion that their childhood had
experiences that were unbearable. Two thirds of those present started
crying, many openly sobbing.
  This continued the entire day. This letter would be too lengthy to
describe the entire time unless you want further information. People
offered to express terrible things that happened to them in the
past. Volunteers were asked to come forward (which they did) and
demonstrate a role-play situation which the entire group was to
duplicate. More emotion and crying.
  The only reason I returned the next day was to talk personally with
the director. She was abrupt, obviously did not like what I said and
convinced me to stay in the class. She said the format for the second
day was different.
  I remained. The first order of business was an introduction to five
other therapists who were present, their location and phone numbers.
These therapists were the "leaders" in each role-play group. I
confirmed with one, that they were indeed volunteering their time with
the expectation of getting business. This day continued with closed
eyes and imaging childhood experiences and role-playing. There was
little time devoted to any constructive teaching.
  "Suppress" was the word of the day. When I could not express a
childhood abuse, when I stated that I was not afraid, I was
continually told that I was suppressing these. The entire two days was
a therapy session or a stimulation to have the participants believe
they needed therapy. For this I paid $300!
                     Maybe We Won't See Her Again
  Just before this last Christmas, we received a letter from our long
lost daughter, addressed to my wife and myself using our formal first
names, not as Mom and Dad. It had been over four years since the break
in our relationship, when her recovered memories induced her to cut
her family out of her life. The letter made no mention of her
allegations of parental childhood sexual abuse but did include the
following statement:
   "The last five years of no communication with you were necessary
for me. I would like to re-establish contact with you and start over
as friends".
  After a great deal of thought and discussion, this was our response:
"....if you still believe that we sexually abused you as a child,
there isn't much hope of establishing a friendship..."
  We did not want to shut the door, but made it clear that we could
not take her back into the fold without a retraction and some
discussion of her devastating allegations. This starting point, based
upon a feeling of mutual trust, is necessary for us to rebuild a
normal, healthy relationship. It would be most uncomfortable for all
of us to pretend it never happened. Our other daughter and son are in
  We don't know if we will hear from her again.
                                                      A Mom and Dad
                    Our Daughter's Return From FMS
  Three years ago, my 29-year-old married daughter called me from the
city in which she had been living for 6 years to tell me she had
finally figured out why she was having the awful dreams and feelings
that she had been struggling with for the past 6 months. She told me
that, after talking with a therapist and reading The Courage to Heal,
she was certain that her dreams and dark urges to brutalize her
2-year-old daughter were due to her having been sexually abused as a
child between the ages of 2 and 4.
  When I asked her who could have done such a thing, she said she had
a vague recollection of me, her father, doing strange things to her at
night in her bedroom. She went on to say that unless I admitted my
actions, she didn't want to talk to be again. Our daughter then
proceeded to tell her brothers and sisters of her "discovery." My wife
and I and our other children ages, 34, 31 and 27 were in a state of
  My wife and I knew a therapist who had given talks at our church and
I went to see him for advice. Luckily for me, he had read the book
Confabulations and he gave me a copy. The book gave me a quick
understanding of what my family and I were up against. It helped me
formulate a talk that I had with each of my children and their
  Our family unit was stronger than the false memories of my daughter
but I also know that my children were in a kind of limbo not really
knowing what had happened in those early years of their lives. They
did not want to offend their sister-in-crisis nor to seem that they
were taking her side against me. Our daughter maintained contact with
a sister-in-law.
  Over the next two and a half years, my daughter slowly went downhill
emotionally and financially. She stopped talking to my wife because
she stopped sending her money to pay for a therapy that was trying to
separate our daughter from her family. My daughter was admitted to a
psychiatric hospital numerous times. On one occasion she overdosed on
medication. Our daughter was then diagnosed with Multiple Personality
Disorder, her marriage fell apart and a custody battle for her
4-year-old daughter started.
  Some months later, our daughter called us and asked if we would
speak to her doctor so that she could be discharged from the
hospital. The doctor told us we should meet with him and her
therapist. The doctor decided we should not rehash the sexual abuse
issue but try to come together on common ground. We listened to her
complaints and did not walk out. Our daughter was released.
  One month later, our daughter came to visit for a weekend. It was a
wonderful although strained reunion. She promised to come again and
bring our granddaughter who now lives with her father. We are looking
forward to that visit.
  Losing our daughter through false memory was like having a child die
without the closure of a funeral. But for us and, hopefully, others,
there is hope of reconciliation. We believe our prayers had a lot to
do with our daughter's return to family and health.
                                                              A Dad

                       APRIL 1996 FMSF MEETINGS
  (MO) = monthly; (bi-MO) = bi-monthly; (*) = see State Meetings list


Saturday, April 27  @ 9am-4pm
    Pam Freyd, Ph.D.;
    Barbara Skees, psychiatric nurse;
    Karen, retractor 
  Nickie 317-471-0922, 334-9839(fax)
    or Pat 219-482-2847  

WEST VIRGINIA Saturday, May 4 @10am-4pm 
  Bonanza Steak House in Weston
  Liz (304) 269-5871  

MINNESOTA Saturday, May 4 @9am-2:30pm 
  Ft. Snelling Officers Club, St. Paul 
    Speaker: Pam Freyd, Ph.D. 
  Dan & Joan  (612) 631-2247 

  Saturday, May 11 @1pm
    speaker:  Donald Tashjian, MD, PAPA 
  Maggie 505-662-7521 (after 6:30pm) 

PA, NJ & DE 
  Saturday, May 18- 
    Guest Quarters Hotel Chesterbrook Blvd. Wayne, PA
    Guest speakers/Panel discussion
  Jim & Jo (610) 783-0396  or Lee & Sally (609) 967-7812  

  Saturday, May 25 
    Speakers: Dr. E. Loftus & A. Gold, Esq. 
  call Ontario contacts for further info


(bi-MO) Barbara (602) 924-0975; 854-0404(fax) 

LITTLE ROCK Al & Lela (501) 363-4368  

  Northern California 
      Joanne & Gerald (916) 933-3655 or
      Rudy (916)443-4041 
      (bi-MO) Gideon (415) 389-0254 or 
      Charles 984-6626(am);435-9618(pm) 
    EAST BAY AREA  (bi-MO) 
      Judy (510) 254-2605 
    SOUTH BAY AREA  Last Sat. (bi-MO) 
      Jack & Pat (408) 425-1430 
      Carole (805) 967-8058 
  Southern California 
    BURBANK -4th Sat. (MO) @ 10am 
      Jane & Mark (805) 947-4376 
    CENT. ORANGE CNTY. 1st Fri. (MO) @ 7pm 
      Chris & Alan (714) 733-2925
    ORANGE COUNTY -3rd Sun. (MO) @6pm 
      Jerry & Eileen (714) 494-9704 
    COVINA AREA -1st Mon. (MO) @7:30pm
      Floyd & Libby (818)  330-2321 
    SOUTH BAY AREA -3rd Sat.. (bi-MO) @10am 
      Cecilia (310) 545-6064  

  DENVER-4th Sat. (MO) @1pm
    Ruth (303) 757-3622 

    Earl 329-8365 or Paul 458-9173 

    Madeline (305) 966-4FMS
  BOCA/DELRAY 2nd&4th Thurs(MO) @1pm 
    Helen (407) 498-8684 
    Bob & Janet (813) 856-7091  

  3nd Sun. (MO) Eileen (708)980-7693  

   Nickie (317)471-0922(ph);334-9839(fax) Pat (219) 482-2847 (*) 

    Betty & Gayle (515) 270-6976 
    2nd Sat. (MO) @11:30am Lunch 

    Leslie (913) 235-0602 or Pat 738-4840 Jan (816) 931-1340  

    Dixie (606) 356-9309 
    Last Sun. (MO) @ 2pm Bob (502) 957-2378 

  Francine (318) 457-2022  

  Area Code 207 BANGOR 
    -Irvine & Arlene 942-8473 
  FREEPORT -4rd Sun. (MO) Wally 865-4044 

    Margie (410) 750-8694  

  CHELMSFORD- Ron (508) 250-9756  

    1st Mon. (MO) Catherine (616) 363-1354 

  Terry & Collette (507) 642-3630 
  Dan & Joan (612) 631-2247 

  KANSAS CITY 2nd Sun. (MO) 
    Leslie (913) 235-0602 or Pat 738-4840 Jan (816) 931-1340 
  ST. LOUIS AREA-3rd Sun. (MO)- AREA CODE    314
     Karen 432-8789 or Mae 837-1976 
  SPRINGFIELD - 4th Sat. (MO) @12:30pm 
    Dorothy & Pete (417) 882-1821 Howard (417) 865-6097  


  Maggie 662-7521(after 6:30pm) or  Martha 624-0225  

    Barbara (914) 761-3627 (bi-MO) 
    Elaine (518) 399-5749 
     George & Eileen (716) 586-7942  

    Len 364-4063	Dee 942-0531 HJ 755-3816	
    Rosemary 439-2459  

    Paul & Betty (717) 691-7660 
  PITTSBURGH -Rick & Renee (412) 563-5616 
    Jim & Jo (610) 783-0396  

  Kate (615 665-1160
  1st Wed. (MO) @1pm

    Nancy & Jim (512) 478-8395 

  April 27-Keith (801) 467-0669  

  Judith (802) 229-5154  

  Pat (304) 269-5871(*)  

  Katie & Leo (414) 476-0285


    Ruth (604) 925-1539 Last Sat. (MO) @1-4pm 
    John (604) 721-3219 3rd Tues. (MO) @7:30pm  

  LONDON -2nd Sun (bi-MO) Adrian (519) 471-6338 
  OTTAWA -Eileen (613) 836-3294 
  TORONTO /N. YORK-Pat (416) 444-9078 
  WARKWORTH - Ethel (705) 924-3546 
  BURLINGTON - Ken & Marina (905) 637-6030 
  SUDBURY-Paula (705) 692-0600  

  MONTREAL Alain (514) 335-0863  

  Mrs Irene Curtis P.O. Box 630, 
  Sunbury, VCT 3419 phone (03) 9740 6930  

  fax-(972) 2-259282 or  E-mail-  

    Mrs. Anna deJong (31) 20-693-5692 

  Mrs. Colleen Waugh (09) 416-7443 

    Roger Scotford (44) 1225 868-682  

             Deadline for May '96 Newsletter is April 19 
Mark Fax or envelope: "Attn: Meeting Notice" & send 2 months before
scheduled meeting.


/                                                                    \
|          Do you have access to e-mail?  Send a message to          |
|                                         |
| if  you wish to receive electronic versions of this newsletter and |
| notices of radio and television  broadcasts  about  FMS.  All  the |
| message need say is "add to the FMS-News". You'll also learn about |
| joining  the  FMS-Research list  (it distributes reseach materials |
| such as news stories, court decisions and research  articles).  It |
| would be useful, but not necessary, if you add your full name (all |
| addresses and names will remain strictly confidential).            |

For   this   e-mail   edition   of   the  FMSF  Newsletter  thanks  to 
                   Keio  University,  Tokyo,  Japan.

  The False Memory Syndrome Foundation is a qualified 501(c)3 corpora-
tion  with  its  principal offices in Philadelphia and governed by its 
Board of Directors.  While it encourages participation by its  members
in  its  activities,  it must be understood that the Foundation has no 
affiliates and that no other organization or person is  authorized  to
speak for the Foundation without the prior written approval of the Ex-
ecutive Director. All membership dues and contributions to the Founda-
tion must be forwarded to the Foundation for its disposition.

3401 Market Street suite 130,  Philadelphia, PA 19104,  (215-387-1865)

This address and the phone numbers have changed as of July 15, 2000

Pamela Freyd, Ph.D.,  Executive Director

FMSF Scientific and Professional  Advisory Board,       April 1, 1996: 
AARON T. BECK, M.D., D.M.S., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA; TERENCE   W.  CAMPBELL, Ph.D.,   Clinical and Forensic Psychology,
Sterling Heights, MI;  ROSALIND  CARTWRIGHT, Ph.D.,  Rush Presbyterian
St. Lukes Medical Center, Chicago, IL; JEAN CHAPMAN, Ph.D., University
of Wisconsin,  Madison,   WI;  LOREN CHAPMAN,   Ph.D.,  University  of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI;  FREDERICK   C.  CREWS, Ph.D., University   of
California,  Berkeley, CA; ROBYN   M.   DAWES, Ph.D., Carnegie  Mellon
University,  Pittsburgh, PA; DAVID   F.  DINGES, Ph.D.,  University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA;  HENRY C. ELLIS, Ph.D.,  University of
New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; GEORGE K. GANAWAY, M.D., Emory University
of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; MARTIN  GARDNER, Author, Hendersonville, NC;
ROCHEL GELMAN, Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles, CA; HENRY
GLEITMAN, Ph.D.,  University of Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia, PA;  LILA
GLEITMAN, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; RICHARD
GREEN, M.D., J.D., Charing Cross  Hospital, London; DAVID A. HALPERIN,
M.D., Mount  Sinai School of Medicine, New  York, NY;  ERNEST HILGARD,
Ph.D., Stanford University, Palo   Alto, CA; JOHN HOCHMAN,  M.D., UCLA
Medical School, Los Angeles, CA; DAVID S. HOLMES, Ph.D., University of
Kansas, Lawrence, KS;  PHILIP S.  HOLZMAN,  Ph.D., Harvard University,
Cambridge,  MA;  ROBERT A.   KARLIN,  Ph.D.  , Rutgers University, New
Brunswick,  NJ;  HAROLD   LIEF,   M.D., University of    Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA; ELIZABETH LOFTUS,  Ph.D., University  of Washington,
Seattle, WA; PAUL McHUGH,  M.D., Johns Hopkins University,  Baltimore,
MD;  HAROLD  MERSKEY,  D.M.,  University  of Western  Ontario, London,
Canada;  ULRIC NEISSER, Ph.D., Emory  University, Atlanta, GA; RICHARD
OFSHE, Ph.D., University   of California, Berkeley, CA;   EMILY CAROTA
ORNE, B.A., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; MARTIN ORNE,
M.D.,  Ph.D., University    of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,  PA;  LOREN
PANKRATZ,  Ph.D.,  Oregon Health   Sciences University,  Portland, OR;
CAMPBELL PERRY, Ph.D., Concordia University, Montreal, Canada; MICHAEL
A. PERSINGER, Ph.D., Laurentian University, Ontario, Canada; AUGUST T.
PIPER, Jr.,   M.D., Seattle,  WA; HARRISON  POPE,  Jr.,  M.D., Harvard
Medical  School,  Cambridge,  MA;  JAMES  RANDI,  Author and Magician,
Plantation, FL;   HENRY L.  ROEDIGER,   III, Ph.D.  ,Rice  University,
Houston, TX; CAROLYN   SAARI, Ph.D., Loyola  University,  Chicago, IL;
THEODORE  SARBIN, Ph.D.,  University  of California,  Santa Cruz,  CA;
THOMAS A.  SEBEOK, Ph.D., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN; MICHAEL
A.    SIMPSON,  M.R.C.S.,    L.R.C.P.,  M.R.C,   D.O.M.,   Center  for
Psychosocial  &   Traumatic Stress,  Pretoria,  South Africa; MARGARET
SINGER, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, CA; RALPH SLOVENKO,
J.D., Ph.D., Wayne  State University Law  School,  Detroit, MI; DONALD
SPENCE, Ph.D., Robert   Wood Johnson Medical  Center,  Piscataway, NJ;
JEFFREY VICTOR,  Ph.D.,  Jamestown  Community College, Jamestown,  NY;
HOLLIDA   WAKEFIELD, M.A.,   Institute  of Psychological    Therapies,
Northfield, MN.

                           MEMBERSHIP  FORM

    Annual Dues for individual and/or family ($100.00)   $________

    Annual Dues for professionals ($125.00)              $________

    I enclose a tax-deductible contribution of           $________

                                               Total     $________

___Credit Card:

___VISA:  Card: #________-________-________-________ exp. date ___/___

___MASTER CARD: #________-________-________-________ exp. date ___/___

___Check or Money Order: Payable to FMS FOUNDATION in U.S. dollars.
  Foreign & Canadian payments may only be made with a Credit Card, a 
  U.S. dollar money order, or a check drawn on a U.S. dollar account.


Street Address or P.O.Box

City                                 State         Zip+4

Home Telephone                      Work Telephone


*  MAIL the completed form with payment to: 
FMS Foundation, 3401 Market ST, Suite 130, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3315

This address and the phone numbers have changed as of July 15, 2000

*  FAX your order to (215) 287-1917. Fax orders cannot be processed 
without credit card information.