FMSF NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE - July/August 1999 - Vol. 8, No. 5, HTML version

Return to FMSF Home Page

8  No. 5
ISSN #1069-0484.           Copyright (c) 1999  by  the  FMS Foundation
    The FMSF Newsletter  is published 8 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 below. 1999 subscription rates:
    USA:  $30,  Student  $15;  Canada:  $35,  Student $20 (in U.S. 
    dollars); Foreign: $40, Student  $20; Single issue price:  $3. 
    3401  Market  Street  suite  130,  Philadelphia, PA 19104-3315

This address and the phone numbers have changed as of July 15, 2000
                 Phone 215-387-1865, Fax 215-387-1917
        Legal Corner
          From Our Readers
            Bulletin Board

Dear Friends,

    Although we can track the changes in the FMS phenomenon through
such indicators as statistics, legal decisions, and publications, for
most of us, change (or the lack thereof ) is made meaningful by the
events that affect us personally such as a contact nibble (or no
contact) from a lost child. At least that is true for this writer.
    And like many people grieving because of the nonsensical FMS
cruelty, this writer, from time to time, tries to take a break from
it. Thus, a chance event while on vacation this summer brought home
the dramatic, almost unprecedented, changes that have occurred in this
social problem.
    It was similar to a chance event that occurred in 1992, a few
months after the Foundation had been formed. We were headed for a
distant isolated location in an attempt to lessen the unrelenting
grief, only to be greeted by a United Airlines magazine advertisement
for an abuse treatment center in California. The ad stated:
"Remembering incest and childhood abuse is the first step to healing,"
and "We can help you remember and heal." It claimed that the following
were signs of abuse:


    We carried that advertisement with us because it seemed such a
concise statement of the warped and non-scientific belief system
confronting families. And we learned that however far one might
travel, the emptiness in our hearts would remain. Our children, after
all, will always be our children despite the pain they create.
    In July 1999, we again headed for a distant isolated spot, partly
in the hope that we could avoid reading, talking, or thinking about
FMS for a while. It was not to be. While in transit we heard a radio
heralding the news of a legal decision in a case in which a therapist
was sued by a former patient. The patient had come to believe that she
had been part of an intergenerational satanic cult. (See Simpson
v. Litwin, this newsletter.)We had to conclude that for us, at least,
there is no getting away from the reality of what has so profoundly
affected our lives.
    But what a tremendous change has occurred in these seven years.
>From a problem in its ascendancy in 1992, FMS has become a problem in
decline in 1999. Although the problem will probably not disappear in
our lifetimes, it will become increasingly marginalized as people
distance themselves, or are forced to distance themselves, from it.
Renee Fredrickson, Ph.D. was one of the prominent names in recovered-
memory therapy seven years ago; now she is just another example of the
therapists forced to distance themselves because of serious sanctions
by a state license board. (See Legal Corner) Fredrickson has been
permanently restricted from providing therapy that involves issues of
cult, ritual, or satanic abuse.
    Another therapist under review for substandard therapy practices
is Bennett Braun, M.D., the Chicago psychiatrist at the center of the
belief in MPD and satanic ritual abuse and who was the best known
founder of the ISSD (International Society for the Study of
Dissociation). A few professionals such as Daniel Brown, Ph.D., a
speaker at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric
Association, continue to defend Braun. Dr. Elva Poznanski, a former
Braun colleague at Rush Presbyterian, however, has agreed with the
Illinois Department of Professional Regulation to testify against
Braun in a hearing to strip him of his license to practice medicine.
    It will be interesting to see if the ISSD will ever recognize the
problems it has helped to create; after all lawsuits against most of
its founders indicate that something is wrong. The International
Society for Traumatic Stress Studies turned down the ISSD when the
latter asked to integrate. And the ISSD acknowledges its membership
has been dropping. Another example of marginalization is the vehemence
with which professionals such as Paul Fink, M.D., former president of
the American Psychiatric Association, speak against the FMSF and
fundamental issues such as informed consent. Writing in the November
1998 Clinical Psychiatry News, Dr. Fink said that "informed-consent
would 'destroy dynamic psychotherapy.'" On October 30, 1991, Dr. Fink
appeared on the "Jane Wallace Live" television program and actually
validated the sexual abuse claims of three women he had never
evaluated. Dr. Fink went on to state: "Everybody who has MPD has been
abused. Everybody who has Post Traumatic disorder has been abused.
Everybody who has serious problems with depression and...were abused."
Now Dr. Fink marginalizes himself by repeating the totally inaccurate
and false claim that the FMSF is behind informed consent legislation.
    Evidence of change continues in the legal field. In this month's
Legal Corner we report a decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that
paves the way for parents to bring lawsuits against their accusing (in
this case deceased) daughter's therapists. The language of the court
was strong and will be appreciated by accused families.

  "We are quite confident that negligent treatment which encourages
  false accusations of sexual abuse is highly culpable for the
  resulting injury."

  "The harms the Sawyers have alleged are the ordinary and predictable
  injuries one might expect following negligent therapy which implants
  and reinforces false memories of sexual abuse at the hands of family
  members which results in accusations of that abuse."

    The Sawyer v Midelfort decision, in the wake of the Hungerford
third-party decision, will surely be cause for reflection by
therapists about their responsibility to provide safe and effective
therapy. The result of an on-air comment by Laura Schlesinger
(Dr. Laura) two weeks ago, however, gave us a reminder that the FMS
problem is still all-too-much with us. A mention of FMSF by her --
even with no telephone number-brought a small deluge of telephone
calls from desperate families looking for help.
    The general direction of change in the FMS situation is
nevertheless clear, and the Foundation needs to continue to change in
response. We no longer need to have such a large staff to respond to
calls and letters for help, but we do need to be here for newly
accused families and the steady number of contacts from former
patients-our children. We need to be alert and responsive to errors or
bias in articles and presentations, to expand educational outreach
efforts and to work for changes that will help families reconcile.
With your ongoing support and financial generosity, we can do that.


        |                   SPECIAL THANKS                   |
        |                                                    |
        |   We extend a very special `Thank you' to all of   |
        |  the people who help prepare the FMSF Newsletter.  |  
        |                                                    |
        |  EDITORIAL SUPPORT: Toby Feld, Allen Feld, Janet   |
        |           Fetkewicz, Howard Fishman, Peter Freyd   |
        |  RESEARCH: Michele Gregg, Anita Lipton             |
        |  COLUMNISTS: August Piper, Jr. and members         |
        |           of the FMSF Scientific Advisory Board    |
        |  LETTERS and INFORMATION: Our Readers              |


                      PAMELA PUTS ON THE GLOVES!
                          August Piper, M.D.

    The first page of today's newsletter shows Pamela Freyd landing a
few more haymakers on the recovered-memory movement. As she correctly
notes, many of its practitioners are suffering increased
marginalization. (I must confess I had to look the word up: it means
"placing something in a position of marginal or minimal importance.")
    One of Pamela's comments -- about vehement attacks on the FMSF --
reminded me of a phenomenon that occurs as a movement is being
marginalized and discredited. At that point, its adherents, contrary
to what might be expected, become even more passionate -- as if raw
passion could breathe life into the movement's dying flames. And
sometimes the adherents can maintain their beliefs only by closing
their eyes to more and more -- as time progresses, ever more --
evidence. Such self-imposed darkness leads at times to some very odd
    With respect to this phenomenon as it applies to the
recovered-memory movement, consider the paper by Chu and colleagues
("Memories of childhood abuse: Dissociation, amnesia, and
corroboration") in the May issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry
(156: 749-755). The authors state that:

  a) clinical research generally has supported the concepts of
  dissociative amnesia . . . in relation to traumatic events;

  b) a substantial proportion of participants reported partial or
  complete amnesia for abuse memories;

  c) a majority of participants found strong corroboration of their
  recovered memories.

 Let us examine these claims.
    To make the assertion in a) requires a truly phenomenal immersion
in darkness. Why? Because very solid research has been published
examining some 10,000 victims of various kinds of traumas.[1] These
studies show that not a single person repressed the experience. Chu
fails to even mention these investigations -- which is indeed strange,
given that the research was published by faculty members from his very
own university.
    One of Chu's major claims is found in b): that the study
participants had high rates of amnesia for their childhood traumas.
This assertion, of course, contradicts a large and well-established
body of research. This work generally shows that unless ordinary
forgetting occurs, memorable events are recalled by children older
than about age three or four. Now, given that Chu's paper represents
a radical departure from this well-recognized scientific work, one
would think he would meticulously document the subjects' amnesia.
Instead of doing so, however, he trots out the same tired old
questions that have been thoroughly discredited by other
investigators: "Was there a period of time when you did not remember
that this [traumatic] experience happened?"
    Similar remarks apply to the assertion in c). Any study claiming
"corroboration" of traumatic events must satisfy one absolutely
fundamental requirement: that the events in question be rigorously
documented. How did Chu attend to this requirement? By asking the
study participants whether, first, anyone had ever confirmed their
experiences, and second, whether the particpants had physical evidence
of the experiences. The published paper does not indicate that the
investigators 1) told the subjects what would -- and what would not --
qualify as confirmatory evidence, 2) interviewed those people who
allegedly "confirmed" the experiences; or 3) even examined the
"physical evidence." In short, the investigators have taken the
participants' word that the traumatic experiences were confirmed.
    It does not seem mean-spirited to point out that such
"confirmation" falls just a mite short of scientific rigor.
    These comments, and several others, have been submitted in a
letter to the Journal's editor. Will the author resolutely defend his
position, or show the white flag? Stay tuned.

[1] For a splendid summary of this research, instructive to both lay and
    professional readers, see Pope, Harrison: Psychology Astray:
    Fallacies in Studies of "Repressed Memory" and Childhood Trauma
    (Boca Raton, Florida: Upton Books, 1997)

  August Piper Jr., M.D., is the author of Hoax and Reality: The
  Bizarre World of Multiple Personality Disorder. He is in private
  practice in Seattle and is a member of the FMSF Scientific Advisory

/                                                                    \
|                 Memories Lost and Found - Part I.                  |
|                             07/01/1999                             |
|                  The Harvard Mental Health Letter                  |
|                                                                    |
| Critics are especially concerned about psychotherapy, because they |
| believe it is the source of many of the memories they are          |
| challenging. Suggestion is most effective when it comes from a     |
| person designated as a healer and authority. Beliefs about memory  |
| and memory recovery are easily instilled by therapists, who may    |
| disguise their influence, even from themselves, as education,      |
| information, or discovery. For example, a memory of sensations     |
| felt while being innocently bathed by a parent could take on       |
| sinister connotations that quickly suggest false elaborations.     |
| Insistent leading questions are especially dangerous,but even a    |
| therapist who is trying to be neutral may convey a bias. Hypnosis  |
| and guided imagery, commonly used by recovered memory therapists,  |
| blur the line between imagination and reality and greatly heighten |
| confidence in memories while lowering their accuracy.  Source      |
| confusion is magnified when patients are asked to imagine          |
| something repeatedly until it seems familiar and then talk about   |
| it as though it were real.                                         |

                              FMSF Staff

"Childhood Maltreatment Increases Risk for Personality Disorders
During Early Adulthood"
  Johnson, J.G., Cohen, P, Brown, J., Smailes, E.M., Bernstein, D.P
  Archives of General Psychiatry Vol 56
  July 1999  p. 600-606

    Evidence of childhood physical, sexual abuse or neglect was
obtained from state records and from self-reports in a longitudinal
study involving a representative community sample of 639 youths and
their parents from the state of New York. The study controlled for age
of onset of abuse, gender and parental psychopathology.
    In the documented sample there were 4 cases (0.6%) of sexual
abuse; 15 cases (2.3%) of physical abuse; and 23 cases (3.6%) of
neglect reported to authorities. In the self-report sample there were
21 (3.3%) reports of childhood sexual abuse; 34 (5.3%) of physical
abuse; and 17 (2.7%) of neglect. There was little overlap between
documented and self-reported cases.
    The authors concluded that persons who had experienced childhood
abuse or neglect were considerably more likely than those not abused
or neglected to have personality disorders during early adulthood.
    Although there was clearly an association between reported abuse
and personality disorder, we cannot conclude that abuse causes
personality disorder. For example, one conclusion might be that
personality disorder is associated with reporting sexual abuse rather
than having actually experienced sexual abuse. Self-reports of
childhood sexual abuse of 20 to 35% have commonly been reported in the
literature (e.g. Russell, 1986). Assuming that the higher rates in
those other reports are correct, then 15 to 20% of participants in
this study were abused but did not tell.
    Even allowing for this problem, the authors still fail to control
for other potential confounding variables. For example, in determining
parental psychiatric disorders, if the mother did not know the
psychiatric history of the subject's biological father, only
information regarding the mother was used. This is one example of the
methodological limitations that make it difficult to draw conclusions
from this report.

/                                                                    \
| "Mental disorders come and go with bewildering frequency.          |
| 'Multiple personality disorder' was all the rage in the early      |
| 1980s; there's now much doubt that it even exists. There's good    |
| reason to believe that some disorders are defined more to satisfy  |
| pressure groups than to clarify clinical practice."                |
|                            Boston Herald, June 13, 1999, Editorial |

                         A SIGN OF OUR TIMES
                              Allen Feld

Few would disagree that there have been significant changes in
society's view of "recovered memories." Just think back to early
1992, prior to the Foundation opening its doors. Would you expect to
find references to "so-called recovered memories" or "false memories"
in your summer novel reading? The following references were recently
found within a two-week period:

  Another panelist is an Englishwoman who's written a book about
  _so-called recovered memory_ -- in her case, hers. She woke up one
  morning and "remembered" that her father had raped her, and her
  brothers had raped her -- and all her uncles. Her grandfather, too!
  Every morning she wakes up and "remembers" someone else who raped
  her. She must be exhausted! (Emphasis and "quotation marks" in
  original.) p. 320. John Irving (1998) A Widow for One Year NY:
  Random House 537 pages

Neither this panelist nor her "remembered" experiences are important
to the plot. In fact, there is only one other brief reference to her:

  On the elevator, there was the tragicomic Englishwoman; from the
  look of her, she'd doubtless awakened with recovered memory of yet
  another rape. (p. 321)

    Both excerpts seem to be tinged with humor and, perhaps, even
ridicule. Obviously, the author could have chosen other descriptors.
Since writers strive to communicate, I would assume that the author
believed that enough readers would appreciate the irony in these
casual passages about this panelist. Since this novel is written in a
witty style, I also assume John Irving believed enough readers would
understand the humor intended. Jean Hanef Korelitz (1999) in The
Sabbathday River (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 499 pages) wrote

  It was not a question of simple confession, Harvey explained. There
  tended to be a gradual progression from "I didn't do it" to "I must
  have done it," each step achieved through the subtle power of modern
  interrogation tactics, an insidious feeding of information to the
  suspect, who is after all distressed and fearful. This phenomenon,
  he said, was something akin to that of false memories, another
  byproduct of forceful suggestion on a mind experiencing extreme

  "So the officers conducting such an interrogation would gradually
  introduce new information and incorporate it into their
  questioning." (p. 463) (Quotation marks in original)

    This comment is a response to a question of an expert witness,
called by the defense, and was asked by the defendant's attorney (one
of the main characters). It appears in a book that weaves contemporary
women's issues throughout its interrelated plots and features three
strong women as main characters.
    (As an aside: It is difficult for me to overlook contributions
that several Advisory Board members may have made to the issues in
this brief paragraph. Some examples are Richard Ofshe's work on false
confessions and Elizabeth Loftus and Martin Orne's on the "subtle
power" and "feeding information." Their professional contributions are
widely known.) It is deceptive to draw conclusions from these two
examples and from other casual references similar to these often
mentioned to us by our members. It is not my intent to suggest that
these citations reflect either change in society or that the
Foundation had a major role in accomplishing this. When things like
this start to appear in our popular culture, I am hopeful that it is a
positive sign of our times.

/                                                                    \
|       Wisconsin Supreme Court Decision: Sawyer v. Midelfort        |
|                                                                    |
| "It's a message to therapists that they may be held accountable to |
| individuals other than their patients if they allow therapy to go  |
| awry," attorney William Smoler of Madison said. "There are other   |
| people who are really hurt by misguided therapy and it's time      |
| people recognize that." In the only dissenting opinion, Justice    |
| Ann Walsh Bradley warned that the court's majority opinion could   |
| lead to more third-party lawsuits against therapists.              |
|                                                                    |
| "As the saying warns," Bradley wrote, "Once the camel's nose is in |
| the tent the rest is sure to follow."                              |
|                                                                    |
|   Court allows 'repressed memories' malpractice lawsuit to proceed |
|                 Associated Press State & Local Wire. June 30, 1999 |

                     CAN LEAD TO FUTURE PROBLEMS
                              Allen Feld

I have always questioned the therapeutic necessity, wisdom and
relevance of delving deeply into a client's past-especially a client's
remote past or early childhood. These concerns become even more robust
if the reasons for such exploration are vague or not scientifically
supported. I remain bewildered by the apparent subjective
interpretation frequently used in this type of therapeutic approach
and befuddled by the lack of verifiable "evidence" to support
questionable conclusions. The devastating experiences of FMSF families
have reinforced those concerns. It is important to stress: My
questioning has been directed to the therapeutic use of the past and
not the personal importance that people may ascribe to their past.
    Early in my social work career, when colleagues discussed dealing
with a client's past, I had at least the following three questions: a)
Even if the therapist's role in developing a client's narrative of the
past can be set aside, how is it possible for a therapist to judge the
accuracy of the client's created narrative? b) Precisely how does a
therapist help a client in the present time with information from the
past? c) How would (or, does) a therapist alter her/his approach to
helping, if the client's narrative were different?
    Simply stated, I rejected the notion that the past determined a
client's present or future. While I accepted the importance that
people often place in what they believe are their pasts, I juxtaposed
that with the concerns I had about the reliability of specific details
of a person's early years. Understanding that the client's telling of
her narrative was an outgrowth of an exchange with the therapist, I
recognized that the exchange itself had a significant potential to
impact the final product.
    Over time, I sometimes wondered if myth-making had become an
important component in some therapists' approach to helping. I believe
that my questioning has merit, in part, for the following reasons:
therapists have no way to determine the truth and validity of a
client's reporting of the past. In fact, I sensed some didn't even
seem to care about historical accuracy. A therapist may express keen
interest in a client's narrative and this, coupled with the client's
desire to please this important "authority figure," might inflate the
importance of the narrative; although a client might be in therapy for
only one hour, therapy may be with a client the remaining 167 hours of
the week; if the past were distorted in its telling by the client, and
possibly further distorted, even unintentionally, by the therapist
with such things as misunderstood comments, questions, speculations,
interpretations and/or the client's "homework," clients might
integrate distortions into their life story.
    Thus, with relative ease a myth can be created. Over time and with
continued therapeutic exchanges, the strength of the client's and
therapist's belief in the myth might grow. A myth can become a
virtually unshakable reality. Indeed, readers of the Newsletter are
aware of the harm that these myths caused, and are still causing, to
families. This scenario describes, at least in part, an example of
what some call covert influences that occur in therapy.
    C. Brooks Brenneis [1] (p. xvi)describes Martin T. Orne's [2]
importance in articulating this phenomenon.

  ...Orne (1962) captured the process of influence and suggestion
  quite differently from what I had imagined it to be. Where I
  anticipated deliberate indoctrination foisted upon a more or less
  passively receptive subject, Orne saw shades of influence, covertly
  expressed, and running back and forth between, in his examples,
  experimenters and subjects. This turned out to be the barest
  beginning of the literature on covert influence. Compelling,
  painstaking accumulated evidence now makes it indisputable that
  powerful ideas may be triggered and inculcated without either
  participant's conscious awareness. In fact, the absence of conscious
  awareness may potentiate the effects of influence.  As patient or
  therapist we are quite capable of intuiting, without conscious
  awareness, the unconscious belief of others, even ideas which, when
  raised to consciousness, are disavowed.

    The power of a therapist's belief system in determining not only
what is consciously and explicitly emphasized but also what is
unintentionally or implicitly emphasized in therapy should not be
understated or overlooked. I believe that these two concepts, covert
influence and therapists' belief system, at the very minimum, impact
and affect each other and may ultimately merge. I might even be
persuaded to accept the proposition that some therapists who claim
they did not influence the "discovery" of memories of incest, or some
clients who are adamant in stating that they have not been influenced
by the therapist, may actually be unaware of how therapeutic
influences such as these may be at play.
    A client is not expected to be cognizant of how unintended
influences impact the therapist and her therapy. However, the standard
for a therapist is, and must be, different. A therapist's lack of
awareness of possible unintended influences is unacceptable. Some may
argue that a therapist's error of not comprehending or considering the
heavy influence he or she exerts merits their escaping especially
severe sanctions in false-memory cases. I vehemently disagree. The
sanctions should be equally severe regardless of a therapist's
awareness or consciousness of that influence. The damage to the client
and the ensuing family devastation occur whether the influence is
intended or not.
    Additionally, therapists represent themselves as possessing, are
assumed by their clients to possess and indeed should possess, the
requisite skills and knowledge to understand fully the influence that
they may potentially exert. Therapists' work should, as dictated by
the credo of medicine, "cause no harm." Clients are entitled to this;
their clients' families deserve this; society should demand this.

[1] Brenneis, B. C. (1997) Recovered memory of trauma: Transferring
    the present to the past, International Universities Press.
[2] Orne, M.T. (1962) On the social psychology of the psychology
    experiment: With particular emphasis to demand characteristics and
    their implications.  American Psychologist, 17: 776-783.

  Allen Feld is Director of Continuing Education for the FMS
  Foundation. He has retired from the faculty of the School of Social
  Work at Marywood University in Pennsylvania.

/                                                                    \
|       Ambiguous Loss: Learning to Live With Unresolved Grief       |
|          Harvard University Press, 1999, Dr. Pauline Boss          |
|                                                                    |
| As defined by the author, an "ambiguous loss" is when a lost       |
| person is still physically present but emotionally absent or when  |
| a lost person is physically absent but still emotionally present.  |
| Examples of the latter are a soldier missing in action or a child  |
| who has disappeared.                                               |
|                                                                    |
| Dr. Boss notes that with an ambiguous loss it is often difficult   |
| for people to get on with their lives. She notes that "People and  |
| families become frozen, their lives grind to a near-halt, because  |
| they cannot properly mourn someone who is not completely gone."    |
| The author suggests that the best way to live with an ambiguous    |
| loss is with resilience. She states that the goal for families is  |
| to find some way to change even though the ambiguity remains. She  |
| advises that families must learn to balance grief over what was    |
| lost with a recognition of what is possible.                       |
|                                                                    |
| Many FMS families will see parallels to their own situations in    |
| the notion of an ambiguous loss.                                   |

                        B O O K   R E V I E W
                          To Hell and Back:
      Multiple Personality Disorder as a Betrayal of the Patient

                        Making of an Illness:
          My Experience with Multiple Personality Disorder.

                       Reviewer: Harold Merskey

Gail Macdonald.  Forward by Campbell Perry.  1999.  Laurentian
University Press, Sudbury, Ontario.  Pp. 111, softback $10.00

    A thorn by any other name would prick as sharp 
    (with apologies to Juliet).

    Medical historians, especially those who popularize medical
writing, like to remind us of past excesses, such as bleeding and
purging of patients in extremis, and making them vomit, all of which
frequently seems to have finished them off. Chaining and beating of
lunatics, the use of the ducking stool and the whirling chair, not to
mention witch hunts and executions all figure in these dramatic
excesses of medicine. Today's equivalent, MPD, now skulks under the
DSM-IV label of Dissociative Identity Disorder, the name change no
doubt seeking to minimize opposition and to escape the obvious
fallacies of frequent changes of ideas about what "it" is, as well as
the riotous inconsistency of its practitioners and their victims. It
would be funny if it were not only serious and sometimes tragic. Gail
Macdonald tells a story of her induction into MPD and her escape from
it. Born into a working-class family, she had good parenting until her
father took to alcohol. She became a troubled adolescent and a
dropout, who took to alcohol and drugs and went through numerous
relationships and one divorce. In her second marriage she was still
miserable but sought out Alcoholics Anonymous and was able to stop
drinking. Still distressed, and possessed by much anger against her
father, she went on to ACOA (Adult Children of Alcoholics) where at
the age of 33, and herself a mother of two children, she met a
handsome counsellor-therapist.
    Looking back over her illness at this point, a conventional doctor
who was skeptical of MPD and pragmatic in regard to treatment issues
might well have given her a judiciously chosen sedative, anti-
depressant drug, so that by night she would sleep well and by day her
more rational moments could increase and be extended with the help of
supportive psychotherapy.
    Instead the social worker/therapist in a small town of 15,000
people took her into treatment and entered her into a group he was
collecting together. Before long she was one of 25 individuals all
given the diagnosis of MPD by her therapist, who was not -- according
to the rules of the province of Ontario -- entitled to make diagnoses
as a professional practitioner. He became her friend and walked with
her socially. She bought The Courage to Heal on his recommendation,
read it, and with additional interviews ("therapy") acquired ten
alters. Of course, she was told to find her memories, and ultimately
did so.
    The procedures by which this was achieved included activities
resembling the practice of hypnosis in all but name, as Campbell Perry
indicates in his foreword. With difficulty and distress, she came to
accuse her father of sexual abuse and not just of his drunkenness and
its consequences. The alters included girls between four and seven
years old, three male teenagers and two females, aged about 20. As
well, there was one called "Shadow" -- or alternatively and ironically
-- "Black Mass".
    The Courage to Heal describes an Emergency Stage in which patients
(or "clients") get worse and may harm themselves. Gail duly got worse,
as did others in her group. Written journals were developed to explore
her inner experiences while trying to reconcile or merge the alters.
Concomitantly, she was both accepting and hating the thoughts of her
father as an abuser and ultimately started cutting her wrists and
engaging in self-mutilation. This seems to have culminated in tearing
off a great toe nail with great pain and bleeding. Self-mutilation
indeed had become the topic of the group. She heard "voices" and began
to realize that treatment was starting to make her mentally ill.
Voices were explained as the voices of her alters. Many members of the
group showed up with burns on their bodies or cuts from knives or
razors. Her therapist encouraged severing ties with her family and she
began to become isolated. This is only some of her story but it would
pass easily for a template for a therapist's guide on how to
manufacture MPD with false memories. There were a few boundary
violations by her therapist as well.
    Salvation reached her from several sources. First she came across
an old letter from her father written in love, and could not reconcile
this with him being an abuser. When she showed this letter to her
therapist, he interpreted it as the opposite and as evidence of his
wicked behaviour. Her therapist made other mistakes including advising
her -- a member of AA -- that one day she would be able to drink
again. In her questioning state she also came across her therapist
kissing another patient in his car.
    The husband of another patient had been urging both of them to
give up the treatment, which he said was making them worse. Gail took
a break from her therapist and the buzzing of voices declined. She saw
her family doctor and two psychiatrists, all of whom concurred that
she did not have MPD. The second psychiatrist described her in an
article in the medical literature as one of five patients in whom the
diagnosis was recognized as false. She also appeared in a
ground-breaking film of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shown in
November, 1993.
    There were still difficulties and painful emotions to confront;
not about her father but about her own mishaps -- but life is much
better for her now.
    Gail Macdonald tells her story with great honesty and much
frankness in self-disclosure. She makes no excuses for her mistakes,
harnesses the past to the present and has moved on with impressive
strength to rebuild her life. She is free from the symptoms of cutting
and suicidal actions but her second marriage ended during her
illness. Now, in her third marriage, she has a small business which
she runs with a partner, maintains the care of her daughters and is
rebuilding her life.
    Although there are occasional minor grammatical errors, the
writing of this book is direct and well organized. The illustrations
include family photographs and letters or documents produced under the
influence of her former diagnosis, and these provide some classical
examples both of better times and of the changes wrought by MPD.
    Readers of the newsletter will find in this book a story which is
all too true and the more impressive for the quiet dignity with which
it is told.
    The diagnosis of MPD is increasingly suspect. A majority of board
certified psychiatrists recently sampled by Dr. Harrison Pope have
indicated that the status of the diagnosis is unsettled. Bolder (or
more foolhardy) spirits, who early on decided that no case existed
that had been proven or was likely to be proven, are being joined by
increasing numbers who think that the diagnosis as such should be
dropped; and many have doubts as well about the whole concept of
Dissociative Disorders as promulgated in the last several decades.
    Readers of this book will find it to be both moving and
distressing. Most of all it is straightforward without unnecessary
complexity, direct and unflinchingly honest. It describes the outcome
in one patient out of a large number whom medicine has betrayed. The
swing of intellectual opinion in medicine is well on the way to
dismissing MPD and recovered memories but some proponents still fancy
their skill at diagnosing or treating such conditions. They ought not
to be allowed to do so since it now is approaching a level of
professional negligence, if not worse, to make the diagnosis of MPD.
>From the point of view of a psychiatrist, it is a telling example of a
professionally made disaster from which some at least have escaped.
Yet the proponents of this diagnosis and of recovered memories still
ply their trade, urging all who will listen to reject one of the
greatest acts of reparation of twentieth century psychiatry: the
overturning of one of our most egregious errors.

  Harold Merskey, D.M. is Professor Emeritus in Psychiatry at the
  University of Western Ontario and a member of the FMSF Advisory
  Board. He is the author of The Analysis of Hysteria: Understanding
  Conversion and Dissociation, 2nd ed.

/                                                                    \
|          To order: MAKING OF AN ILLNESS by Gail Macdonald          |
|                              Contact:                              |
|                    Laurentian University Press                     |
|                      935 Ramsey Lake Road                          |
|                      Sudbury, ON, P3E 2C6                          |
|                      Phone: (705) 675-1151                         |
|                      ISBN # 0-88667-045-4                          |

                       L E G A L   C O R N E R
                              FMSF Staff
                         Utah Supreme Court:
  Repressed Memory Testimony Should Not Have Been Admitted at Trial
              Franklin v. Stevenson, Supreme Court Utah
         1999 Utah LEXIS 95, 1999 UT 61, dated June 18, 1999.
The Utah Supreme Court overturned a 1996 jury verdict in favor of a
plaintiff who had claimed recovered memories of childhood sexual
abuse. The unanimous court held that because the memory recovery
techniques used by plaintiff's therapist have not been proven to be
scientifically reliable, repressed memory testimony should not have
been heard by the jury. All expert testimony regarding repressed
memories and all testimony of the plaintiff derived from the unproven
therapy techniques in this case were held to be inadmissible. In
other repressed memory cases, the justices held, such testimony should
undergo strict scrutiny as for any new scientific method.
    The case was brought by Cherese Franklin, then 36, who says that
she did not begin to "recall" previously "repressed" memories of
sexual abuse until she entered therapy after experiencing panic
attacks and hearing hallucinatory voices telling her to kill her
infant daughter. Her therapy included relaxation techniques such as
deep breathing and visualization techniques such as "communicating"
with her "inner child." The court described one such technique --
writing personal questions with her right hand and allowing her "inner
child" to answer with her left -- that was associated with the
development of Franklin's "recovered memories." The Supreme Court said
that the "memories" that emerged included "particularly heinous,
traumatic acts" that supposedly occurred when she was between ages 5
and 12. Franklin first thought her father might have been the abuser,
but later decided it was a cousin.
    Franklin sued her cousin Stevenson, 44, in early 1994, and two
years later a jury awarded her $750,000 for physical and emotional
damages. Immediately after the jury verdict, the trial judge entered a
Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) in the defendant's
favor.[1] After hearing the trial testimony, the trial judge concluded
that the therapy techniques that led to Franklin's "memories" were
hypnosis-like and were, therefore, inadmissible in Utah courts.
    The Utah Supreme Court held that the trial court had erred by 1)
using an "abridged record" of the trial to overturn the jury verdict
on JNOV, and by 2) equating the therapy techniques with hypnosis.
Nevertheless, the justices found other strong reasons to overturn the
jury verdict that had been entered in favor of the plaintiff.
    In Franklin, the Utah Supreme Court expanded on one of its earlier
rulings. Utah was among the first state supreme courts to decide a
repressed memory case and one of the first to recognize that the
reliability of repressed memory claims must be considered. In 1993,
the court had held that "because of the dearth of empirical scientific
evidence regarding the authenticity and reliability of revived
memories, the inherent reliability and admissibility of expert witness
testimony regarding memory repression and revival may be an issue that
will have to be reached at trial."[2] The Franklin court found that
repressed memories have not been proven to be reliable during the
intervening years, "Neither the record nor our research indicate that
these techniques enjoy a general acceptance within the field... In
fact, our research suggests that the idea of memory repression itself,
let alone the methods of recovery, is a point of disagreement within
the medical, psychiatric, and psychological communities."
    The court reaffirmed that the trial judge is to serve as a
"gatekeeper" and make sure that all testimony based on new scientific
evidence is reliable. It is up to the proponent of the scientific
evidence to convince the trial court that the principles or techniques
underlying the proffered testimony meet the standard of inherent
reliability. The court held that in the absence of such an initial
showing, the evidence is to be excluded. The Utah Supreme Court
emphasized that under certain circumstances the lay witness' testimony
may be called into question. For example, if the testimony of a
witness has been tainted by inadmissible evidence such as hypnosis,
then that person's testimony is inadmissible in Utah courts. The court
compared the influence of hypnosis on memory with the influence of the
memory recovery techniques in Franklin. The court noted that in one
Utah case, State v. Tuttle, 780 P.2d 1203 (Utah, 1989), the hypnotized
witness at least had a basic memory of the information intact prior to
hypnosis. This is not the case with Franklin, "Franklin's entire
memory of the events owes its existence to the intervention and use of
[the therapist's] therapeutic methodology. . . Accordingly this
testimony is tainted by the unreliability of the recovery methods
used, and is therefore inadmissible." (emphasis added)
    The court determined that the reliability of the therapeutic
techniques clearly had not been established in this case (see
Sidebar), but the court did not hold as a matter of law that the
techniques are conclusively unreliable in all cases. Therefore, the
court instructed trial courts to "continue to explore this issue in
individual cases and determine the reliability -- or lack of
reliability -- of such techniques when counsel has made a proper
objection to such evidence."
    The court suggested that the trial court could have held a
pretrial hearing or could have ruled the testimony inadmissible during
the course of the trial: "The trial court erred in not finding the
plaintiff's experts' testimonies inadmissible" especially when it was
faced with a series of defense motions to exclude the experts'
testimonies regarding both the theory of repressed memory and
Franklin's memories in particular, as well as the admission of any
evidence or testimony derived from the recovered memories.
    The court concluded: "This is not a case where, if the evidence
had been ruled inadmissible during the course of the trial, the
plaintiff could have produced new admissible evidence. . . While no
formal evidentiary hearing was held, the trial court accorded Franklin
every opportunity during the trial to lay this foundation and address
this issue. In the end, the trial court should have found the evidence
    In addition, the court held that "It would be a waste of judicial
resources to remand the case to the trial court for a ruling on
Stevenson's motion for a new trial. . . Nothing would be gained by
such a remand. . . Based on [the testimony of plaintiff's own
experts], it is improbable that the trial court would be persuaded of
the reliability of any new evidence which Franklin could offer."

[1] See FMSF Newsletter, Jan. 1997. Franklin v. Stevenson, Third
    Jud. Dist. Ct., Salt Lake Co., Utah, No. 94-0901779PI, JNOV dated
[2] Olsen v. Hooley, 865 P.2d 1345, 1349-50 (Utah, 1993). Emphasis
    supplied by Franklin.

/                                                                    \
|        Memory Recovery Techniques and Theory of Repression         |
|                          Found Unreliable                          |
|                                                                    |
| "[B]ecause the scientific reliability of the foundations on which  |
| these so-called 'relaxation techniques' are based was not          |
| established, the testimony based on memories recovered through use |
| of those techniques is thereby tainted."                           |
|                                                                    |
| "In fact, our research suggests that the idea of memory repression |
| itself, let alone the methods of recovery, is a point of           |
| disagreement within the medical, psychiatric, and psychological    |
| communities."                                                      |
|                                                                    |
|        Utah Supreme Court, Franklin v. v. Stevenson, June 18, 1999 |

/                                                                    \
|                     Memory Recovery Techniques                     |
|                                                                    |
| In discussing the reliability of the repressed memory testimony,   |
| the Utah Supreme Court noted that both of the plaintiff's expert   |
| witnesses conceded at trial that the memory recovery techniques    |
| used with the plaintiff lacked scientific foundation. The court    |
| quoted from the cross-examination of Dr. Bessel van der Kolk, one  |
| of the plaintiff's expert witnesses:                               |
|                                                                    |
| Q. Is there any scientific literature, any studies that you are    |
| aware of that have been done that show that asking a question with |
| one hand and answering the question with the non-dominant hand is  |
| a mechanism by which you can recover an accurate memory of the     |
| past? Are there studies?                                           |
|                                                                    |
| A. It's interesting that you ask the question, actually, because   |
| this great Frenchman who knew more about trauma than anybody else, |
| Pierre 1889 in his book...actually wrote about that     |
| very phenomenon.                                                   |
|                                                                    |
| Q. Did his study deal with the issue of validating the accuracy of |
| the recovered memory, Doctor?                                      |
|                                                                    |
| A. No, he didn't.                                                  |
|                                                                    |
| Q. Thank you. And are you aware of a single study as of 1996 that  |
| has validated this as a reliable technique for recovering memory,  |
| Doctor?                                                            |
|                                                                    |
| A. Not to my knowledge.                                            |
|                                                                    |
| Q. Thank you.                                                      |
|                                                                    |
|     The Utah Supreme Court noted that on re-direct, plaintiff      |
| focused on the scientific acceptability of repressed memory itself |
| and did not address the techniques used to recover the memories or |
| the reliability of such techniques. Similarly, on cross-           |
| examination, Franklin's own therapist admitted that she knew of no |
| scientific studies to suggest that if one wrote a question using   |
| one's dominant hand and then answered the question with the other  |
| hand that what was written would be the truth. She did, however,   |
| offer that this procedure is a "common clinical technique."        |
| Because "neither witness could testify regarding any testing or    |
| corroboration of the techniques [the therapist] employed, let      |
| alone the acceptance or review of those techniques by their        |
| peers," the court found that the witness' testimony did not "evoke |
| confidence in the reliability of the scientific evidence."         |

        Wisconsin Supreme Court Imposes Liability on Therapist
                for Injury to Falsely Accused Parents
      Sawyer v. Midelfort, 1999 Wisc. LEXIS 86,  June 29, 1999.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that two therapists can be held
liable for the injury caused by false allegations of sexual abuse that
developed during negligent therapy practices. The court held that all
of the third-party claims were properly stated and none should have
been dismissed. The court emphasized that the parents could sue their
daughter's therapist for injuries caused directly by the false
allegations, but not for the "loss of society and companionship" of
their daughter. Under Wisconsin law, the court held, the accused
person needn't have been a patient in order to sue, nor must the
third-party be related to the accuser.
    In 1996, the Sawyers sued their adult daughter's psychiatrist
H. Berit Midelfort and therapist Celia Lausted for negligent diagnosis
and treatment that caused their daughter to develop false memories of
sexual abuse by her father and various other family members and
acquaintances. The daughter, who had changed her name to Anneatra to
make it more difficult for her parents to find her, confronted her
parents with the allegations of sexual abuse and filed a lawsuit
against them (but did not pursue it). Anneatra and her parents did not
speak again. After Anneatra's death in 1995, her mother was appointed
administrator of the estate. Mrs. Sawyer was then able to obtain
copies of Anneatra's treatment records, and after reading them, claims
to have first discovered the role of the therapists in her daughter's
alleged recovery of false memories.
    In March 1998, a Wisconsin appellate court had revived a portion
of the parents' malpractice suit. The Wisconsin Supreme Court quoted
from the appellate decision and also from several other courts which
have upheld the right of accused third parties to sue for injury
caused by negligent practice involving memory recovery techniques.[1]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the
Sawyer's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. "While the
Sawyers knew that they were injured, it is possible as they suggest
that they did not know until following Anneatra's death that their
injury was caused by Lausted's conduct. As the court of appeals noted
in its decision, the Sawyers have suggested a number of possible
causes of their injuries apart from Lausted's negligence, including:
'psychiatric illness, Anneatra's involvement in survivor groups, ill
will or spite, or the reading of popular literature on childhood
sexual abuse.'" The Wisconsin Supreme Court continued, "Should any one
of these alternate, and plausible, reasons for Anneatra's accusations
be responsible for their injuries, the Sawyers would not have been
wronged and therefore would not have had a claim against anyone. It
was only upon discovering that Lausted was using repressed-memory
therapy that they determined that their injury was the result of the
negligent act of another. Whether a reasonable person in the Sawyer's
position would have done more to discover that their injuries could be
attributed to Lausted's negligence is a factual question best left to
the fact-finder."
    The Wisconsin Supreme Court rightly observed that these cases turn
on whether public-policy considerations should bar a third-party
claim. Both parties provided detailed public policy analyzes of the
question. After a careful review of public-policy issues, which are
summarized here, the court concluded, "In sum, we find that none of
the public policy considerations identified by the defendants should
preclude the imposition of liability in this case."
    The court concluded that the injury to the Sawyers was direct and
foreseeable, "the Sawyers' recovery is predicated upon the direct
injury they themselves suffered as a result of the defendants'
negligence which was responsible for their daughter's accusations that
they were abusive. The harm arising from the loss of a daughters'
companionship is different than the harm that arises from accusations
of sexual assault...We do not believe that the alleged injuries are
too wholly out of proportion to the culpability of the negligent
    The defendants conceded as much and even courts which have
declined to impose liability in similar cases have acknowledged that
the harm to a parent accused of sexual abuse is foreseeable.[2] The
New Hampshire Supreme Court observed that "[I]t is indisputable that
'being labeled a child abuser (is) one of the most loathsome labels in
society' and most often results in grave physical, emotional,
professional, and personal ramifications."[3]
    The defendants argued that holding therapists liable to third
parties would create an unreasonably large number of possible lawsuits
and that therapists would have to be concerned about possible
lawsuits, rather than focusing on their patient. The court disagreed.
If the Sawyers' claim had been injurious to the family relationship,
the court said, there could be an unknown number of potential
claimants. The Sawyers, however, did not tie their claim of an injury
to their personal relationship, but rather to the direct effect of the
accusations of abuse. "Under the Sawyers' theory of the case,
therapists may be held liable only to those who are wrongly accused by
a patient of sexually abusing that patient," the court wrote.
"Further, we doubt that there is a significant possibility of fraud
when a claim is based upon accusations of abuse, particularly in light
of the extraordinary stigma our society places upon those accused of
sexually abusing a child. We find that it is too unlikely that a claim
premised upon being falsely accused of sexual abuse will be brought by
someone who has not, in fact, been so accused...Their claims are
appropriately limited to those who are harmed by the accusations of
sexual abuse arising from false and reinforced memories arising from
negligent therapies. So limited, the claim has a sensible and just
stopping point."
    The dissent decried the fact that the majority did not limit
allowable third-party claims to accused parents. Without that
limitation, according to the dissent, the number of potential claims
could grow too large. In the case of Anneatra, her brother, her uncle,
her grandfather, her aunt, her cousins, and two priests could also
bring a claim of false allegations. It is not clear that the dissent
considered whether a competent therapist should at least question the
validity of newly discovered "memories" of horrifying abuse by dozens
of people for which there is no reliable evidence.
    The court next considered the defense argument that a therapist
who is held liable to third parties may be forced to 1) cease treating
patients who believe they may have been sexually abused, or 2) refrain
from using new untested forms of therapy, or 3) deviate from the
treatment the therapist would normally provide. The defense said that
this could harm the patient's well-being. The Wisconsin Supreme Court
noted that some of the courts rejecting third-party claims have
recognized these concerns.[4] However, the Wisconsin court was "not
convinced that therapists will be limited in their treatment choices
by virtue of being subject to third-party professional negligence
claims." It quoted the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which wrote that
the defendants' public policy concerns "overlook the fact that the
standard of care by which a therapist's conduct is measured is not
heightened [by a third-party cause of action]."[5] The cause of action
"imposes 'no more than what a therapist is already bound to provide --
a competent and carefully considered professional judgement.'"[6]
    Defendants also argued that because the patient holds the
privilege of confidentiality, the defendants in third-party actions
may not be able to successfully defend themselves without breaching
their duty of confidentiality to their patient. The court said that
the problem of confidentiality is not a problem in this case, though
"[p]erhaps problems of confidentiality would preclude liability from
being imposed in a future case."
    The court also rejected defense concerns that allowing third-party
claims would place an unreasonable burden on the therapist. The
justices wrote that the "complexity" of the treatment cannot excuse
negligent actions, and "we do not believe that a therapist should be
relieved from liability when his or her treatment is negligent simply
because the problem he or she is treating is complex." "The therapist
is in the best position to avoid harm to the accused parent and is
solely responsible for treatment procedure." (quoting Hungerford at

[1] Other courts quoted by the court and holding that a duty is owed
    to falsely accused third parties include: Hungerford v. Jones, 722
    A.2d 478 (N.H., 1998); Althaus v. Cohen, 710 A.2d 1147
    (Pa. Super.Ct., 1998), appeal pending. See FMSF Newsletters,
    Feb. 1999, May 1998.
[2] Citing Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767 (Tex., 1994).
[3] Hungerford v. Jones, 722 A.2d 478 (N.H., 1998) holding that a
    therapist owed a duty to a parent falsely accused of sexual abuse
    due to the therapist's allegedly negligent treatment. 4 See, e.g.,
    Flanders v. Cooper, 706 A.2d 589 (Maine, 1998) and Doe v. McKay,
    700 N.E.2d 1018 (Ill., 1998).
[5] Hungerford at 481-82.
[6] Hungerford at 482, citing Althaus v. Cohen, 710 A.2d 1147, 1157
    (Pa. Super.Ct., 1998).

/                                                                    \
| "[T]he Sawyers' injuries stem directly from their daughter's       |
| accusations that they abused her, and the accusations stem from    |
| the defendants' negligent treatment that implanted or reinforced   |
| in Anneatra her false memories of sexual abuse."                   |
|                                                                    |
| "We are quite confident that negligent treatment which encourages  |
| false accusations of sexual abuse is highly culpable for the       |
| resulting injury."                                                 |
|                                                                    |
| "The harms the Sawyers have alleged are the ordinary and           |
| predictable injuries one might expect following negligent therapy  |
| which implants and reinforces false memories of sexual abuse at    |
| the hands of family members which results in accusations of that   |
| abuse."                                                            |
|                                                                    |
|                       Wisconsin Supreme Court, Sawyer v. Midelfort |
|  noting that the injury to persons falsely accused of sexual abuse |
|  is direct and foreseeable.                                        |

/                                                                    \
| "[A]n accused parent should have the right to reasonably expect    |
| that a determination of sexual abuse, 'touching him or her as      |
| profoundly as it will, will be carefully made.'"                   |
|                                                                    |
|                       Wisconsin Supreme Court, Sawyer v. Midelfort |
|    citing Hungerford v. Jones and Caryl S. v. Child and Adolescent |
|    Treatment.                                                      |

                     Third-Party Lawsuit Settled
In May 1999, the malpractice claim brought by Joel Hungerford against
his adult daughter's therapist Susan Jones was settled for the
$200,000 policy limit of Jones' malpractice coverage. In December
1998, the New Hampshire Supreme Court had held that a therapist owes a
duty of care to the accused person when the therapist diagnoses and
treats an adult patient for sexual abuse.[1]

[1] See FMSF Newsletter Feb. 1999. Hungerford v Jones, 722 A 2d 478
    (NH, 1998)
          Jury Awards Patient $200,000 in False-Memory Case
                          Simpson v. Litwin
          Santa Clara Superior Ct., Calif, No. CV751051.[1]
On June 23, a California jury awarded a woman over $204,000 in civil
damages from the therapist she accused of brainwashing her with false
memories. Leah Simpson filed the lawsuit in 1995 against therapist
Roger Litwin. She began seeing Litwin in 1986, when she was in her
early 20's. He "treated" her for a supposed MPD (dissociative identity
disorder) condition and she became convinced that she had been raped
by members of a satanic cult and forced to murder and dismember a
baby. She said that for years she was plagued with false memories of
torture and rape and became suicidally depressed, before realizing
that what she thought were long-repressed memories were untrue.
    At trial, jurors learned that an investigation by an insurance
carrier concluded that the patient's diagnosis of dissociative
identity disorder was iatrogenically created. Simpson's lawyer, Peter
Firpo, told jurors that Litwin had violated standards of care because
he ignored literature in the field that cast doubt on multiple
personality disorders and on memories of satanic ritual abuse.
Litwin's attorney, Sharon Hightower, maintained that there was no
proof that Simpson's memories were implanted. She told jurors that
Simpson's suffering was caused by the "natural process of her own
mental disorders." The jury held Simpson to be 35% at fault for what
happened to her, so she will receive 65% of the actual award of
approximately $314,000.

[1] See FMSF Brief Bank #239.
            Minnesota Board Restricts License of Therapist
              Providing Therapy for Satanic Ritual Abuse
           In the Matter of Renee Fredrickson, Ph.D., L.P.
   Before the Minnesota Board of Psychology, License No. LP2653.[1]
On May 7, 1999, the Minnesota Board of Psychology (Board) concluded
its investigation of psychologist Renee Fredrickson[2] and issued a
31-page Order that permanently restricted Fredrickson from providing
therapy that involves issues of cult, ritual, or satanic abuse.
Fredrickson is also restricted from providing hypnosis or guided
imagery services to clients, except under supervision, until she can
demonstrate that she is competent to provide those psychological
services. The Board imposed additional requirements including
completion of a psychological evaluation and course work on
maintaining professional boundaries and in clinical record-keeping.
Fredrickson is to complete a professional responsibility examination
and pay a civil penalty of $15,000. She must petition the Board to
terminate the suspension after completing the conditions imposed in
the disciplinary action.
    The Board summarized the treatment Fredrickson provided from 1987
to 1996 to three of her patients who began to develop images of ritual
satanic abuse, torture, murder, or childhood sexual abuse during the
course of therapy. According to the Board, the treatment included
hypnosis, visualization exercises, having the patient write with her
left hand, and suggesting that the patient write to her "inner child."
The Order states that although the patients expressed skepticism
regarding the purported recovered memories, Fredrickson encouraged
them to believe in the images they were experiencing and continually
reinforced the patients' beliefs that their memories of involvement in
a ritualistic cult were plausible. According to the Board, Fredrickson
failed to inform her patients adequately that "hypnosis can sometimes
result in very vivid memories which are false but which are still
believed" or to warn them of the risks of the techniques she was
    The Board's Stipulation and Order also provided evidence that
Fredrickson had been "providing psychological services to clients when
[her] objectivity and effectiveness were impaired." The Board cited
numerous complaints Fredrickson made to the police about unknown cult
members who were supposedly stalking her as evidence of "possible
mental dysfunction." The Board also found evidence of failure to
maintain boundaries, obtain written informed consent to share private
client information, keep adequate records, and also for engaging in
unprofessional conduct.

[1] See FMSF Brief Bank #236.
[2] Fredrickson is author of the 1992 book, Repressed Memories: A
    Guide to Recovery form Sexual Abuse.
          Bennett Braun Trial Scheduled to Begin in November
A hearing in the case filed by the Illinois Department of Professional
Regulation against prominent psychiatrist Bennett Braun is scheduled
to begin November 16 before an administrative law judge. According to
the Daily Herald (6/10/99), one of Braun's colleagues, Dr. Elva
Poznanski, agreed to testify against Dr. Braun and Roberta Sachs,
another doctor at Rush Presbyterian Hospital in Chicago. In a deal
worked out with the State in June, Poznanski, who originally had been
named in the disciplinary action, agreed to resign as head of the
child psychiatry section at Rush.
    Dr. Braun is suing his former attorney and various insurance
companies. He claims that his career was ruined in 1997 when they
settled a widely publicized malpractice suit against him without his
consent. The lawsuit brought by Patricia Burgus and her two children
was settled out of court for $10.6 million, with $4.75 millionof that
amount assessed to Braun.[1] In the settlement agreement, the
defendant hospital and psychiatrists did not admit negligence. Braun,
58, says the settlement cost him his hospital affiliation and made
malpractice insurance prohibitively expensive. He says the resultant
publicity has scared off patients from his practice. Braun also faces
other malpractice suits and the Illinois Department of Professional
Regulation's investigation that may result in termination of his
medical license.

[1] Patricia Burgus was diagnosed by Dr. Braun in 1986 as suffering
    from MPD. Eventually she was told she possessed 300 personalities,
    the result of purported childhood traumas. Her two young sons,
    ages 4 and 6, were placed in a psychiatric ward for three years
    under Poznanski's care during the period she was still convinced
    that Braun's diagnosis was correct.
  Doggett Civil-Rights Case to Continue Against Wenatchee Defendants
      Schneider, A. (June 21, 1999), Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Sarah Doggett, one of the 60 Wenatchee children supposedly sexually
abused in the mid-1990's, has won the right to sue authorities for
allegedly kidnapping her and forcing her into an Idaho mental
hospital.[1] Doggett, now 20, says her civil rights were violated when
she was "forcibly removed" from a foster home at age 16. She was
repeatedly interviewed by former Wenatchee police detective Robert
Perez, but continued to insist that her parents had never sexually
abused any of their children. According to the Complaint filed in
February 1998, after her denials of having been abused, she was
restrained, involuntarily transported to Idaho, and forced to undergo
treatment at a psychiatric hospital there.
    Doggett's King County Superior Court (WA) case was dismissed
earlier this year when Sarah, who had no attorney, did not respond to
court papers. Subsequently, Seattle lawyers Ronald Meltzer, Mike Rosen
and Lynne Wilson agreed to take her case and had it reinstated. The
defendants include the state Department of Social and Health Services,
the city of Wenatchee, and former detective Perez.

[1] Sarah is the eldest of Mark and Carol Doggett's five children.
    Her parents were swept up in the 1994-1995 Wenatchee child sex
    abuse cases in which 43 adults were accused of nearly 30,000
    counts of rape and molestation involving 60 children.  Sarah's
    parents were each accused of 1,000 counts of child sexual abuse.
    They were convicted of one count each of child rape and were
    sentenced to nearly 11 years in prison. In June 1998, the Doggetts
    were released from prison after an appellate court ruled the state
    failed to introduce evidence supporting the reliability of
    accusations made by one of their children.
                      California Appellate Court
            Upholds Jury Verdict in Repressed-Memory Case
     Wilson v. Phillips, 1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 634, June 30, 1999.
In June 1999, a California appellate court affirmed a jury finding in
favor of two step-sisters who alleged that their father had sexually
molested them as children. The court also held that plaintiffs' expert
testimony was not subject to Kelly-Frye,[1] and was therefore properly
    In doing so, the court characterized the expert testimony as
"little more than run-of-the-mill expert medical opinion" based on
personal evaluations of the plaintiffs. In fact, plaintiffs' expert
Dr. Diana Elliot testified that psychological testing concerning
repressed memories is not helpful (RT 2644:14) and explained that "My
role is to evaluate the consistency of what I'm seeing." (RT
2531:4-14). Elliott also testified that after 7 hours of interviews
with the plaintiffs she had observed a wide range of psychological
difficulties in the plaintiffs and said these were consistent with
someone who had been sexually abused. (RT 2504:13-2507:4,
2516:17-2517:2) The defense did not offer any experts to refute Dr.
Elliot's testimony or to point out that no set of psychological
symptoms or behavioral traits has been shown to be proof of past
sexual abuse.
    The defense had objected to Elliott's testimony on the grounds
that she had no experience in studying the accuracy of facts contained
in repressed memories. The defense also pointed out that Elliot had
admitted that there are respected members of the mental health
community who disagree with her views The trial court denied the
defense request to hold a Kelly-Frye hearing to determine whether the
theory of repressed memory is generally accepted in the scientific
community, but said that the defense could cross-examine Elliot or
call experts of their own. Apparently the appellate court felt that
those safeguards were sufficient to avoid "blindsiding" the jury.
    The court's discussion of scientific findings was surprisingly
narrow. The court held that only expert testimony based on "a new
scientific technique" or "novel devices or processes" requires proof
of reliability and is subject to the Kelly-Frye test. It said that
scientific evidence or technology, but not conclusions in the field of
psychology, is foreign to jurors' everyday experience. The court also
suggested that many laypersons ascribe an "aura of infallibility" to
evidence from a mechanism, instrument, or procedure, but are likely to
be naturally skeptical of opinion testimony.
    Many legal observers have questioned the quality of some
psychiatric testimony -- particularly evidence regarding repressed
memories. Precisely because such testimony is capable of misleading a
jury, courts in other jurisdictions have applied the Frye or Daubert
standards to recovered memory testimony and have found it lacking.

[1] The Kelly-Frye rule refers to the California case, People v.
     Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24 (1976), that clearly outlined the application
     of Frye v. United States, 293 F.1013 (D.C. Cir., 1923) to the
     question of the reliability of novel testimony.
         Colorado Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Lawsuit
      Ayon v. Gourley,1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14199, June 25, 1999.
The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court affirmed dismissal of a lawsuit accusing
a Denver priest of sexual assault, holding that his accuser waited too
long to file the complaint. The facts of the case generated much
attention in the state. Thirty independent religious organizations
submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the defendant.
    The suit, brought in 1997 by John Dean Ayon, 32, against Rev.
Marshall Gourley, alleged sexual assault from 1981 to 1984 when Ayon
was a teenager who sought counseling from the priest. In amended
complaints, Ayon alleged an additional incident in 1993, four years
before filing. He subsequently alleged that the abuse continued from
the 1980's through 1993. Ayon did not claim he had repressed his
memories, instead he contended that awareness of his injury came to
him in 1997 after he began treatment with a psychotherapist.  Rev.
Gourley denied the accusations.
    The trial court held that Ayon, a graduate of Harvard Law School
and now a practicing attorney, should have known in the 1980's that he
had been injured by the alleged sexual assaults. The deadline for
filing such a lawsuit depends on when the victim became aware of any
injuries. The trial court said that "the idea that a person of
plaintiff's background and education could be aware of such events and
his own troubled psychological state and not tie them together is
inconceivable as a matter of law." The Tenth Circuit questioned
"plaintiff's inability to explain why he waited three months before
seeking to add facts known to him at the time he filed his initial
complaint" and found "evidence of bad faith." The court said that
plaintiff's acknowledgments show that he knew the wrongfulness of the
alleged abuse. As such, the court concluded that "a reasonable
plaintiff of nineteen [would] have known the wrongfulness of the

[1] The Tenth Circuit also refused to reconsider a 1991 Colorado
    appellate case, Cassidy v. Smith, 817 P.2d 555 (Colo. App., 1991),
    noting that "plaintiff provides no authority that would call
    Cassidy into question."

                   F R O M   O U R   R E A D E R S
The Newsletter for June 1999 (Vol.8, No.4) contains a book review that
is troublesome. The review is of a book, Madness on the Couch: Blaming
the Victim in the Heyday of Psychoanalysis by Edward Dolnick and the
reviewer was Robert McKelvey. By publishing the review without
editorial comment, it may appear to readers that FMSF endorses the
ideas of Dolnick and the comments of McKelvey without reservation.
    While Freud-bashing is now a popular sport, that is not what
really concerns me. What does concern me are Dolnick's statements that
amount to an attack on psychotherapy. "Today most psychiatrists
believe mental illnesses are caused by biological factors, not
emotional ones. Once again, nature reigns over nurture." This is a
gross oversimplification of complex phenomena, and would imply that
there is no place for "talk therapy" (psychotherapy). Every
psychological event with accompanying emotions such as fear, guilt,
hope, joy has a neurosubstrate and biological events at the molecular
level may have cognitive, emotional or behavioral consequences. To
dichotomize between biology and psychology, between nature and nurture
leads to a serious misunderstanding of human thoughts, feelings and
behavior, and to a serious misunderstanding of therapy for mental
disorders. Emotional illness has psychological and biological facets.
Causation is not linear; it is circular.
    In his attempt to express the dangers of "repressed memory
theory," the reviewer of the book makes it look as if those who are
opposed to recovered memory therapy are opposed also to all of
psychotherapy, opposed to "talk therapists." It is important to
differentiate between psychotherapy abuses such as recovered-memory
therapy and good and effective psychotherapy that can be carried out
without recourse to the special techniques of aggressively going after
alleged events from one's past. (See, for example, "Psychotherapy
without Repressed Memory: A Parsimonious Alternative Based on
Contemporary Memory Research" by George A. Bonanno and David J. Keuler
in Truth in Memory, edited by Steven Jay Lynne and Kevin M. McConkey,
New York, Guilford, 1998, pages 437-463). To use an old cliche, we
must be careful not to throw the baby out with the dirty bath water.
                                                  Harold I. Lief, M.D.
                                                   FMSF Advisory Board
                       The Problem is Not Over
I am concerned with recent newsletters expressing the notion that
everything is better now. Let me assure you that the FMSF is still
important and the work is necessary. We lost two of our daughters to
this lunatic therapy just last year.
    The Jan/Feb newsletter started "No one called in tears." You may
be correct that no one called, but that doesn't mean there weren't
thousands in tears. We certainly were, as it was our first Christmas
without our entire family. In the March newsletter, "The FMS problem
no longer seems a crisis" may be true, but only to those who aren't
dealing with it every day. There are still therapists creating crises
with recovered-memory therapy. The April/May newsletter mentioned that
the New Zealand FMS Group was disbanding and I was saddened even
though I have no connection to NZ.
    I believe the reason for fewer calls is due to the work you have
done in making people aware of the FMS problem and the many books,
videos, etc that are now available. Please continue and you will
always have our support. Thank you!
                                                         A Mom and Dad
                        A Returner via E-mail
After almost 8 years, our family's travail might be coming to a happy
ending. Our daughter sent me an E-mail greeting card last
Thanksgiving, and we have been E-mailing each other ever since, but
avoiding the subject of R.M.T. Then, this past April, she sent me a
beautiful poem on friendship and wrote: "This poem about friendship is
meant for a friend but since I always considered you my best friend, I
thought I'd forward it to you. If this surprises you, let me know and
I will explain further."
    I felt that she was trying to open a door again, so I answered her
with a short note, thanking her for the poem and adding: "Not only did
your statement surprise me, but I was baffled by it. Yes, please
    I received a return letter from her which basically was talking
about all the things we used to do together and how she felt we were
best friends and even though we had our differences in the past 7
years, she had learned that she sees things her way and we see things
our way and that's O.K. In other words, we could agree to disagree!
She also added that if we couldn't see the positive in our
relationship and get past the negative, then we'd have to go back to
the way things used to be, which was not to communicate on AOL
anymore. My husband and I could not believe what we were reading. To
us, it seemed like an ultimatum: we either forget everything that
happened, pick up where we left off without any kind of apologies or
accountability for what she had done, or else stop communicating. In
just about every FMSF newsletter we have been receiving in the past
year or so, there are letters from parents that accept this kind of
"returnee" without any retraction from their adult child. This might
be OK for some parents, but we have never agreed with this. Even the
prodigal son in the Bible had some remorse and I have always believed
that God will forgive you for your sins, yes, but only if you are
    My husband and I both answered her and let her know that we both
still loved her but her accusations were quite a bit more than a
simple disagreement. I let her know how much hurt she had caused us
and how a best friend doesn't do what she had done. I ended the
letter by saying: "For any kind of a relationship to work, there has
to be some honesty and trust as its main components. I don't feel that
we have that right now but with time, I think it could be restored. It
is really up to you." We didn't know how she would respond and if she
would get upset to the point of stopping our E-mail communications but
we had to be honest. To us there is no other way.
    We were pleasantly surprised that she continued communicating and
2 weeks after we sent our letters, she wrote to tell us that she
wasn't trying to ignore our letters but a lot was happening in her
life at the time and she would answer us soon. This was 6 weeks ago
and just this past Thursday, she E-mailed us a beautiful card again
and promised that she would write soon. She also told us that she
wanted to get this resolved, that she had never stopped loving us and
how much she missed us. She said she was confused about a lot of
things and also had a lot of questions.
    We are waiting for her letter to see where the confusion is and
what her questions are. I really believe that there is a lot of hope
                                                           FMSF Parent
            Top Ten Reasons for Seniors to "Get Connected"
Many senior citizens (which includes most of us falsely-accused) do
not yet think of themselves as potential PC users. Pam Freyd and I
talked one day about a common dream that more of our members should be
"connected to the Internet." She asked me to put together an article
explaining why this is something more of you should think about
doing. Here goes!
    1. Seeing Is Believing-As we get older, many functions are not as
agile. Sometimes our handwriting becomes illegible. A PC-written
letter can resolve that for us and be not only legible but in large
print for our failing eyesight. When we receive an e-mail or other
online article, we can enlarge and print it for ease in reading at a
time when the computer is off. In fact, Peter Freyd sends this
newsletter electronically to all who desire it. If you got this
newsletter on your PC, you could easily view it in large print on the
screen or print it out in even larger print.
    2. The Hand Is Quicker than the Eye (or Ear) -- My Mom had a
stroke and was totally unable to shuffle a deck of cards to play her
favorite game-solitaire. I introduced her to the PC version of
solitaire -- she not only learned and enjoyed playing it again, she
also learned how to use the mouse and eventually was able to get
around on the computer at her own pace. (Solitaire is probably the
best tool and a fun and easy way to get comfortable with the mouse and
the computer.)
    OK, you say, "I can't use my fingers very well" or "I never
learned to type." That does not leave you out of the computer world.
Most computers today come with speakers and/or microphones. You can
hear what's going on right from the computer directly through your
speakers. When you want to respond to an e-mail you received, you can
correspond orally thru your microphone and send the sound file. Some
computer programs take the sound of your voice and translate it into
written words.
    3. Write When the Idea Hits You -- I frequently wake at 2:00 in
the morning with a "light bulb" idea. It's wonderful to go on my
computer and pound out my thoughts while they are still fresh and send
them immediately. The phone doesn't ring at the other end so I'm not
disturbing someone in the middle of the night. They might wake at 4:00
a.m. and go online and hear "You've Got Mail!," read what I just wrote
them, quickly send a message back to me, or pass that same information
on to all the people they want to with just a few keystrokes.
(Remember, this my dream so, of course my ideas are so great you'll
want to send them out to everyone!.)
    4. Open the World Without Opening Your Door -- Learn what's going
on out in the world without leaving your home. Read all news online.
Many newspapers are available online. You can sign up to get
information on the specific subjects you are interested in, including
what's happening with other FMS families. Updates on those particular
subjects can pop up immediately when you sign on.
    5. Keep in Touch (or get in touch) with your family. It's a safe
bet that most of your children (accusing or not) are computer literate
and would be able to quickly correspond with you through e-mail. Those
still in touch with you may live far away, but when their baby
arrives, they can immediately send you a picture of your new
grandchild and you can send an online greeting card back immediately.
You can bring up that list of all your buddies at the senior center
and proudly e-mail that same picture.
    Your accusing children are probably online. Sometimes, you can
find their e-mail addresses or a sibling may know it and be able to
forward your e-mails to them without even revealing their online
address to you. This might help to establish communication in a
non-threatening environment and allow the non-accusing sibling to help
without violating the promises they may have been forced to make with
the accusing sibling.
    What you write on the PC can be reviewed by you before you send it
out. Other FMS parents, siblings, or recanters can give you
perspective on how it might be received by your accusing child. That
gives you the opportunity to think your thoughts through, hear other
viewpoints on its impact and finally send a comprehensive,
well-thought-out communication.
    6. Save Money -- You can save money on your phone bill by
e-mailing instead of phoning. You can write a few words to a thousand
page letter and send it by e-mail to anywhere in the world at
virtually the same cost. Although you will pay local phone costs while
you are connected online, you can do most of your typing offline and
send in just seconds. The same is true for reading your mail.
    Many computers now come with software that allows you to use your
computer as an answering machine. If so, you can discontinue the cost
of voice mail and save that money for your online costs.
    Many computer websites offer great opportunities to go shopping
online and get some real bargains at online shopping malls, auction
sites, etc. Pay all your bills thru your computer and save the postage
stamps. Every day, new possibilities emerge.
    7. Get the Computer for Next to Nothing. -- Yes, and I don't sell
swampland in another life , but I can let you know about a deal or two
-- a) many senior centers and/or libraries have online computers
available for your use, particularly during the daytime hours when the
younger people are not making demands on their access; b) used
computers are available for low costs (but just make sure they are Y2K
compatible); c) funds are available from government and charitable
organizations to provide computers for those with disabilities; and d)
a recent article in the Wall Street Journal stated, "America Online
and Prodigy communications are about to make consumers an offer they
may find hard to refuse: Sign up for Internet access and get a
personal computer free. AOL is teaming with eMachines, Inc., an Irvine
California Manufacturer of low-cost PCs. Their plan is, in effect to
give away computers to anyone who signs up for CompuServe service.
AOL will pay a $400 rebate to consumers who buy selected eMachines
models -- including one priced at $399, making the machine effectively
free. Executives at Prodigy, an AOL rival, say it will announce a
similar offer." "To receive the AOL rebate, a consumer might sign up
for three years of unlimited Internet access from CompuServe at $21.95
per month that works out to $790.20 over the three-year agreement."
    8. Fight Fire with Fire -- You know that the "other side"(the
young and the restless) are very much connected. Many of us who have
been online have checked out the many internet sites that we know were
the source or our children's misled views. We are even able to go
online and express our views through chat rooms. The FMS Foundation,
Illinois FMS Society and many other state organizations have or are
developing "websites," places where you can read about the latest
information and keep up-to-date on what is happening. Once you know
what's going on, you can easily become an activist in the movement
again without even leaving your home.
    You can keep up to date on the legislative proposals made by other
FMS proponents or made by those opposing us. Once you know what's
being proposed, you have the immediate capability of expressing your
viewpoint on it directly thru e-mail to your legislators, newspapers
and to others you want to encourage to support your views about such
    9. Have Fun!!! -- Learning and using the computer can be great
fun. If you're retired, it gives you a real connection with many other
retirees, with the world in general and becomes a great hobby. You can
do genealogy research, correspond with people you already know or meet
new people in Chat Rooms, play games online, the choices are endless.
I'm frequently pounding my keyboard with messages for my grandchildren
to read. I now know their e-mail addresses and can correspond with
them without parental interference. They think that makes Grandma
pretty cool.
    10. Empowerment -- Last, but not least, having such a powerful
tool available in your home gives you a feeling of growth and
self-sufficiency. You can communicate with the world, the small world
of your immediate family as well as the world wide web. You can write
that letter to the editor or make a contribution to the FMSF
newsletter. Don't get fooled by the adage you can't teach an old dog
new tricks. There are computer groups for seniors popping up all over
at senior centers, libraries, etc. It is one of the fastest growing
segments of computer purchasers.
    Of course, you can tell I am "hooked" on computers. I'm just
waiting for the appropriate hardware and software that will help me
dust my furniture, vacuum my floors, cook my meals, etc. (Oops, there
I go dreaming again.
    I sure hope I've convinced some of you take a to look at the
possibilities a PC connection can give you. If (or perhaps I should
say, when) you do get online, drop me a note at I'll
be delighted to hear from you.
                                               Pretty Cool Grandmother

*                           N O T I C E S                            *
*                                                                    *
*               Annual Meeting of Illinois FMS Society               *
*                       Sunday October 3, 1999                       *
*                         9:00 AM to 5:30 PM                         *
*               6:00 PM "Dutch" dinner at hotel Atrium               *
*                                                                    *
*                     DoubleTree Hotel, Glenview                     *
*                         1400 Milwaukee Ave                         *
*                      Glenview, IL  60025-1400                      *
*                            Salon A,B.C                             *
*              Tel: (847) 803-9800  Fax: (847) 803-8026              *
*                                                                    *
*                            Highlights:                             *
*          Keynote Presentation by AUGUST T. PIPER Jr. M.D.          *
*               "What it takes to reunite the family"                *
*                                                                    *
*                          REINDER van TIL                           *
*                     "Culture of Victimization"                     *
*                                                                    *
*                         Forum Discussion:                          *
* "How can professionals assist the process of reuniting families?"  *
*       Carolyn Saari, Ph.D.; Larry Koziewski,                       *
*     Representatives of the Illinois Psychological Association      *
*                and the Illinois Psychiatric Society                *
*                                                                    *
*                                FREE                                *
*             "Recovered Memories: Are They Reliable?"               *
*     Call or write the FMS Foundation for pamphlets. Be sure to     *
*     include your address and the number of pamphlets you need.     *
*                                                                    *
*              FREUD'S FRAUDULENT STORIES OF SEDUCTION               *
*                                                                    *
* According to psychoanalytic history many of Freud's women patients *
* in the 1890s reported having been "seduced" by their fathers, and  *
* his recognition that most of these reports were fantasies led to   *
* the momentous discovery of infantile fantasies -- Oedipal desires  *
* and all the rest. Not so, says Jeffrey Masson: Freud's change of   *
* mind about the reports of childhood sexual abuse was a             *
* disreputable betrayal of his abused female patients. But the       *
* evidence of the original documents reveals that both accounts are  *
* wrong: it was Freud himself who insisted that the patients had     *
* been sexually molested in infancy in the face of the disbelief of  *
* his patients.                                                      *
*                                                                    *
*        If you want to separate fact from fiction, visit the        *
*                                                                    *
*                     SEDUCTION THEORY WEB SITE:                     *
*                                                                    *
*        *
*                                                                    *
*                        THERAPY'S DELUSIONS:                        *
*                  THE MYTH OF THE UNCONSCIOUS AND                   *
*                  Ethan Watters and Richard Ofshe                   *
*                 Scribner  1999  ISBN 0-684-83584-3                 *
*                     287 pages  $25.00 hardback                     *
*                                                                    *
* This new book by the authors of "Making Monsters" reveals how talk *
* therapy has masquaraded as a scientific discipline. It is a        *
* powerful call for reforming the mental health profession.          *
*                                See:                                *
*            *
*                                                                    *
*                       EXPLORING THE INTERNET                       *
*                                                                    *
*       A new web site of interest to FMSF Newsletter readers:       *
*                             *
*             Useful information on this site includes:              *
*                                                                    *
* * Phone numbers of professional regulatory boards in all 50        *
*   states.                                                          *
*                                                                    *
* * Links for e-mailing the American Psychiatric Association, the    *
*   American Psychological Association, the American Medical         *
*   Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.     *
*                                                                    *
* * Lists of online and printed resources: links, articles, books    *
*                                                                    *
*                         Are you on E-mail?                         *
*               If we don't have your e-mail address,                *
*                         please send it to                          *
*                                            *
*                                                                    *
*       A new web site of interest to FMSF Newsletter readers:       *
*                             *
*                                                                    *
*             Useful information on this site includes:              *
*                   Phone numbers of professional                    *
*                regulatory boards in all 50 states.                 *
*                        Links for e-mailing:                        *
*                  American Psychiatric Association                  *
*                 American Psychological Association                 *
*                    American Medical Association                    *
*              National Association of Social Workers.               *
*               Lists of online and printed resources:               *
*                   links, articles, books,videos.                   *
*                      Ideas for taking action.                      *
*             Retractor stories from Victims of Memory.              *
*                                                                    *
*                          ESTATE PLANNING                           *
*                 If you have questions about how to                 *
*             include the FMSF in your estate planning,              *
*               contact Charles Caviness 800-289-9060.               *
*            (Available 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.)            *
*                                                                    *
*                                 *
*       is the address of the website that FMSF is developing.       *
*            All past newsletters are now available here.            *
*    (The site now has transcripts of many of the therapy session    *
*            tapes presented in evidence at the trial of             *
*                      U.S.A. v Peterson et al                       *
*                                                                    *
*                           Now Available                            *
*                                                                    *
* #274 Pope, H.G. et al. "Attitudes Toward DSM-IV Dissociative       *
* Disorders Diagnoses Among Board-Certified American Psychiatrists." *
* American Journal of Psychiatry 156:2 February 1999                 *
*                                                                    *
* Survey finds that among board-certified American psychiatrists,    *
* there currently appears to be little consensus regarding the       *
* diagnostic status or scientific validity of dissociative amnesia   *
* and dissociative identity disorder. $1.50                          *
*                                                                    *
* #844 Hungerford v. Jones "Decision: New Hampshire Supreme Court."  *
* December 18, 1998.                                                 *
*                                                                    *
* New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a therapist does owe a duty  *
* to the accused person when diagnosing and treating an aldult       *
* patient for sexual abuse, noting that serious, foreseeable injury  *
* can result from misdiagnosis. $3.00                                *
                F M S    B U L L E T I N    B O A R D
     Key: (MO)-monthly; (bi-MO)-bi-monthly; (*)-see Notices above

Contacts & Meetings:

  Kathleen (907) 337-7821
  Barbara (602) 924-0975; 854-0404(fax)
  Little Rock
        Al & Lela (870) 363-4368
        Joanne & Gerald (916) 933-3655
  San Francisco & North Bay - (bi-MO)
        Gideon (415) 389-0254 or
        Charles 984-6626(am); 435-9618(pm)
  East Bay Area - (bi-MO)
        Judy (925) 376-8221
  South Bay Area 
        Jack & Pat (831) 425-1430
  Central Coast
        Carole (805) 967-8058
  Central Orange County - 1st Fri. (MO) @ 7pm
        Chris & Alan (714) 733-2925
  Orange County
        Jerry and Eileen (909) 659-9636
  Covina Area - 1st Mon. (MO) @7:30pm
        Floyd & Libby (626) 330-2321
  San Diego Area 
        Dee (619) 941-4816
  Colorado Springs
        Doris (719) 488-9738
  S. New England
        Earl (203) 329-8365 or
        Paul (203) 458-9173
        Madeline (954) 966-4FMS
  Boca/Delray  - 2nd & 4th Thurs (MO) @1pm
        Helen (407) 498-8684
  Central Florida - Please call for mtg. time
        John & Nancy (352) 750-5446
  Tampa Bay Area
        Bob & Janet (813) 856-7091
        Wallie & Jill (770) 971-8917
  Carolyn (808) 261-5716
  Chicago & Suburbs - 1st Sun. (MO)
        Eileen (847) 985-7693 or
        Liz & Roger (847) 827-1056
        Bryant & Lynn (309) 674-2767
  Indiana Assn. for Responsible Mental Health Practices
        Nickie (317) 471-0922; fax (317) 334-9839
        Pat (219) 482-2847
  Des Moines - 2nd Sat. (MO) @11:30 am Lunch
        Betty & Gayle (515) 270-6976
  Kansas City - 2nd Sun. (MO)
        Pat (785) 738-4840
  Louisville- Last Sun. (MO) @ 2pm
        Bob (502) 367-1838
        Francine (318) 457-2022
        Irvine & Arlene (207) 942-8473
  Freeport -  4th Sun. (MO)
        Carolyn  (207) 364-8891
   Ellicot City Area
        Margie (410) 750-8694
   Andover - 2nd Sun. (MO) @ 1pm
        Frank (978) 263-9795
  Grand Rapids Area-Jenison - 1st Mon. (MO)
        Bill & Marge (616) 383-0382
  Greater Detroit Area - 3rd Sun. (MO)
        Nancy (248) 642-8077
  Ann Arbor
        Martha (734) 439-8119
        Terry & Collette (507) 642-3630
        Dan & Joan (651) 631-2247
  Kansas City  -  Meeting as called
        Pat (785) 738-4840
        Jan (816) 931-1340
  St. Louis Area  -  call for meeting time
        Karen (314) 432-8789
        Mae (314) 837-1976
  Springfield - 4th Sat. (MO) @12:30pm
        Tom (417) 883-8617
        Roxie (417) 781-2058
  Lee & Avone (406) 443-3189
  See Wayne, PA
  Albuquerque  -2nd Sat. (MO) @1 pm
  Southwest Room - Presbyterian Hospital
        Maggie (505) 662-7521 (after 6:30 pm)
        Sy (505) 758-0726
  Westchester, Rockland, etc.
        Barbara (914) 761-3627
  Upstate/Albany Area
        Elaine (518) 399-5749
  Susan (704) 538-7202
        Bob (513) 541-0816 or (513) 541-5272
        Bob & Carole (440) 888-7963
  Oklahoma City
        Dee (405) 942-0531
        HJ (405) 755-3816
        John (503) 297-7719
        Paul & Betty (717) 691-7660
        Rick & Renee (412) 563-5509
        John (717) 278-2040
  Wayne (includes S. NJ) - 2nd Sat. (MO)
        Jim & Jo (610) 783-0396
  Nashville - Wed. (MO) @1pm
        Kate (615) 665-1160
        Jo or Beverly (713) 464-8970
   El Paso
        Mary Lou (915) 591-0271
        Keith (801) 467-0669
        Judith (802) 229-5154
        Sue (703) 273-2343
   See Oregon
        Pat (304) 291-6448
        Katie & Leo (414) 476-0285 or
        Susanne & John (608) 427-3686

  Vancouver & Mainland 
        Ruth (604) 925-1539
  Victoria & Vancouver Island - 3rd Tues. (MO) @7:30pm
        John (250) 721-3219
        Joan (204) 284-0118
  London -2nd Sun (bi-MO)
        Adriaan (519) 471-6338
        Eileen (613) 836-3294
  Toronto /N. York
        Pat (416) 444-9078
        Ethel (705) 924-2546
        Ken & Marina (905) 637-6030
        Paula (705) 692-0600
        Alain (514) 335-0863
  St. Andre Est.
        Mavis (450) 537-8187
        Mike 0754-842-348 
         fax 0754-841-051 
  FMS ASSOCIATION fax-(972) 2-625-9282 
  Task Force FMS of Werkgroep Fictieve 
        Anna (31) 20-693-5692
        Colleen (09) 416-7443
        Ake Moller FAX (48) 431-217-90
  The British False Memory Society
        Madeline (44) 1225 868-682

          Deadline for the September Newsletter is August 15
                  Meeting notices MUST be in writing 
    and should be sent no later than TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO 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". It would be useful, but |
| not necessary,  if you add your full name (all addresses and names |
| will remain strictly confidential).                                |
  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.

Pamela Freyd, Ph.D.,  Executive Director

FMSF Scientific and Professional  Advisory Board,         July 1, 1999

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 Wiscon-
sin, 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; FRED H. FRANKEL, MBChB, DPM, Harvard University Medi-
cal School,  Boston MA;  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, Phila-
delphia,  PA;  ELIZABETH LOFTUS, Ph.D., University of Washington, Sea-
tle, WA; SUSAN L. McELROY, M.D., University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,
OH; PAUL McHUGH, M.D., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; HAROLD
MERSKEY, D.M., University of Western Ontario, London, Canada;  SPENCER
HARRIS  MORFIT,  Author,  Westford, MA;  ULRIC NEISSER, Ph.D., Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.; RICHARD OFSHE, Ph.D., University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley, CA;  EMILY CAROTA ORNE, B.A., University of Pennsylvan-
ia, Philadelphia, PA; MARTIN ORNE, M.D., Ph.D., University of Pennsyl-
vania, 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,  Boston,  MA;  JAMES RANDI,
Author  and  Magician, Plantation, FL;  HENRY L. ROEDIGER, III, Ph.D.,
Washington  University,  St. Louis, MO;  CAROLYN SAARI, Ph.D.,  Loyola
University,  Chicago, IL;  THEODORE SARBIN, Ph.D., University of Cali-
fornia,  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;  CHARLES A. WEAVER, III, Ph.D.  Baylor Uni-
versity, Waco, TX.

   Y E A R L Y   FMSF   M E M B E R S H I P   I N F O R M A T I O N
Professional - Includes Newsletter       $125_______

Family - Includes Newsletter             $100_______

                       Additional Contribution:_____________


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

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

___Check or Money Order: Payable to FMS FOUNDATION IN U.S. DOLLARS.



Street Address or P.O.Box

City                                 State         Zip+4

Telephone                           FAX

*  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.

              V I D E O   T A P E   O R D E R   F O R M
               ``W H E N   M E M O R I E S   L I E...
              T H E   R U T H E R F O R D   F A M I L Y
                S P E A K S   T O   F A M I L I E S''

Mail Order To:
  FMSF Video
  Rt. 1 Box 510
  Burkeville, TX 75932

                                   DATE:   /   /

Ordered By:                        Ship to:

Please type or print information:
| QUANT- |  #  |            DESCRIPTION             | UNIT  | AMOUNT |
|  ITY   |     |                                    | PRICE |        |
|        | 444 | The Rutherford Family              | 10.00 |        |
|        |     |               Speaks to Families   |       |        |
                                                   SUBTOTAL |        |
                                                            |        |
                                    ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION |        |
                                                            |        |
                                                  TOTAL DUE |        |
                                                            |        |

U.S. Shipping & packaging charges are included in the 
price of the video.

  Canada                $4.00 per tape
  All other countries  $10.00 per tape.

Allow two to three weeks for delivery. Made all checks payable to FMS
Foundation. If you have any questions concerning this order, call
Benton, 409-565-4480.

The tax deductible portion of your contribution is the excess of goods
and services provided.

                     THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST