FMSF NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE - November 1, 1997 - Vol. 6, No. 10, HTML version

Return to FMSF Home Page

ISSN #1069-0484.           Copyright (c) 1997  by  the  FMS Foundation
    The FMSF Newsletter is published 10 times a year by the  False
    Memory  Syndrome  Foundation.  A hard-copy subscription is in-
    cluded in membership fees (to join, see last page). Others may
    subscribe  by  sending  a  check  or  money  order, payable to 
    FMS Foundation, to the address below. 1994 subscription rates:
    USA: 1 year $30,  Student $15;  Canada: $35 (in U.S. dollars);
    Foreign: $40;  Foreign  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
  FMS News
    Royal College of Psychiatry Recommendations
      Focus on Science
        Legal Corner                            Notice: 
          Book Review                     January/February 1998 
            Make a Difference            will be combined issue
              From Our Readers
                Bulletin Board

Dear Friends,

  After a 3-month embargo, the prestigious British Royal College of
Psychiatrists on October 1, 1997 issued its recommendations on
"Reported Recovered Memories of Child Sexual Abuse." A key paragraph:

  Psychiatrists are advised to avoid engaging in any "memory recovery
  techniques" which are based upon the expectation of past sexual
  abuse of which the patient has no memory. Such "memory recovery
  techniques" may include drug-mediated interviews, hypnosis,
  regression therapies, guided imagery, "body memories," literal dream
  interpretation and journaling. There is no evidence that the use of
  consciousness-altering techniques, such as drug-mediated interviews
  or hypnosis, can reveal or accurately elaborate factual information
  about any past experiences including childhood sexual abuse.
  Techniques of regression therapy including "age regression" and
  hypnotic regression are of unproven effectiveness.
              The College Psychiatric Bulletin (1997), 21, 663-665

  The Royal College is the first professional organization to address
the issue of the rights of families. The College noted that:

  Once the accusation is taken outside the consulting room, especially
  if any question of confrontation or public accusation arises, there
  can rarely be any justification for refusal to allow a member of the
  therapeutic team to meet family members.

  There would never have been an FMS Foundation if those with new
memories and their therapists had been willing to talk to family
members prior to making accusations public. The cruelty of accusing
parents and then not allowing them to defend themselves is a hallmark
of the FMS phenomenon.
  We have reprinted the entire Royal College Recommendations in this
issue. This statement may be the most powerful tool yet that has been
put in the hands of families. Use that tool. Disseminate it widely.
  We have been asked if the professional organizations in this country
will follow in like manner. Sadly, their past behavior gives us little
reason to believe that they will. Far too many of the members of those
organizations are engaged in the very practices that are problematic.
They drag American professional organizations to a low common
denominator rather than to soar to the highest standard of
professional practice. We would be delighted to be proved wrong.
  Mental health professionals abdicated their responsibility for the
dangerous practices of memory recovery and now the courts are sorting
out the problems. "At present, mental health professionals are in the
precarious position of losing control of their own profession," states
Alan Scheflin in his description of his presentation at the
International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies in Montreal in
November. His description also notes that "Almost 1,000 lawsuits are
now pending against dissociative disorder and trauma therapists." We
do not know the source or accuracy of that figure, but we do know that
the increasing number of lawsuits is undermining the credibility of
the whole profession.
  Month after month in this newsletter we have printed the details of
lawsuits brought against therapists by former patients because of
memory-recovery techniques-each technique more outrageous than the
last. Burgus v Braun, scheduled to start trial on November 3, is one
of the most important of these cases. Readers may recall details of
this case from the Frontline documentary on November 2, 1994 called
"The Search for Satan." Among other things, Patty Burgus's sons John
and Mikey, ages 5 and 4, were admitted to the children's psychiatric
ward and kept there for several years. Dr. Braun told the family that
the boys might be genetically predisposed to multiple personality
disorder. Therapy for the Burgus family ended when the $3 million
insurance expired.
  While many people try to dismiss the problems of memory-recovery
techniques as being done by just a minority of poorly trained
therapists, this case involves Rush Presbyterian Hospital in Chicago,
a prestigious teaching hospital. Dr. Braun is one of the best known
psychiatrists specializing in dissociative disorders. He served as
President of the International Society for the Study of
Dissociation. Because of Braun's belief in an intergenerational
satanic conspiracy and in the ability of hypnosis and sodium amytal to
aid in the recovery of historically accurate memories, Burgus v Braun
is vivid evidence that the extreme practices of memory-recovery
techniques are found in the mainstream of American psychiatry and
psychology. American professional organizations have wrestled with
balancing the self-interest of their membership and protecting the
public. On the issue of recovered memory techniques, we believe the
public is losing.
  On the one hand, so many important things seem to have been
accomplished that we can say "the tide has turned." On the other hand,
it seems that we cannot yet step back and sigh with relief. The
beliefs that encompass memory-recovery practices are endemic. They are
  As just one example, this month we received a copy of a New York
State proposed Senate Bill to extend the statute of limitations in
civil cases for certain sex offense cases. Its stated purpose is: "To
recognize that children who are victims of sexual abuse often suffer
from REPRESSED MEMORY SYNDROME." (Emphasis added.) Children who are
victims of sexual abuse, physical abuse or neglect may suffer from
many things. It does them no service, however, to say they suffer from
something for which there is no scientific evidence. Discredited
memory recovery techniques do not help children.
  There is still much work to be done if we are to maintain the gains
that have been made in understanding the scientific issues that are at
the heart of claims of repressed memory syndrome and memory-recovery
techniques. With each passing month we get new tools: books,
professional statements, legal decisions. Tools are useless if they
just sit. Each caring person must put those tools to work. Our
children deserve nothing less.
/                                                                    \ 
|                     HAVE YOU MADE YOUR PLEDGE?                     |
|                                                                    |
| Have you made your contribution to the Foundation's annual         |
| fundraising drive? If not, please take a few minutes to think how  |
| professionals now recognize what false memory syndrome is and how  |
| it devastates families. If you are one of those families, try to   |
| imagine what it would have been like if there had been no one to   |
| call. Without your support, affected families, former patients,    |
| professionals, and the media will have no place to turn. Please be |
| generous. Whatever you are able to contribute is deeply            |
| appreciated. To those who have already returned your pledge card,  |
| our thanks for helping to ensure that those who need the           |
| Foundation's help will continue to receive it.                     |

     |                      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,               |
     |                          Howard Fishman, Peter Freyd     |
     |  RESEARCH: Merci Federici, Michele Gregg, Anita Lipton   |
     |  NOTICES and PRODUCTION: Ric Powell                      |
     |  COLUMNISTS: Katie Spanuello and                         |
     |      members of the FMSF Scientific Advisory Board       |
     |  LETTERS and INFORMATION: Our Readers                    |

                            F M S  N E W S
 American Psychological Assn. Reaffirms FMSF as an Approved Provider 
          of Continuing Education for Five Additional Years
The American Psychological Association through its Education
Directorate has informed the Foundation that its application to
continue as an approved provider of continuing education for
psychologists has met the criteria for full approval. Full approval
for five years was granted after the Foundation successfully completed
the two-year preliminary approval period. The Committee for the
Approval of Continuing Education has the responsibility for reviewing
applications and requires the applicant to address any shortcomings
that they may observe during the preliminary approval status. The
Foundation is permitted to use the following statement on its
promotional material: "False Memory Syndrome Foundation is approved by
the American Psychological Association to offer continuing education
for psychologists. False Memory Syndrome Foundation maintains
responsibility for the program."
                       A Special Kind of Logic
                  Globe and Mail, September 16,1997 
                             Robert Matas
A British Columbia woman was wrongly accused by an anonymous caller of
killing a person 34 years ago. The B.C. Ministry for Children and
Families accepts that the information was incorrect, but they refuse
to remove the woman's name from its registry. They will add a note
saying that the report is false.
  The logic? The ministry officials claim that the file reflects an
accurate record of the anonymous caller's report.
             Families Fight Clinic on False Memory Slurs
                   Mail on Sunday, October 19, 1997
                             Fidelma Cook
The first case of an accused family bringing legal proceedings against
a clinic for the use of memory recovery techniques has received much
publicity in Great Britain. Katrina Fairlie accused her father and 17
other men, including two MPs, of abuse and even claimed that her
father, Jim, had beaten a six-year-old girl to death in front of her.
Police quickly launched an investigations but there was no truth to
any of her allegations.
  Five other families have now joined Mr. Fairlie and are ready to
testify against the Murray Royal Hospital in Perth, Scotland. All five
families want an inquiry into the treatment provided by the clinic
Gigal, a psychiatric annex of Murray Royal.
  The Fairlie's have four other children ages 30 to 35 who were told
that they would put their sister's life at risk if they told their
father. Eventually they did confront him and the Fairlies began the
fight to clear his name. Katrina was moved to another hospital and she
decided that nothing had been done wrong to her as a child.
  Jim Fairlie says that he is fighting because "I must right a wrong,
to name people who were prepared to see a family destroyed rather than
admit they had made a mistake."
      Psychologist With Suspended License Still Seeing Patients
            Idaho Falls Post Register, September 20, 1997
                             Mike Barenti
In July, 1996 the Idaho Board of Psychology Examiners suspended Mark
D. Stephenson's license for three years. (See FMSF Newsletter
September, 1996). Some of Stephenson's former patients had accused him
of, among other things, planting false memories about childhood sexual
abuse while they were under hypnosis, although Stephenson denied
that. Stephenson appealed the Board's decision but it was upheld in
  Stephenson is still practicing. He has an ad in the counselor
section in the Idaho Falls Yellow Pages. It is legal in Idaho to
practice as a counselor if a person has had another license taken
away. (It is legal in most states.) Stephenson claims that his
practice has changed since he lost his license but he also said that
an individual patient would not notice any change in the treatment.
  State representative Tom Loertscher is trying to find a way to
change the laws that allow a person whose license has been removed to
continue to practice. "It seems to me it defeats the whole purpose of
a psychology licensing law," he said.
       Executive Summary of the Third National Incidence Study 
                      of Child Abuse and Neglect
                    Sedlak, A. and Broadhurst, D.
     U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, September 1996
* Children from families with annual incomes below $15,000 as compared
to children from families with annual incomes above $30,000 per year
were over 22 times more likely to experience some form of maltreatment
that fit the harm Standard and over 25 times more likely to suffer
some form of maltreatment as defined by the Endangerment Standard.
* Children from the lowest income families were 18 times more likely
to be sexually abused, almost 56 times more likely to be educationally
neglected, and over 22 times more likely to be seriously injured from
maltreatment as defined under the Harm Standard than children from the
higher income families.
* Children of single parents had a 77-percent greater risk of being
harmed by physical abuse, an 87-percent greater risk of being harmed
by physical neglect, and an 80-percent greater risk of suffering
serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect than children living with
both parents.
* Girls were sexually abused three times more often than boys.
* Boys had a greater risk of emotional neglect and of serious injury
than girls.

   /                                                              \ 
   |                    Pennsylvania, 1995                        |
   |                                                              |      
   | 24,109 reports of suspected child abuse                      |
   |  6,891 reports were substantiated. Listed in Abuse Registry. |
   |    135  substantiated reports were changed from indicated to |
   |         founded due to court activity, including criminal    |
   |         conviction of perpetrators.                          |
   |                                                              |
   |   A report is substantiated or indicated when the CPS staff  |
   |   finds abuse has occurred based on medical evidence, the    |
   |   CPS investigation or an admission by the perpetrator.      |
   |                                   PA Dept of Public Welfare  |
   |                              20th Annual Child Abuse Report  |

        R E P O R T E D   R E C O V E R E D   M E M O R I E S
              O F   C H I L D   S E X U A L   A B U S E


  Royal College of Psychiatrists' Working Group on Reported Recovered
  Memories of Child Sexual Abuse: Professor Sydney Brandon (Chair), Dr
  Janet Boakes, Dr Danya Glaser, Professor Richard Green, Dr James
  MacKeith and Dr Peter Whewell. Approved by Council, 24 June 1997.
  Embargoed until 1st October 1997. The College Psychiatric Bulletin
  (1997), 21, 663-665. Reprinted with permission.

  The College recognises the severity and significance of child sexual
abuse and the suffering experienced both at the time of the abuse and
in adult life.
  The difference between incestuous fathers and paedophiles is less
distinct than was previously thought. Those who sexually abuse
children share many characteristics including verbal denial even in
the face of clear evidence, recidivism, secrecy, minimisation,
rationalisation and justification of their actions among others. These
are often maintained even after criminal conviction.
  Nevertheless, the growth of litigation against alleged perpetrators
and therapists and the risk of bringing the profession into disrepute
makes it necessary to alert psychiatrists to the possibility of 'false
memories'. In this context a 'recovered memory' is one in which
traumatic events have been totally forgotten until 'released' or
recovered in therapy or as a result of some other trigger or
experience. A 'false memory' is one which is not based on events which
have occurred.
  Memories are constantly forgotten and recovered, but we are here
concerned with the alleged forgetting and recovery of memories of
prolonged and repeated child sexual abuse, typically from childhood
into adolescence. Concern about recovered memories which have no
factual basis should be concentrated on those cases where patients
report having had no memory whatsoever of abuse which continued over
many years. In the United States concern about such recovered memories
led to the use of the term False Memory Syndrome which, though
misleading, has now gained wide usage.
  Memory is a complex field of study which has generated an enormous
literature and a plethora of theories. The evidence shows that
memories of events which did not in fact occur may develop and be held
with total conviction. Such memories commonly develop under the
influence of individuals or situations which encourage the development
of strong beliefs. They have often been described as arising within
therapy, sometimes involving psychiatrists or other mental health
workers, as well as psychotherapists.
  Although the following recommendations are particularly concerned
with the use of specific memory recovery techniques, it is important
to emphasise that distortion of memory may occur in any therapeutic
situation. Psychiatrists need to be aware of the techniques employed
by other members of their team, including semi-autonomous
practitioners. Any professionals, including senior psychiatrists,
working with cases of sexual abuse or recovered memories should have
access to expert advice and the opportunity for regular peer
                  Recommendations for good practice
  (a) The welfare of the patient is the first concern of the
psychiatrist. Concern for the needs of family members and others may
also be necessary, within the constraints imposed by the need for
  (b) In children and adolescents, symptoms and behaviour patterns may
alert the clinician to the possibility of current sexual abuse, but
these are no more than indicators for suspicion. Previous sexual abuse
in the absence of memories of these events cannot be diagnosed through
a checklist of symptoms.
  (c) Psychiatrists are advised to avoid engaging in any 'memory
recovery techniques' which are based upon the expectation of past
sexual abuse of which the patient has no memory. Such 'memory recovery
techniques' may include drug-mediated interviews, hypnosis, regression
therapies, guided imagery, 'body memories', literal dream
interpretation and journaling. There is no evidence that the use of
consciousness-altering techniques, such as drug-mediated interviews or
hypnosis, can reveal or accurately elaborate factual information about
any past experiences including childhood sexual abuse. Techniques of
regression therapy including 'age regression' and hypnotic regression
are of unproven effectiveness.
  (d) Forceful or persuasive interviewing techniques are not
acceptable in psychiatric practice. Doctors should be aware that
patients are susceptible to subtle suggestions and reinforcements
whether these communications are intended or unintended.
  (e) The psychiatrist should normally explore his or her doubts with
the patient about the accuracy of recovered memories of previously
totally forgotten sexual abuse. This may be particularly important if
the patient intends to take action outside the therapeutic situation.
Memories, however emotionally intense and significant to the
individual, do not necessarily reflect actual events.
  (f) Adult patients reporting previously forgotten abuse may wish to
confront the alleged abuser. Such action should not be mandated by the
psychiatrist and likewise it is rarely appropriate to discourage or
even to forbid the patient from having contact with the alleged abuser
or family members. The psychiatrist should help the patient to think
through the possible consequences of confrontation with the alleged
abuser. In these circumstances it is appropriate to encourage the
search for corroboration.
  (g) Psychiatrists should resist vigorously any move towards the
compulsory reporting of all allegations or suspicions by adults of
sexual abuse during childhood. Mandatory reporting is entirely
appropriate where children or adolescents spontaneously report current
or recent abuse. Hints at the possibility or suspicion of current
sexual abuse always need to be carefully evaluated and investigated.
  (h) It may be legitimate not to question the validity of a recovered
memory while it remains within the privacy of the consulting room,
though there is a risk in colluding with, and creating, a life history
based upon a false belief. Action taken outside the consulting room,
including revealing the accusations to any third party, must depend
upon circumstances and upon the wishes of the patient.

  (i) Once the accusation is taken outside the consulting room,
  especially if any question of confrontation or public accusation
  arises, there can rarely be any justification for refusal to allow a
  member of the therapeutic team to meet family members.
  (ii) Where the alleged abuser is still in touch with children at
  risk, serious consideration must be given to informing the
  appropriate social service department. This must be done if there
  are reasonable grounds for believing that the alleged assault or
  assaults actually took place and that other children may now be at
  risk. If the case is reported by others the psychiatrist should also
  be prepared to state clearly if he or she believes that the grounds
  for the accusation are inadequate or unreasonable.
  (iii) The patient may wish to seek legal advice possibly with a view
  to the prosecution of or litigation against the alleged abuser. It
  is unwise to encourage or discourage legal action and inappropriate
  to make any decision about this a condition of continuing treatment.
  The patient should always be encouraged to consider the possible
  consequences of such action.

(i) Although there are doubts about the validity of diagnoses of
dissociated identity disorder (formerly multiple personality disorder)
it is asserted by some that this condition is frequently associated
with a history of childhood sexual abuse. There seems little doubt
that some cases of multiple personality are iatrongenically determined
and psychiatrists should be careful to ensure that they do not
directly encourage patients to develop 'alters' in whom they may
invest aspects of their personality, fantasies or current problems.
Any spontaneous presentation of dissociative identity disorder should
be sympathetically considered but should not be made the subject of
undue attention, nor should the patient be encouraged to develop
further 'multiples'. Psychiatrists should be particularly aware of the
unreliability of memories reported in these cases. Since there is no
settled view on the validity of these diagnostic concepts there is a
case for the preparation of a consensus statement which would need to
be based upon a substantial literature review.
                Implications for training and research

Postgraduate training.

Postgraduate psychiatric trainees should have:
  * specific and detailed instruction in the psychological and
neurobiological foundations of memory, including a critique of
historical and current theories.
  * a good understanding of the clinical and epidemiological aspects
of child sexual abuse and child protection procedures. They should
know the associations between childhood sexual abuse and adult
psychopathology and their empirical validity.
  * instruction on the dangers of suggestion and suggestibility, and a
keen awareness that opinions and prejudices in the therapist may have
a profound effect upon their patients. They should also understand how
to minimise possible adverse effects of such influences.
  * an awareness of the need to obtain collateral histories to amplify
the clinical history and examination.
  * an awareness of the need to review their beliefs and practices in
the light of new evidence and recognition of the limitations of their
own knowledge and expertise.

Continuing professional development

  Psychiatrists may not have made themselves aware of the developments
in the understanding of memory, suggestion or of child sexual abuse
and its possible consequences for adult psychotherapy. Continuing
professional development should therefore ensure that, through courses
and authoritative reviews, psychiatrists are kept up to date on these
  It is appropriate that all psychiatrists should have a general
understanding of child abuse and its consequences. The skills required
for the assessment or therapy of the abused and their families require
additional training and experience. All psychiatrists should be open
to new knowledge and ready to modify their beliefs and practices
accordingly. Psychiatry as a profession should know the limits of its
knowledge and experience.


  Further research is required into the nature and validity of such
concepts as repression, dissociation and the psycho-neuro-physiology
of traumatic memories of all kinds. More precise definition of child
sexual abuse, accurate recording of its type and duration, of the
relationship between the victim and the perpetrator and the age of
commencement and duration of the abuse are required for further
studies. These studies need to examine the relationship between
different varieties and severities of child sexual abuse and later
adult psychopathology and to consider the influence of early
experience in general, including the effects of physical and emotional

The College Psychiatric Bulletin (1997), 21, 663-665

                   F O C U S   O N   S C I E N C E

  This series is not intended to "forgive" or exonerate the morally
  repugnant phenomenon of child sexual abuse in any way but simply 
  to examine the methodology of scientific studies claiming that 
  child sexual abuse causes adult psychiatric disorders.

                     Can People Repress Memories?
                   Evidence of Prospective Studies
                   Part II: 'Cuz I Wanted to Forget
                       Harrison Pope, Jr., M.D.
In a previous column, we have seen that prospective studies of trauma
victims consistently fail to show evidence of repression. But there
remain four other prospective studies, to our knowledge, which have
looked specifically at memories of childhood sexual abuse. If
repression can be found anywhere, perhaps these studies are the place
to look.
  The first such study was published in 1990 by Donna Della Femina and
her colleagues [1]. These investigators interviewed 69 young adults in
Connecticut as part of a follow-up study of formerly incarcerated
youths. The investigators possessed detailed information, obtained in
evaluations may years earlier, about physical and sexual abuse which
these subjects had experienced as children. Upon interviewing these
subjects as young adults, the investigators found that 26, or 38% of
them, reported childhood histories which were inconsistent with the
information gathered on their earlier evaluations. Specifically, 18 of
these 26 subjects were known to have been severely abused in
childhood, yet they denied or minimized any history of abuse when they
were interviewed. Had those 18 individuals repressed the memory of
their trauma? And had the other 8 subjects, who suddenly revealed new
information about childhood abuse, recovered old memories which had
been repressed at the time of their initial evaluations?
  Fortunately, Femina and her colleagues did not jump to these
conclusions. Instead, they decided to re-contact the 26 subjects who
had given interview information discrepant with their known histories.
They managed to track down 11 of the 26 for a second interview, which
they called the "clarification" interview. In the clarification
interview, they took care to establish rapport, and then confronted
the subjects with the known discrepancies in their responses.
  On the clarification interview, it appears, all 11 of the subjects
admitted that they had always remembered their abuse, but had simply
chosen not to disclose the information to the interviewer, either
during the first interview (for the 8 subjects who denied their
previously recorded history of abuse) or on their initial evaluation
(for the 3 subjects who revealed new information about abuse not
recorded on their initial evaluation). When asked to explain the
reasons that they had chosen to withhold the information, the subjects
gave a variety of responses. For example, one girl, who was known to
have been sexually abused by her father, and whose mother had
attempted to drown her as a child, had minimized any abuse at all on
the initial interview. When asked on the clarification interview why
she did not previously disclose the information, she burst into tears
and said, "I didn't say it 'cuz I wanted to forget. I wanted it to be
private. I only cry when I think about it." Similarly, a boy who had
been repeatedly beaten by his psychotic father denied abuse on his
initial interview but then admitted to it on the clarification
interview. When asked why, he said, "My father is doing well now. If I
told now, I think he would kill himself." Another subject, who had
also initially failed to disclose a known history of physical abuse,
explained on the clarification interview that he had simply not liked
the original interviewer.
  Finally, looking at the 3 subjects who described histories of abuse
on interviews that were not recorded in their initial evaluations, the
investigators again found that deliberate nondisclosure, rather than
repression, was responsible for the discrepancies. Two of the subjects
revealed that at the time of their earlier evaluations, they were too
embarrassed to reveal what they had suffered. The third had refused to
disclose his abuse because at the time he did not trust anybody.
  In summary, then, the investigators documented many reasons why
subjects might not reveal a history of childhood sexual or physical
abuse on follow-up interviews. These include "embarrassment, a wish to
protect parents, a sense of having deserved the abuse, a conscious
wish to forget the past, and a lack of rapport with the interviewer."
In no instance, however, was any subject found to have displayed
  What is the lesson of this? It is that people will sometimes choose
not to disclose information, especially sensitive and embarrassing
information like a history of childhood sexual abuse, on interviews.
If this happens, it would be naive for us to jump to the conclusion
that they have repressed their memories. Instead, as illustrated so
well by Femina and her colleagues, it is critical to ask any non-
disclosing subjects directly about their known trauma history, to see
whether they will then acknowledge that they remember it.
  The same considerations apply to a second recent study conducted in
London, where investigators interviewed 20 women who had been removed
from their homes as children by social service agencies [2]. These
women were known to have been sexually abused, both from their own
reports as children and by the report of an adult who had been
familiar with the household at the time. The follow-up interviews were
conducted when the subjects were 18-24 years old. On these interviews,
three (15%) of the 20women failed to give a "yes" answered to the
question, "were you sexually abused as a child?" However, in this
case, by the author's admission, none of the subjects was directly
asked about her known sexual abuse history, and no "clarification
interviews" were conducted later. Therefore, when it is considered
that the rate of negative responses in this study was well below the
38% rate in the Femina study described above, it again seems that
these findings can be easily explained on the basis of non-disclosure
alone, without any need to postulate repression.
  One other recent small study followed up 22 children who had
reportedly been abused in one of three day-care centers [3]. Again,
three of the children were said to display complete amnesia for their
abuse when interviewed 5 to 10 years later. However, in this case
there is a different problem: the children were reported to be a
median of 2 1/2 years old at the time of the original abuse. Among the
examples provided in the study, one child was in day care between the
ages of 6 weeks and 12 months of age; another was 21 months old. As we
have mentioned in previous columns, there is a large literature
showing that children remember almost nothing from before the age of
three, much less at 12 or 21 months. Thus the findings in this study
appear readily explainable on the basis of childhood amnesia alone,
again without any need to postulate repression. In addition, there
remains the possibility of deliberate non-disclosure in this study as
well, but the issue is not mentioned in the paper.
  In summary, these three follow-up studies of victims of childhood
sexual and physical abuse all fail to produce any evidence of
repression. As Femina and her colleagues so clearly demonstrated in
their "clarifications interviews," cases of seeming repression on
initial interview regularly turn out to represent deliberate
  This leaves us with only one remaining prospective study of victims
of childhood sexual abuse - our last chance, in effect to find an
acceptable demonstration of repression in the scientific literature.
But this study, performed by Linda Meyer Williams, is perhaps the most
widely quoted study of them all. If there is any study which provides
legitimate evidence of repression, many experts would say, the
Williams study would be the one. Therefore, the Williams study
deserves a particularly careful analysis in a column all to itself.

  1. Femina, D.D., Yeager, C.A., Lewis, D.O.: Child abuse: adolescent
records vs. adult recall. Child Abuse Negl 145: 227-231, 1990.
  2. Bagley, C. Child sexual abuse and mental health in adolescents and
adults: British and Canadian perspectives. Aldershot, UK: Avebury,
  3. Burgess, A.W., Hartman, C.R., Baker, T. Memory presentations of
childhood sexual abuse. J Psychosocial Nursing 33:9-15, 1995.

  This column appears as a chapter in the book, Psychology Astray:
  Fallacies in Studies of "Repressed Memory" and Childhood Trauma, by
  Harrison G. Pope, Jr. M.D., Upton Books, 1996. Copies of this book
  are now available and may be obtained by writing to Social Issues
  Resources Series at 1100 Holland Drive, Boca Raton, Florida, 33427,
  or by calling 1-800-232-7477.
"In a sense, however, hypnosis has been unfairly singled-out by the
media and the courts on this issue. Of the hundreds of expressive
therapeutic techniques now extant, hypnosis is the only one for which
there are substantial data on memory and its accuracy. For various
historical reasons, no other therapy technique has been so
scrupulously examined as to its effect on memory. Because of this,
hypnosis has become a kind of whipping boy for the sins of
psychotherapy in general. The media and the courts focus on the
memory-distorting effects of hypnosis precisely because hypnosis
researchers are the ones who have most rigorously documented how
plastic memory is in treatment. They have thoroughly documented the
role of expectation, suggestion, imagination, and fantasy as
co-determinants of what people report remembering, in treatment and
outside of it. It is not that these factors are absent in other
expressive therapies, it is just that if one wants to find out what
science has to say about how memories can be distorted in therapy, one
is going to encounter hypnosis, and not much of anything
else. Hypnosis research has delivered an important and disturbing
message to society at large: passionately believed-in recollections
about the past are not always what they appear to be. This message is
so profoundly upsetting to cherished conventional notions of memory
that courts, and some elements of the mental health community, yearn
to "kill the messenger." The issue is much more complex than this. The
problem is not just the nature of hypnosis per se, but the nature of
memory as it emerges in the context of any psychotherapy." (page 516)

  Michael Nash and R Nadon (1997) Hypnosis. In D. Faigman, D. Kaye,
  M. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: the law
  and science of expert testimony. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN
  Social and Behavioral Sciences

|                         SPECIAL JOURNAL ISSUES                     |
|                                                                    |
|   The following journal issues focused on the topic of recovered   |
|             memories and/or suggestion. More are expected.         |
|                                                                    |
| Psychology & Theology                            Fall     1992 |
| American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis                January  1994 |
| Applied Cognitive Psychology                         August   1994 |
| Consciousness & Cognition                            Sept-Dec 1994 |
| International Journal of Clinical Hypnosis (Part 1)  October  1994 |
| International Journal of Clinical Hypnosis (Part 2)  April    1995 |
| Counseling Psychologist                              April    1995 |
| Psychology, Public Policy and Law                    June     1995 |
| Journal of Psychiatry & Law                      Fall     1995 |
| Skeptic                                              Fall     1995 |
| Journal of Traumatic Stress                          October  1995 |
| Psychiatric Annals                                   December 1995 |
| Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 6(2)                                1996 |
| Psychological Inquiry, 7(2)                                   1996 |
| Memory & Language                                April    1996 |
| Professional Psychology: Research & Practice         27(5)    1996 |
| Journal of Psychiatry & Law                      Summer   1996 |

                       L E G A L   C O R N E R
                              FMSF Staff
U.S. Supreme Court to Revisit its Ground-Breaking Ruling in Daubert[1]
              General Electric Co. v. Joiner, No. 96-188
                 (U.S. cert. granted March 17, 1997).
In a key post-Daubert case on the admissibility of disputed scientific
evidence, the U.S. Supreme Court will revisit its 1993 decision. The
issue currently before the court is what standard of review appellate
courts should apply to trial judges' decisions on the admissibility of
scientific evidence. It is expected that the court will also once
again address the issue of "junk science." Oral arguments were heard
October 14th.
  The case, which has drawn widespread attention, involves an
electrician who claims that on-the-job exposure to PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls) caused early onset of lung cancer. The
trial court [2] found there was insufficient evidence of exposure and
that the expert testimony did not establish a scientifically valid
link between PCBs and lung cancer. The trial court, therefore, granted
defendants summary judgment. The Eleventh Circuit [3] reversed 2-1,
holding the trial court had "improperly assessed" the admissibility of
the scientific testimony. The majority stated a trial court should be
particularly reluctant to bar evidence if the result is summary
  Several analysts have said that the Eleventh Circuit ruling giving
appellate courts broad power to re-examine admissibility decisions
runs contrary to Daubert, which had given considerable gatekeeping
powers to trial judges.[4]
  There has been some divergence in the U.S. circuit courts on the
question of review by appellate courts. Most of the circuits
considering the issue so far have adopted an "abuse of discretion"
standard, though the language has tended to vary. Three circuits (5th,
9th and 10th) have adopted a traditional abuse of discretion
analysis. Three others have embellished that approach somewhat,
upholding the trial court's decision unless it was "manifestly
erroneous" (6th and 7th) or constituted "a clear abuse of discretion"
  In granting certiorari (accepting the case for review), the Supreme
Court said it wanted to look at how appellate courts have examined
decisions trial courts have made under its 1993 decision which
instructed federal trial courts to play a "gatekeeper" role in
admitting evidence. Under Daubert, trial judges were to examine the
reasoning or methodology underlying testimony to determine whether it
was scientifically valid. The court emphasized the need for reliable
evidence, entrusting to the gatekeeper the job of admitting only what
is reliable and relevant.
  In numerous amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) briefs, national
organizations of scientists, trial lawyers, chemical company workers,
tort reformers and big corporations as well as the U.S. Justice
Department say that the court's decision in the case will determine
how civil cases are tried. Tort reformers argue trial judges must be
able to scrutinize scientific evidence to keep out of courtrooms "junk
science" that can unduly sway juries and distort verdicts.
  Many of the amicus curiae briefs filed raise issues directly
applicable to the evidentiary issues presented by "repressed memory"
cases. For example, in a brief submitted by Bert Black (who also
submitted a brief to court in the Daubert case), it is argued that the
Eleventh Circuit's decision threatens the continued effectiveness of
Daubert. Black writes, "[t]he Eleventh Circuit compounded its
erroneous standard of review by seriously misinterpreting and
misapplying Daubert's core holding that expert scientific testimony
must derive from valid scientific reasoning. Because of its one-way
strict scrutiny standard, the court was too quick to review the expert
testimony, and when it 'looked hard' it looked in the wrong place. The
Appellate Court essentially ignored the lack of connective reasoning
and focused almost exclusively on the experts' qualifications and
their bald assertions that they had used recognized and accepted
procedures and methodologies. Indeed, by accepting such statements,
the Eleventh Circuit allowed the experts to blur the important
distinction between diagnosing what disease a patient has and what
caused the disease. In some cases diagnosis does identify cause; for
example, a diagnosis that a child has the measles is also a
determination that his or her symptoms were caused by the measles
virus. For a chronic disease like lung cancer, however, diagnosis does
not establish cause. If it did, the expert testimony in this case
would not be at issue."
  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Joiner promises to determine a
broad range of cases in which causation is a pivotal issue and where
courts seek, under the "gatekeeper" role, to admit well-grounded
scientific evidence while screening out "junk" science.

[1] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
[2] Joiner v. General Electric Co., 864 F.Supp. 1310 (N.D. Ga., 1994).
[3] Joiner v. General Electric Co., 78 F.3d 524 (11th Cir., 1996).
[4] The case has drawn strong words from many legal analysts. For
example, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh said the Eleventh
Circuit ruling "only makes it more difficult to keep 'junk science'
out of the courtroom...The Supreme Court must decide whether to
reaffirm its confidence in the ability of trial court judges to
differentiate between real and 'junk' science." See, Thornburgh, D.
(Sept. 26, 1997) "Supreme Court should confirm trial judges' authority
to review scientific evidence," Legal Opinion Letter, Washington Legal
Foundation, Vol. 7, No. 26.
       Malpractice Suit Against Therapists Set to go to Trial;
         U.S. District Court Rejects Summary Judgment Motion
          Lujan v Mansmann, Neuhausel and Genesis Associates
             1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14987, Sept. 24, 1997.
The U.S. District Court recently denied a defense motion for summary
judgment in a malpractice case brought by Brook Lujan against her
former psychologist Patricia Mansmann, social worker Patricia
Neuhausel, and Genesis Associates. [1] Defendants argues that the case
was filed too late. The ruling is the second [2] issued in this case
by Judge John R. Padova and represents only one of several malpractice
lawsuits pending in District Court against the defendants.
  Lujan had sought treatment for emotional problems, including
bulimia. The counseling, her Complaint states, encouraged her "to
believe in certain memories, including memories of satanic abuse,
satanic murders, and deviant sexual assaults" and "convinced her to
believe she was being stalked by a cult and that her life was in
danger." In 1992, defendants terminated Lujan's treatment, until, as
they explained, the danger from the cult subsided. It was not until
December 1995, when Lujan received information concerning her parents'
third-party lawsuit [3] against her therapists, that Lujan says she
began to question the veracity of her memories, and the
appropriateness of the treatment she received.
  Lujan's Complaint was filed July 17, 1996, approximately 4 years
after termination of her therapy. Pennsylvania's two-year statute of
limitations allows a plaintiff two years within which to commence an
action for "injuries to the person." 41 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.@5524(2).
However, the "discovery rule" may apply where, regardless of the
exercise of all reasonable diligence, the complainant is unaware that
she has suffered an injury, or unaware of its cause, or both, during
the limitations period. Following a detailed review of the recent
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision [4] regarding application of the
discovery rule, the U.S. District Court concluded that the nature of
the injury could render Lujan unable to distinguish between true and
false memories. "Defendants' position would require me to conclude as
a matter of law that a person in Plaintiff's position would regard her
distressing symptoms as being imposed by an injury caused by another
party's wrongful conduct rather than being part of her underlying
condition and legitimate therapy. This I refuse to do on this record
...Given the nature of Plaintiff's claim of implanted false memories,
I find that some uncertainty and inconsistency with respect to the
veracity of the memories does not invalidate her claim as a matter of
  The District Court specifically rejected defendants' arguments that
Lujan was on notice and should have known she suffered an injury
during the years she was in therapy because of the distress she admits
she felt at the time. Lujan states that during therapy she developed
intensely physical and distressing symptoms including intense
headaches, recurrent nightmares, flashbacks, and deterioration into a
catatonic state as a result of the alleged implantation of false
memories. However, Lujan argues that, although she suffered these
symptoms, she had no reason to know that she had suffered an injury;
she thought she was receiving helpful therapy. [5]
  Defendants also argue that Lujan was on notice in 1993 because, by
Lujan's own admission, she had begun to question whether her treatment
at Genesis was not "so good." The court held that it could not
conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to the
state of Plaintiff's knowledge and whether she had sufficient critical
facts to put her on notice that she could sue.
  The court dismissed the breach of contract claim in the Amended
Complaint, noting that the damages sought by Lujan are the same
damages she seeks for her torts claims. She does not seek money to pay
for psychotherapy to complete the work that was undertaken by the
contract or to correct the damage that Defendants' treatment has
allegedly done her. The court held that Lujan's punitive damages claim
would go forward. Genuine issues of material fact as to whether
defendants' behavior could constitute outrageous conduct were raised
by plaintiff's submissions.
  As an example, the court quoted from Brook Lujan's expert who
described her termination by the defendants, "the conduct of
psychotherapy was perhaps at its most bizarre at the time of Brook's
abrupt termination from Genesis, which took place at a Burger King
Restaurant. This termination violated the standard of care. Brook was
unduly influenced to sign a paper agreeing to her termination, without
even being referred to another therapist. Brook was pressured to leave
so as to protect herself and the Genesis therapist from unproven
Satanic cult threats. Brook was persuaded to change her name and her
physical appearance, even to the point of having plastic surgery.
Brook was persuaded to move far away, and essentially disavow any
knowledge of her previous life or identity. With Brook's dependence on
the therapists firmly established and in a hysterical, disorienting,
and paranoia and panic-producing atmosphere, Brook complied with these
demands. Brook's college education also had to be abruptly terminated
by this move."

[1] Lujan's causes of action were negligence, breach of contract,
gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of confidentiality,
and conduct justifying punitive damages. The claims of fraudulent
misrepresentation and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act were dropped from the Amended Complaint.
[2] Lujan v. Mansmann, et al, 956 F. Supp. 1218 (E.D. Pa, 1997). See,
FMSF Newsletter, May 1997.
[3] Tuman v Genesis Assoc., 935 F. Supp. 1375 (E.D. Pa., 1996).
[4] Dalrymple v. Brown, 1997 WL 499945 (Pa., Aug. 25, 1997). See, FMSF
Newsletter, Oct. 1997.
[5] In this regard, the Court quotes from a supplemental report
submitted by Lujan's expert Dr. Linda Jayne Dubrow, "When a person has
an experience involving influence that results in the inducement and
reinforcement of distorted memories, the individual has no overt cause
to question these memories or to perceive them as any different from
real memories. The person assumes that the person or people
influencing them are well-intentioned and sincere, have their best
interests at heart, and that, therefore, these memories are 'real.'"

              Malpractice Suit Against Dr. Bennett Braun
                   Scheduled for Trial in November
        Burgus v. Braun, Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, 
                    Case Nos. 91L8493/91L8493  [1]
A malpractice suit challenging "repressed memory" therapy that was
filed six years ago is scheduled for trial November 3, 1997 in Cook
County Circuit Court. The trial, which is expected to last 6-14 weeks,
will simultaneously hear three suits brought by Patricia Burgus, her
husband, and two minor children against Dr. Bennett Braun,
Rush-Presbyterian Hospital and Dr. Elva Poznanski.
  In 1986, Patricia Burgus was one of the first patients on the
dissociative disorders unit founded by Bennett Braun, M.D. at
Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago. She originally
sought treatment for depression following the difficult birth of her
second son. She was under Braun's care and supervision at Rush until
  During that period, Braun used tapes of interviews with Pat to teach
residents, other doctors and the media about multiple personality
disorder (MPD). Under high doses of medication, and receiving
hypnotism, Pat now says reality and fantasy "blended together." Pat
became convinced that she had over 300 alternate personalities as a
result of extended and repeated traumatic childhood abuse including
participation in ritual murders, cannibalism, Satan worship, and
torture by family members. Pat explained to Frontline, "I was told
that, until I hit bottom, until I dug all of this stuff out, I would
never get better and I would never have a chance for any kind of a
future for my children."
  Pat Burgus's two young sons, Mikey and John, were hospitalized at
Rush for almost three years under Braun's care. Pat explained to
Frontline that she and her husband were told that their children
needed to be hospitalized because the boys may be genetically
predisposed to MPD. Because Rush is a teaching hospital, if the
disorder developed, they were told, it could be caught and treated.
John was admitted at age 5 and Mikey was admitted to the children's
psychiatric ward on an emergency basis when he was 4 years old. Braun
reportedly told the family that unless Mikey was in the hospital over
Halloween, he would be in mortal danger. During the years of
hospitalizations, the two young boys received psychotherapy from Braun
and from another defendant, Dr. Elva Poznanski. They were encouraged
to develop "alter personalities" and to display behaviors consistent
with a supposed MPD. Braun, the Complaints state, used suggestive and
coercive techniques including exposure to guns and handcuffs in order
to encourage the children to "remember" episodes of abuse as part of a
supposed transgenerational, organized satanic cult. The children would
receive stickers for telling "yucky secrets." The more yucky secrets
they were able to tell, the more stickers they got for that day. [2]
  The three years of treatment cost over $3 million. According to the
Complaint, as a result of treatment by defendants Braun and Poznanski
and during their hospitalization at Rush, the minor children became
increasingly mentally ill. Pat's previously close relationship with
her husband and parents was destroyed. She came to falsely believe
that she had been abused and that she had in turn abused her own
children. According to the Complaint, Braun failed to advise that the
diagnosis of MPD was controversial, that MPD can be caused by improper
therapy, and that the mental health community is divided as to whether
it exists or not. Instead he told Pat that the "memories" being
uncovered represented real memories of actual historical events and
that she was the only person questioning the validity of memories of
transgenerational satanic cults. The Burgus family reasonably relied
on those representations.
  Defendant Rush-Presbyterian is charged with failure to adequately
supervise the activities of Dr. Braun and failure to perform adequate
inspections of the conditions existing on the unit which hospitalized

[1] Information taken from Complaint filed Nov. 16, 1993; Second
Amended Complaint, No. 93 L 14050, filed Aug. 8, 1994; Third Amended
Complaint, No.  91 L 8493, filed Nov. 2, 1994. See also PBS Frontline,
(11/1/95) "The Search for Satan," producer Ofra Bikel.
[2] For example, Dr. Braun related one of John's stories in court
testimony as proof of satanic activities, explaining that a 5-year-old
boy told a story of sticking a knife in a man's abdomen and how the
intestines popped out and smelled terrible. Braun suggested that this
story could only come from direct experience. It should be noted that
Pat Burgus says Braun dismissed her query that the story could have
come from a scene in a Star Wars movie that John had seen. In "The
Empire Strikes Back," after Luke Skywalker cuts open the beast he was
riding, all the guts spill out and Skywalker comments on how terrible
it smells.
           Canadian Courts Strike Down as Unconstitutional
       a Recent Bill to Limit Access to Accuser's Records  [1]
On May 12, 1997, the Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-46 which
sharply restricted the ability of criminal defense lawyers to obtain
third-party records such as counseling or therapy histories.
  The constitutionality of Bill C-46 has been called into question by
recent Canadian Appellate decisions. These courts have considered the
extent to which Bill C-46 impairs the ability of the accused to make
full answer anddefense and thus deprives him of his constitutional
right to a fair trial under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
  In 1996 prior to enactment of Bill C-46, the Supreme Court of Canada
[2] outlined a procedure under which production and admissibility of a
witness's records may be granted. Following an O'Connor application, a
trial judge is to examine the records in question to determine their
relevancy. If he or she concludes that a record is relevant, the judge
then proceeds to balance the competing interests, that is, balancing a
witness's right to privacy with the right of an accused to access
information necessary for meaningful and full defense. The trial judge
is to examine the records to determine whether and to what extent they
should be produced to the accused.
  The O'Connor court held that when the information is in the hands of
a third party, the party seeking the records bears an initial burden
of establishing "likely relevance." The majority made it clear that
the likely relevance test was a low threshold, because at that point,
the accused has not seen the records in question, and to a significant
extent is forced to speculate as to what records exist and what may or
may not be contained in them.

[1] Copies of both decisions are available from the FMSF Brief Bank.
[2] Regina v. O'Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411, 130 D.L.R. (4th) 235,
[1996] 103 C.C.C. (3d) 1. The majority in O'Connor made it clear that
the right of the accused to make full answer and defense is extremely
important, "[a]s a result, information in the possession of the Crown
which is clearly relevant and important to the ability of the accused
to raise a defense must be disclosed to the accused, regardless of any
potential claim of privilege that might arise...Unless the Crown can
prove that the records in question are clearly irrelevant or subject
to some form of public interest privilege, the therapeutic records
must be disclosed to the defense."
    Regina v. Mills, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Edmonton, 
              [1997] A.J. No. 891, dated Sept. 18, 1997.
An Alberta court judge held that the provisions of Bill C-46 breach
the accused's rights under section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. In a 37-page ruling, Justice Paul Belzil of
Court of Queen's Bench, Alberta ruled Bill C-46 infringes on the
rights of accused persons by overly restricting their access to
complainants' records. The judge did not rule on the law's
constitutionality under section 1 of the Canadian Charter.
  The ruling came in a case of a man charged with sexual assault of an
11-year-old-girl and followed defense application for production of
the accuser's therapeutic records. After a thorough discussion of the
O'Connor decision, Justice Belzil said the new federal law sacrifices
the balance of rights called for by the Supreme Court. It favors the
privacy rights of accusers over the accused's rights to a fair trial
and "tilts that balance and creates a legislative regime which is
presumptive against disclosure" of such records. Belzil noted that
none of the justices of the O'Connor court contemplated that a judge
would make a relevancy decision in a vacuum without seeing the
records. Bill C-46, he wrote, forces a trial judge, without having
seen the documents, to engage in a balancing of interests, a situation
specifically rejected by the O'Connor court. In so doing, Bill C-46
blurs the distinction between production and admissibility.
     Regina v. Lee, Ontario Court of Justice (General Division),
             [1997] O.J. No. 3796, released Sept 24, 1997
An Ontario Court judge struck down Bill C-46 as unconstitutional. The
ruling by Madam Justice Sandra Chapnik came in response to a bid by a
Toronto doctor to obtain the medical, therapeutic and psychiatric
records of a former patient whose allegations led to his facing two
charges of sexual assault. After examining the records, Justice
Chapnick ruled that some were likely relevant.
  Justice Chapnik concluded the Crown had failed to show that the new
restrictions in Bill C-46 were a reasonable limit on the fair trial
rights of an accused, adding: "In coming to this conclusion, I have
considered all the rights in question, including the privacy and
equality rights of complainants and witnesses." Describing the charter
violations as "serious and pervasive," she not only struck down the
new law, but ordered the production of the records requested by the
defense to proceed according to the older procedures laid down by
  Following this ruling, the accuser indicated she would drop the
complaint if the defense gained access to her medical records. Faced
with the loss of its key witness, the Crown withdrew the charges and
requested an acquittal. The acquittal was granted early in October.
  Justice Chapnik's decision binds the lower courts in Ontario and
will be persuasive among other general division judges if no
conflicting rulings are made.

/                                                                    \ 
| Confirmation bias should be a matter of great interest and concern |
| to lawyers and judges. For example, lie-detector (polygraph)       |
| examiners may start with a hypothesis that they "confirm" by       |
| asking just the right questions. Or a mental health professional   |
| investigating child abuse may too readily (albeit unwittingly)     |
| collaborate with the presumed victim to create memories of abuse   |
| that never occurred. The easily made diagnosis of child abuse can  |
| be notoriously difficult to falsify, particularly when the victim  |
| is an adult and the abuse occurred early in childhood. This has    |
| led to several spectacular miscarriages of justice.                |
|                         Foster, K. R. and Huber, P. 1997, page 45  |
|     Judging science: scientific knowledge and the federal courts.  |
|                                         Cambridge: The MIT Press.  |

                        B O O K   R E V I E W

                         Crimes of the Mouth
                  Reviewed by Loren Pankratz, Ph.D.

                           Language Crimes:
        The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom 
                            by Roger Shuy
              Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 
              1993 (hardbound); 1996 (paperback) 208 pp.
In some legal cases, language is the major (if not only) evidence
offered by the prosecution. For example, in cases of bribery,
threatening, perjury, and conspiracy the jury must decide the
intentions of the defendant's words. Shuy calls these language crimes.
Roger Shuy is a linguist who has consulted on about 200 legal cases
and testified in court some 35 times. His specialty is analysis of
meaning about the way words are used, usually on taped interviews or
from surreptitious recordings. All the case examples in his book,
interestingly, are from work he did for the defense.
  To evaluate the intentions of someone's words, we must rely on an
understanding of how language works. On the surface this seems to be
an obvious task, but Shuy quickly dispels this idea by describing the
preconceptions and prejudices we bring to each situation. In case
after case Shuy demonstrates how the language of the defendant, when
analyzed linguistically, failed to provide evidence of guilt.
  Take the simple situation of agreement. Shuy shows that responses of
agreement can range from multiple positive (Yes, indeed) to lax
endorsement (Uh-huh), with three additional forms between. In fact,
the "Uh-huh" response may not be agreement at all but, rather,
feedback that can mean "I hear what you are saying;" "Keep talking;"
or "I have not yet fallen asleep."
  People get in trouble when they agree to do illegal things. John
DeLorean, for example, was charged with agreeing to buy illegal drugs
to bail out his automotive venture. The linguistic evidence, however,
showed DeLorean used strong agreement language when discussing the
loan and merely listening responses to the drug deals. The jury agreed
with the linguistic evidence and found DeLorean not guilty.
  The chapter on Asking Questions may be of particular interest to
readers of this newsletter. In 1985 Shuy analyzed the transcript of an
interview of a three-year-old girl by a social worker trained to
investigate sexual abuse. He begins by saying: "I had listened to
thousands of tape-recorded conversations and interviews in my academic
career, but as I listened to this one, it seemed that it was one of
the most inept interviewing styles I had ever heard" (p186).
  The interviewer erred in mixing a therapeutic interview style with
an interrogation style, which confused the child. Not only did the
child misunderstand the interviewer, but the interviewer misunderstood
the child. Perhaps this was not exactly a misunderstanding but the
expected actions of an eager interviewer who had already made up her
mind that this child had been abused. In 1985 Shuy clearly understood
that anatomical dolls could be a source of communication error because
of the different "schemas" used by the child (the doll being a toy)
and the interviewer (the doll being a tool for communication about
abuse). The child interacted with the doll in the present tense,
whereas the interviewer incorrectly heard the child giving information
about the past. Shuy provides a section of the transcript with his
analysis, showing how the interviewer repeatedly twisted the child's
time frame and the child's words.
  The interviewer made flagrant linguistic errors when she
inaccurately restated the child's words. It is common in talking with
children to repeat what they say as a check on the accuracy of one's
hearing or perception. As children get older and more experienced with
language, they realize that they must say whether or not the
restatement is correct. In this case the child endorsed the misstated
paraphrases of the interviewer, not because she wanted to confirm the
statements but because she had not yet acquired the skill of
correction. Further, the interviewer used grammatical construction
beyond the comprehension of the child. The child used mostly
prepositions that were locative (on the grass) and connective (I had
on pajamas). However, on 20 occasions the interviewer used
prepositions in more complex ways: attributive (what is this picture
of?) and agentive (Show me with the dolls).
  Despite the lack of linguistic evidence of guilt, the defendant in
this case was not as fortunate as De Lorean. Shuy undoubtedly
understood that his book entitled Language Crimes conveys a double

  Loren Pankratz, Ph.D., is Consultation Psychologist and Clinical
  Professor, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon. He
  is a member of the FMSF Scientific Advisory Board.

/                                                                    \ 
|                 "You the Jury" Decide the Verdict                  |
|                                                                    |
| You the Jury presents both sides of the debate over recovered      |
| memories in the form of a legal trial brought fifteen years after  |
| the alleged incident. Written by Mark Roseman, Esq, William Craig, |
| Esq and Gini Graham Scott, the alleged victim accused her step-    |
| father of sexual abuse that she did not remember until recently.   |
| The book includes material for the reader to use to vote on a      |
| decision. Sometime in the spring of 1998, publisher Seven Locks    |
| Press will announce the results of the verdict. Don't forget to    |
| vote!                                                              |
|                                                                    |
| Editors note: Because it is a step-father who is accused, this     |
| case is somewhat different than most of the cases that have been   |
| brought to the attention of the FMS Foundation. There are many     |
| wonderful loving step-fathers in this world. The data on abuse by  |
| fathers as opposed to step-fathers is shockingly different. For    |
| example in the ultimate abuse, death, step-fathers are 100 times   |
| more likely to perpetrate that crime than are fathers. (See        |
| "Relative Danger" by Colin Tudge in the September 1997 issue of    |
| Natural History for a summary of the research in this area.)       |

/                                                                    \ 
|                  "Where Greed Killed the Patient"                  |
|                          A Wrongful Death                          |
|                                                                    |
| "The mental health community, already reeling from the aftershocks |
| of the repressed-memory witch hunt, in which thousands of people   |
| lost their reputations and even their freedom because of           |
| questionable and in many cases patently ridiculous memories of     |
| sexual abuse "recovered" by their adult children during therapy,   |
| faces an even worse indictment in the chilling new book, A         |
| Wrongful Death.                                                    |
|                                                                    |
|     From a review of A Wrongful Death: One Child's Fatal Encounter |
|        with Public Health and Private Greed by Leon Bing (Villard  |
|            Publishers) September 21, 1997, Cleveland Plain Dealer  |
|                                                                    |
| (This book is the complete story of Christy, who was described in  |
| a chapter of Richard Ofshe's book Making Monsters.)                |

                  M A K E   A   D I F F E R E N C E
| When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall |
| one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.      |
|                                                       Edmund Burke |
|    Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontent Vol. i. p. 526. |
  This is a column that will let you know what people are doing to
  counteract the harm done by FMS. Remember that three and a half
  years ago, FMSF didn't exist. A group of 50 or so people found each
  other and today more than 18,000 have reported similar experiences.
  Together we have made a difference. How did this happen?

ILLINOIS: Many cities have a "City" magazine. Recently an FMSF Mom
was reading her local publication and its "Best Doctors" list.
Under the heading Mental Health she was shocked to see a doctor
who specialized in MPD (now DID). This doctor has six pending
lawsuits against him.
  She contacted the publisher and asked how this doctor got on the
"Best List" The publisher asked for documentation and was sent a
very full file. The mom received an appreciative response from
the publisher and an assurance that the doctor would not appear on
the next list.

MISSOURI: An FMSF Dad wrote to say: "I put copies of three books
in three branches of the public library. They were Second
Thoughts, Making Monsters and Beware the Talking Cure. They have
been checked out almost continually since they hit the shelves.
One branch even ordered another copy of Beware the Talking Cure to
meet the backlog of requests. I don't think this issue is quite
dead yet here. I was pleased with the way the books were

CALIFORNIA: An FMSF Dad said he saw the made-for-TV movie about
Eileen Franklin (played by Shelly Long) and her father George. The
movie ends with George being found guilty of murder and being sent
to jail. Since this movie is still being recycled on cable TV and
still sending out misinformation, he wrote to the producer to ask
that they add a postscript indicating that after six and a half
years in prison George Franklin was set free and is now suing his
daughter, the prosecutor, and expert witness Lenore Terr.

  Send your ideas to Katie Spanuello c/o FMSF.

/                                                                    \ 
| "It's not that I don't believe the government would try to hide    |
| dead aliens; it's that I don't think the government would succeed, |
| since every time the government tries to do anything secretly, as  |
| in the Iran-contra arms deal, it winds up displaying all the       |
| finesse and stealth of an exploding cigar at a state funeral. If   |
| there really were dead aliens, I figure, there also would be daily |
| leaks about it from High-level Officials, and huge arguments among |
| influential congresspersons over whose district the multimillion-  |
| dollar Federal Dead Alien Storage Facility would be located in."   |
|                         Dave Barry is not making this up, page 40  |
|                                 Fawcett Columbine, New York, 1994  |

                   F R O M   O U R   R E A D E R S
                      We are Indebted to You
We feel we have a debt to pay to so many individuals: especially
to the many family members who were falsely accused prior to 1995,
to the FMS Foundation, to every FMS state and local coordinator in
America, and to those who have used their writing skills to expose
the dangers of Age Regression/False Memory Therapy.
  When we were accused on January 20, 1995 our world exploded, our
lives were ground to sawdust, and our emotions were simply a raw
piece of meat. It was from all of you who were already engaged in
this battle that we found the comfort and information we
desperately needed. Your fight and stand to not give in caused
articles to be written and the media to take an in-depth look. You
banded together, the Foundation emerged, an 800 number was made
available. If this devastation has happened to our family in the
1980s or early 1990s (like most of you), I am not sure that we
would have survived. Who would we have turned to prior to 1992 to
give us the understanding and insights in regard to this sick
therapy in order to know what had happened to our daughters?
  It was the forward motion of the efforts of all of you who have
gone before us that provided a "safety net" to catch us in our
fatal fall when our family was destroyed, and we had lost our 3
daughters. You were there to prop us up when we were bleeding and
had no strength of our own. You were there when I went to the
library to search for materials that were available to help us
unravel the nightmare and get a grasp on the madness. If
prosecuted I was facing 7 years to life in prison, but thank God,
He was there and so were you!
  Our family today is restored, completely reconciled, and in a
lot of ways closer than we have ever been. Thank you for being
there for we want to be there for YOU.
                                    With love and warm regards,
                                          The Rutherford Family
                                                Springfield, MO
                        Tinker-Bell Theory
I have arrived at a major breakthrough in memory studies, and I
thought that I should share the results of my research with you.
  After many months of careful study and thoughtful research, I
have formulated a new theory of how human memory works. I call
this the Tinker-Bell theory. What I have concluded is that there
is a tiny invisible "memory fairy," who strongly resembles Walt
Disney's Tinker-Bell (or at least she would if you could see her -
which, unfortunately you can't, because she is invisible). The
Memory Fairy carries a little magic wand with a tiny star on
top. She flies around and from time to time will tap someone on
the noggin with her wand. This will cause the person to lose her
memory of some traumatic event which occurred during childhood.
Sometimes the Memory Fairy will return and tap the person on the
bean a second time, thereby causing her to remember the event
again, but sometimes this doesn't happen and the person never
remembers the forgotten traumatic event.
  Now a few purists have taken me to task for this theory, saying
that it is unscientific and without empirical foundation. I merely
scoff at these naysayers, however, and point to the Williams and
Corwin studies, which conclusively demonstrate the existence of
the Memory Fairy. These studies clearly prove that people
sometimes forget an event which occurred a long time ago, and
sometimes remember it again, and sometimes don't. What better
proof for the existence of the Memory Fairy could you want?
  I'd tell you more about the Memory Fairy, but I'm too busy right
now negotiating a book deal and arranging for an appearance on the
Geraldo Show.
                                                           "D. L"
                     A Family Reconciliation
There are four children in our family, two sons and two daughters.
We were a close and caring family.
  When we retired, we moved to the west coast for health reasons.
Our children and their families remained in the mid-west. We
visited each others homes regularly and shared vacation trips
together. Our relationship with our grandchildren was warm and
loving. Our oldest daughter, after a bitter and contentious
divorce, became a single parent with three children.
  About 5 1/2 years ago, we received a registered letter from her,
describing vividly how her father sexually molested her, starting
when she was two years old. Her mother was named as the enabler.
The realization of that experience came to her in a series of
dreams. The accusation was devastating for us. She demanded that
all contact with her and her children should end.
  A few weeks later our younger daughter broke contact with us,
the reason given for the separation was that the "overriding
responsibilities" for her parents during her childhood years was
too big a burden for her.
  Not knowing how to cope with this "double whammy" (our sons
during the five years were understanding and supportive), we were
fortunate to read an article about FMS in our local paper. Our
education about false memory syndrome began when we joined the FMS
group. We met many other parents who had similar accusations from
their children and experienced the same feelings of anger, pain,
disbelief and frustration.
  A therapist was invited to speak to the group. His presentation
made us aware that we had to change our direction in finding the
solution for our problems.
  We contacted the therapist and after, became his clients for a
period of three years. We agreed that the way of reconciliation
was to be our goal. The overall agenda consisted of learning ways
of how to temper our rage, anger, pain and expectations. We were
encouraged to keep contact by mail, even though we received no
replies from our daughters.
  About a year ago we realized that our overtures were being
ignored. We decided to take a risk, and write them that either
they join us in a reconciliation effort or we would go on with our
lives without them completely!
  In a few weeks we received replies from our daughters, saying in
essence that they did not want a final break and are willing to
join the peace effort. Letters and phone calls were exchanged
during the following year. Recently we received a call from our
oldest daughter, saying that she made a commitment to visit us.
At first, the condition that she insisted on was to meet and talk
only to her mother. As time went on, she modified her demands and
included her father in the process.
  Meanwhile, our younger daughter let us know that she would come
to see us after her sister left, for her own opportunity to
reconcile with us. Their visits were encouraging.
  Our oldest daughter is only a returner. She admits that she was
emotionally and physically ill during the time of the separation.
She will not discuss anything beyond these admissions. We flew to
her home this past month with the purpose of reestablishing a
close relationship with our three grandchildren. The reality is
painful, knowing that that situation might not occur.
                                                Relieved Parents
                      An Accidental Meeting
It was five years after the accusation. In November, I visited my
middle daughter and her family. She lives about ten minutes away
from her accusing sister. We decided on a sunny day to go to a
crafts fair nearby. As we walked, my daughter, son-in-law and
grandchildren stopped...stunned and surprised. "This is your
chance Mom" my daughter said, nudging me forward. In front of us
stood my estranged daughter and granddaughter. I hadn't seen this
child since she was an infant.
  I was hoping to put into action everything I had learned
regarding our troubled children ... focusing on her, reassuring
her of our unconditional love. Instead, I confronted her with some
of the accusations that I had learned about from her sisters. She
kept saying, "Who told you those things? I never said that." I
made eye contact and said, "I love you. I brought you home a
preemie and breathed life into you. Why are you doing this?" As we
exchanged words, all I could think of was that she wasn't running
away with her child who kept peeking out from behind her mother's
back. I was reeling with false hopes when my granddaughter asked,
"Mommy, who is this lady?" My daughter answered, "S", this is my
mom." No malice... no vindictiveness... merely a statement. Did I
detect a bit of warmth?
  I kneeled down to talk to my granddaughter, "S" do you like to
look at pictures?" I asked. "Perhaps this is not an appropriate
place to talk," my daughter said sharply. "I agree." I said.
"Let's meet at a psychiatrist's office or wherever you wish. We
had talked for almost 15 minutes.
  She took "S's" hand and started to rush away. She spilled ice
cream on her blouse. That was my fault, I thought. I could see the
anger in her eyes. One step at a time, I thought keeping in mind
that if she returned that would be the time to demand total
respect. This encounter led to a flurry of phone calls made to my
husband and youngest daughter by the accusing daughter. As she did
in the beginning, she tried to divide the family. She insisted
that I molested her in the same breath stating that she loved me
and cried. She retracted her accusation that her father had raped
her and her sister. She was confused, she said. A mistake. No, it
never happened. She wanted to send her father a letter but he
refused stating that he and I were as one.
  I am back to square one... not defeated... a stronger resolve
and determination to bring this issue to those who need to know.
                                                         A Mom
                         What Can We Do?
In a letter in the May, 1995 newsletter a letter from a parent
suggested that we should neither sue nor threaten the therapist
unless we have given up all hope of reconciliation. I thought this
was good advice, particularly regarding threats because we've all
learned by now that threats usually do more harm than good. It
goes without saying that a lawsuit is a perilous and hideously
expensive activity.
  However, I urge deep consideration of an alternative: filing a
complaint on your own about your child's therapist with your state
licensing agency. (This is not a lawsuit.)  Why is this important?
Unless the family-destroying horror of false accusations is brought
directly to state licensing authorities, the epidemic will never
end. Let us not imagine that this rampant disease will simply fizzle
like most American fads: the false memory industry produces income too
large to be easily sacrificed.  Equally foolish would be to rely on
the professional organizations to discipline themselves, for some of
their constituency are captains of the industry.
  Although the staffs of most of the licensing agencies are aware
of the problem, they cannot do anything unless they have a great
many specific cases to deal with.
  There may be consequences in filing a complaint. In my case my
daughter's therapists told her about the complaint I had made to
the professional discipline board. (How this was supposed to
contribute to her "healing" I do not know.) The therapist
described this to my daughter as an assault on her "safe place,"
further proof that I am a monster and "in denial." Does my
daughter despise me any more than she already did? Will it further
delay some sort of reconciliation? Likely not. For one thing it
didn't make the situation any worse and, in fact, it might speed
things up. The investigator, not finding in favor of the
therapist, might stir up some doubts. My going public to the state
agency may demonstrate fearless confidence in my innocence.
  In any event, a record of the complaint will be placed in the
therapist's file no matter the outcome, and may well increase her
malpractice insurance premiums.
  There is, however, the possibility that the therapist may
vengefully encourage my daughter to take legal action against me.
The risks of remaining alive!
  Would it have been better to play safe, in effect to have given
this horror the active support of my silence? Decent Germans did
this for the rise of Hitler. The silence of decent Southerners
gave license to lynchings. How is this different?
                                                 An Angry Father
Dear Mom and Dad,
  How can I thank you enough for the help you have given to us this
week. Mom, your gift of time has been the most blessed gift of all.
What a joy this week has been to have you here.
  Thanks for the clothes for our little princess. Isn't she wonderful?
It has been great having family around this delivery. Your faces
through the labor and delivery window while I was in recovery were a
wonderful reward for a job well done. A girl! How wonderful she is.
Thank you again for your help. We love you.
                                                      Love "G"
Mom and Dad,
  The abuse I have relived these past weeks has convinced me beyond
any doubt that you are my abusers. I do not believe that you, Mom,
protected me from the physical and emotional abuse by my father. I
believe you assisted him in this sexual abuse. I hate you for this.
The "love" you two show is just show. Not real...I believe you, Dad,
abused me and hurt me by your body and spirit. I know you sodomized me
and I am an incest victim due to your invasion and betrayal of my
body. I am extremely angry at you about this fact. The flowers,
yardwork, ever zealous gestures are all show and penance for what you
have perpetrated on me...
                    Observations in Ontario Canada
I went to our University bookstore and I found a dictionary for social
workers. How do you like this: SEXUAL TRAUMA. A shocking experience
involving sexuality that has lasting effect on individual's
personality and mental health. The experience is usually rape, incest,
sexual abuse or exposure to a psychosexual disorder of others. The
resulting symptoms include INABILITY TO FORGET, flashbacks, anxiety
and PTSD. (R. L Barker: The Social Work Dictionary, 3rd ed, 1995).
  A few meters from the Bookstore, we have a Women's Resource Centre
with a rack of various pamphlets in front. One pamphlet is called
INCEST (available both in English and French). It states: "The typical
incest order to survive, the child MAY BLOCK OUT HER
recommended reading were Courage to Heal and Victims No Longer with a
comment that these books are available in public libraries.
                                              P. T., Ph.D.

/                                                                    \ 
|                         Memorable Moments                          |
|                                                                    |
| Memorable moments are often accompanied by conflicting emotions.   |
| Such was the case recently, when we opened a letter with an        |
| unfamiliar return address. The letter was from an attorney         |
| advising us of a bequest a mother had made to the False Memory     |
| Syndrome Foundation.                                               |
|                                                                    |
| The name was not immediately familiar. We checked our records and  |
| found that she had joined the Foundation once a few years back but |
| did not renew her membership. At that point, we felt sadness that  |
| we did not get to know her and that the recovered memory episode   |
| in her family may not have resolved in her own lifetime. Having    |
| said that, the overriding feelings were of respect and gratitude;  |
| profound respect for her recognition that the important work of    |
| the Foundation extends beyond her lifetime, and gratitude for a    |
| generous gift that helps to meet urgent needs in the coming year.  |
|                                                                    |
| A volunteer worker suggested that we share this experience with    |
| you because he felt others may want to do something similar. He    |
| reminded us that grand human achievements often span more than a   |
| single lifetime.                                                   |

 | By now, psychologists have arrived at a wonderfully elastic       |
 | profile of the people who attach themselves to these intellectual |
 | chain gangs: just about anybody. Applicants require only an       |
 | unsatisfied spiritual longing, a condition apt to strike anyone   |
 | at some point in life. Social status is no indicator of           |
 | susceptibility and no defense against it.                         |
 |   Richard Lacayo "The Lure of the Cult" Time, April  7, 1997  p45 |

                     S T A T E   M E E T I N G S
             Call persons listed for info & registration
                            FLORIDA EVENTS
                     International Cartoon Museum
                         Party and Reception
              Friday February 13, 1998 6:00 to 7:30 p.m.
            All FMSF Members and Professionals are invited
 Hosted by SIRS to celebrate the publication of Smiling through Tears 
and Mort Walker, President of the International Cartoon Museum Museum
    201 Plaza Real, Boca Raton, FL 33432 (that's in Mizner Park).
                      Telephone: (561) 391-2200.
           "Crisis in Counseling: In and Out of the Church"
                        November 14 & 15, 1997
                     Rollins College, Winter Park
   Presented by Central Florida Friends of FMSF and Rollins College 
       with the cooperation of the Florida Council of Churches.
 two parents whose daughters received regression therapy by Christian
 counselors before accusing their fathers of childhood sexual abuse.
               Advanced registration for the conference 
  $25.00 for the first person, and $15.00 for each additional person
     from the same family or congregation (in the same mailing). 
                   Students may register for $10.00
                        Special Family Meeting
             Friday night, November 14, 7:00 - 10:00 P.M.
   There will also be a meeting for falsely accused families on the 
  Rollins campus. Dr. Simpson and the Rutherfords will discuss coping
  and reconciliation. For a brochure or more information about these
 programs, please contact John and Nancy at 352-750-5446 or Email at
              Public lecture featuring ELIZABETH LOFTUS
                  Saturday Morning February 14, 1998
                            sponsored by:
    Florida Atlantic University and Social Issues Resources Series
                   777 Glades Rd. * Boca Raton, FL
                        False Memory Creation
                       Friday February 13, 1998
             Attendance limited to invited professionals
 Drs. Stephen Ceci, Elizabeth Loftus, Peter Ornstein, Daniel Schacter
                    (Florida Atlantic University)
                 Massachusetts and Surrounding Areas
                    New England FMSF Group Meeting
                       Sunday  November 9, 1997
               Christ Church Parish Hall * Andover, MA
       25 Central Street (corner of Central and School Streets)
          Parish Hall adjacent to attached church building.
             Speakers: PAMELA FREYD and ELEANOR GOLDSTEIN
            For more information call Frank (508-263-9795)
                       Seattle, Washington Area
                      Saturday November 15, 1997
                 Contact Phil & Suzi * (206) 364-1643
                         Tri - State Meeting:
                  Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware
                          Families & Friends
          The Hurt That Families Endure When Therapists Err
                      Saturday, November 1, 1997
                    Trinity Assembly of God Church
           1022 Pottstown Pike (Rte. 100), West Chester, PA
        Registration: 9:30 AM,   Meeting: 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM
 A contribution of $20.00 per couple ($5.00 for other family members) 
              is requested to defray operating expenses.
                      For more information call: 
          Sally & Lee 609-967-7812 or Jim & Jo-610-783-0396
             Weighing the Evidence of Recovered Memories
       A Conference on Recovered Memories of Child Sexual Abuse
               (previously announced as taking place at 
                the Quinnipiac College School of Law)
                 will be held on November 14, 1997 at 
                 the Quality Inn and Conference Center: 
		the Quality Inn and Conference Center:
                 100 Pond Lily Avenue, New Haven, CT.
      [Exit 59 of the Merrittt/Wilbur Cross Parkway (Route 15)] 
                          Speakers Include:
               DEBBIE OBERMAN, M.S.W., L.C.S.W., M.B.A.
   This conference is sponsored by the Institute for Pain Research,
                a non-profit Connecticut corporation.
            There is no fee for attending the conference, 
                 but a donation of $25-$50 per person
   to help defray the costs of the conference would be appreciated.
                       Lunch will be provided.
       Early reservations are advised because space is limited.
   For additional information call Jen Bernardo at (203)-789-2151.
			California: Free Talk
                  "The Psychology Of Victim-Making"
                      by TANA DINEEN, author of
                        Manufacturing Victims:
           What the Psychology Industry is Doing to People
     Sunday, November 15, 1997, 10am to 12 noon (Coffee at 9:30)
          Goleta Public Library:  500 North Fairview Avenue
                     Santa Barabara (Goleta) CA.
     Central Coast FMS Chapter and PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter.
          For information call: 805-967-8058 or 805-683-0864
          or those outside Santa Barfabara call 800-216-4696

                F M S    B U L L E T I N    B O A R D
  Key: (MO)-monthly; (bi-MO)-bi-monthly; (*)-see State Meetings list

Contacts & Meetings:

        Bob (907) 556-8110
  Barbara (602) 924-0975; 854-0404(fax)
  Little Rock
        Al & Lela (501) 363-4368
  Sacramento - (quarterly)
        Joanne & Gerald (916) 933-3655
        Rudy (916)443-4041
  San Francisco & North Bay - (bi-MO)
        Gideon (415) 389-0254 or
        Charles 984-6626(am); 435-9618(pm)
  East Bay Area - (bi-MO)
        Judy (510) 376-8221
  South Bay Area - Last Sat. (bi-MO)
        Jack & Pat (408) 425-1430
        3rd Sat. (bi-MO) @10am
  Los Angeles County
        Cecilia (310) 545-6064
  Central Coast
        Carole (805) 967-8058
  Central Orange County - 1st Fri. (MO) @ 7pm
        Chris & Alan (714) 733-2925
  Orange County - 3rd Sun. (MO) @6pm
        Jerry & Eileen (909) 659-9636
  Covina Area - 1st Mon. (MO) @7:30pm
        Floyd & Libby (818) 330-2321
  San Diego Area  -
        Dee (619) 941-4816
  Denver - 4th Sat. (MO) @1pm
        Art (303) 572-0407
  S. New England  - (bi-MO) Sept-May
        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 - 4th Sun. (MO) @2:30 pm
        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
        Bill & Gayle (815) 467-6041
  Rest of Illinois
        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)
        Leslie (913) 235-0602 or
        Pat (913) 738-4840
        Jan (816) 931-1340
  Louisville- Last Sun. (MO) @ 2pm
        Bob (502) 361-1838
        Francine (318) 457-2022
        Irvine & Arlene (207) 942-8473
  Freeport -  4th Sun. (MO)
        Carolyn  (207) 364-8891
   Ellicot City Area
        Margie (410) 750-8694
        Ron (508) 250-9756
  Grand Rapids Area-Jenison - 1st Mon. (MO)
        Bill & Marge (616) 383-0382
        Terry & Collette (507) 642-3630
        Dan & Joan (612) 631-2247
  Kansas City  -  2nd Sun. (MO)
        Leslie (913) 235-0602 or Pat 738-4840
        Jan (816) 931-1340
  St. Louis Area  -  3rd Sun. (MO)
        Karen (314) 432-8789
        Mae (314) 837-1976
    Retractors group also forming
  Springfield - 4th Sat. (MO) @12:30pm
        Dorothy & Pete (417) 882-1821
        Lee & Avone (406) 443-3189
  See Wayne, PA
  Albuquerque  - 1st  Sat. (MO) @1 pm
  Southwest Room - Presbyterian Hospital
        Maggie (505) 662-7521 (after 6:30 pm)
        or Martha (505) 623-1415
  Westchester, Rockland, etc. - (bi-MO)
        Barbara (914) 761-3627
  Upstate/Albany Area  - (bi-MO)
        Elaine (518) 399-5749
  Western/Rochester Area -  (bi-MO)
        George & Eileen (716) 586-7942
  Susan (704) 481-0456
  Oklahoma City
        Dee (405) 942-0531
        HJ (405) 755-3816
        Rosemary (405) 439-2459
        Paul & Betty (717) 691-7660
        Rick & Renee (412) 563-5616
        John (717) 278-2040
  Wayne (includes S. NJ) - 2nd Sat. in June @1pm
        (No meeting in Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar.)
        Jim & Jo (610) 783-0396
  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
        Phil & Suzi (206) 364-1643
        Pat (304) 291-6448
        Katie & Leo (414) 476-0285
        Susanne & John (608) 427-3686
        Katie & Leo (414) 476-0285
        Susanne & John (608) 427-3686

  Vancouver & Mainland - Last Sat. (MO) @ 1- 4pm
        Ruth (250) 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 (514) 537-8187
        Irene (03) 9740 6930
  FMS ASSOCIATION fax-(972) 2-625-9282 or
  Task Force FMS of Werkgroep Fictieve Herinneringen
        Anna (31) 20-693-5692
        Colleen (09) 416-7443
        Ake Moller FAX (48) 431-217-90
  The British False Memory Society
        Roger Scotford (44) 1225 868-682
         Deadline for the November Newsletter is November15
                  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". You'll also learn about |
| joining  the  FMS-Research list (it distributes research materials |
| such as news stories, court decisions and research  articles).  It |
| would be useful, but not necessary, if you add your full name (all |
| addresses and names will remain strictly confidential).            |
  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,     November 1, 1997
AARON T. BECK, M.D., D.M.S., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA;  TERENCE W.  CAMPBELL,  Ph.D.,  Clinical and Forensic  Psychology,
Sterling Heights,  MI; ROSALIND CARTWRIGHT,  Ph.D., Rush  Presbyterian
St. Lukes Medical Center, Chicago, IL; JEAN CHAPMAN, Ph.D., University
of   Wisconsin, Madison,  WI;    LOREN CHAPMAN,  Ph.D.,  University of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI;    FREDERICK C.  CREWS,   Ph.D., University of
California, Berkeley,   CA; ROBYN M.    DAWES,  Ph.D., Carnegie Mellon
University,  Pittsburgh,  PA; DAVID F.   DINGES,  Ph.D., University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; HENRY C.   ELLIS, Ph.D., University of
New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; GEORGE K. GANAWAY, M.D., Emory University
of Medicine, Atlanta,  GA; MARTIN GARDNER, Author,  Hendersonville, NC
ROCHEL GELMAN, Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles, CA; HENRY
GLEITMAN, Ph.D., University   of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,  PA; LILA
GLEITMAN, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; RICHARD
GREEN, M.D., J.D., Charing Cross  Hospital, London; DAVID A. HALPERIN,
M.D., Mount Sinai School  of Medicine, New  York, NY; ERNEST  HILGARD,
Ph.D., Stanford  University, Palo Alto, CA;   JOHN HOCHMAN, M.D., UCLA
Medical School, Los Angeles, CA; DAVID S. HOLMES, Ph.D., University of
Kansas, Lawrence, KS; PHILIP  S.  HOLZMAN, Ph.D., Harvard  University,
Cambridge,   MA; ROBERT A.  KARLIN,  Ph.D.   , Rutgers University, New
Brunswick,  NJ;   HAROLD  LIEF,  M.D.,  University    of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA; ELIZABETH  LOFTUS, Ph.D., University  of Washington,
Seattle,   WA; 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, Boxboro,   MA; ULRIC
NEISSER, Ph.D.,  Emory University, Atlanta,  GA; RICHARD OFSHE, Ph.D.,
University  of  California, Berkeley,  CA;   EMILY CAROTA ORNE,  B.A.,
University  of Pennsylvania,   Philadelphia, PA;  MARTIN  ORNE,  M.D.,
Ph.D., University  of Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia, PA; LOREN PANKRATZ,
Ph.D.,   Oregon  Health Sciences  University,  Portland,  OR; CAMPBELL
PERRY,  Ph.D.,  Concordia   University, Montreal,  Canada;  MICHAEL A.
PERSINGER, Ph.D.,  Laurentian University,  Ontario, Canada;  AUGUST T.
PIPER, Jr.,   M.D., Seattle, WA;  HARRISON   POPE, Jr.,  M.D., Harvard
Medical  School,  Boston,  MA;  JAMES   RANDI,  Author and   Magician,
Plantation,   FL; HENRY L.    ROEDIGER,  III, Ph.D.  ,Rice University,
Houston,  TX; CAROLYN  SAARI, Ph.D., Loyola   University, Chicago, IL;
THEODORE   SARBIN, Ph.D., University of    California, Santa Cruz, CA;
THOMAS A.  SEBEOK, Ph.D., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN; MICHAEL
A.    SIMPSON,  M.R.C.S.,   L.R.C.P.,   M.R.C,   D.O.M., Center    for
Psychosocial &   Traumatic Stress,  Pretoria, South   Africa; MARGARET
SINGER, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, CA; RALPH SLOVENKO,
J.D.,  Ph.D., Wayne State University   Law School, Detroit, MI; DONALD
SPENCE, Ph.D.,  Robert Wood  Johnson  Medical Center,  Piscataway, NJ;
JEFFREY VICTOR,  Ph.D.,  Jamestown Community  College, Jamestown,  NY;
HOLLIDA   WAKEFIELD,  M.A.,   Institute   of Psychological  Therapies,
Northfield, MN; CHARLES A. WEAVER, III, Ph.D. Baylor University, Waco,

   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