FMSF NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE - January/February, 1998 - Vol. 7, No. 1, HTML version

Return to FMSF Home Page

ISSN #1069-0484.           Copyright (c) 1998  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. 1998 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
  Allen Feld
    Paul Simpson
      Make a Difference
        Legal Corner
          Book Reviews (Ralph Slovenko,  Loren Pankrantz)
            Beth Rutherford
              From Our Readers
                Bulletin Board

Dear Friends,

We begin 1998 with "thank you." Thank you to all the volunteers who
opened their homes and hearts to talk to new family members. Thank you
to the parent who attended a "confrontation" with a newly accused
father and totally changed its direction by asking questions about the
Royal College of Psychiatrists' recommendations. Thank you to all,
professionals and families, who have taken the time to write a letter,
make a call, or find some way to educate others about this issue.
Thank you to the memory researchers who have continued to help us
understand more about our memories. Thank you to the journalists who
were thorough in the study of complex issues of memory and who have
had the courage to speak honestly about what they have learned. Thank
you to the Royal College of Psychiatrists for the clear
recommendations. Thank you to the Missouri Psychiatric Association for
compassion and professionalism in introducing an updated set of
guidelines on recovery of memory to the American Psychiatric
Association. Thank you to our Advisory Board for the steadfast support
and good advice. Thank you to all whose generosity has made it
possible for the Foundation to continue its work. And thank you to the
generous donor for providing the funding that will enable us to have a
meeting with our Scientific and Professional Advisory Board this
spring to discuss the future of the Foundation. Together, we have made
a difference in people's lives, in understanding the science of memory
and in improving psychiatric practice.
  For the past several years we have started the new year with a
summary of the significant events of the past year. In 1997 so much
happened, however, that we do not have the space to do that. This year
we have limited our summary to the appellate-level decisions that are
setting the legal direction for claims of recovered repressed memories
and to an insightful article by retractor Beth Rutherford.
  In future issues we will catch up with the details of the many
things that have happened just since the last newsletter. Some of
these are: the overturning of the Doggett conviction in Wenatchee; the
scandal that has raised new questions about the conviction of Peter
Ellis in the day care case in New Zealand; the acquittal in British
Columbia for Michael Kliman in his third trial for the same recovered
repressed memory accusations; the closing of Rush Presbyterian
Dissociative Disorders Unit; the "60 Minutes" program about Nadean
Cool; and the San Jose Mercury News investigative report on the
handling of complaints against therapists in California.
  The beginning of 1998 finds families on a wide continuum of
experience with the FMS problem. At one end of the continuum we have
newly accused families. At the other end, we have families who have
resolved the problems. Phone calls to the Foundation are a barometer
of concerns of those dealing with false accusations based on claims of
recovered repressed memory. Here are a few calls that Toby has had in
the past week: We heard from a family who recently wrote to the
newsletter to tell of their decision to make a last-ditch effort at
reconciliation. They had written letters to their two accusing
daughters saying that either they join them in a reconciliation effort
or the parents would go on with their lives without them. The call was
to let us know that a few weeks later they received replies from both
daughters, eventually resulting in a retraction from one and a
returning to the family from the other.
  A call from another parent was very different. After no contact for
several years from his accusing daughter, a father said he received a
phone call asking him to meet her. He was very excited about the
possibility of reuniting and when he expressed this at the meeting the
daughter said, "I'm here to talk about incest. Until you admit what
you did and say you're sorry, we can't have a relationship." The
father would not admit to something he had not done and there was no
  That same day a call came from another father who had just received
a letter from his daughter who had accused him over six years ago and
who had cut off all contact with the family. He felt that the letter
was very positive and responded that he would like to get together
with her. We discussed some possible outcomes from such a meeting,
including behaviors he might expect from his daughter. We're waiting
to hear about the results of that meeting.
  Another call that day came from a state contact who wanted to know
if we had any resources that would help address issues around
reconciliation. His local group wanted to make a project out of this.
We discussed some of the areas on which they might focus and sent
information on reconciliation and mediation.
 Two other recent calls came from therapists. The first was a sibling
of a young woman who had made allegations against her family,
neighbors and former teachers. The caller said that she looks at this
whole "false memory thing" differently now that she is personally
involved. The second therapist was an accused mother and she wanted to
be put in touch with other therapists who have been falsely accused.
  We are getting fewer calls from newly-accused people. What families
appear to be focusing on now are hopes of reconciliation and
assurances that this kind of problem will not happen again. We call on
the professional organizations and professionals to help us in this
effort in 1998.
/                                                                    \ 
|                     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                    |

                         A   R E M I N D E R
                           by Pamela Freyd

  Does the FMS Foundation say that all "recovered memories" are false?
The Foundation has said that some memories are true, some are a
mixture of fact and fantasy and some are false-whether those memories
seem to be continuous or seem to be remembered after a time of being
forgotten. Although this position has been published many times, we
still find references stating that the FMSF says all recovered
memories are false.[1] The confusion perhaps stems from the inflation
of the term "recovered memories" beyond the narrowly defined meaning
that was the catalyst for the formation of the FMSF. It may be
helpful, therefore, to start 1998 with a reminder of the constellation
of claims about "recovered memories." The Foundation has asked for
scientific evidence in support of these claims. The "recovered
memories" that have been the focus of concern to the Foundation are
those that have been used in the literature in the following context:
  When a child experiences a trauma that is overwhelming, it is said
that he or she represses it (or dissociates) in order to survive. It
is not specified whether this is an active or a passive process. It is
believed that if the same traumatic experience happens again, the
child has no memory that he or she has suffered the same experience
before. This lack of awareness can go on for hundreds of events taking
place over many years, even decades.
  (Unexplained is why the child made no effort to avoid the alleged
perpetrator or the circumstances in which the alleged abuse occurs.
Unexplained is why there was no evidence of alleged rapes or of scars
from torture. Unexplained is how the child functioned so normally in
everyday life that no one around the child including siblings,
relatives, teachers, doctors, friends, baby-sitters, or neighbors,
suspected that anything was wrong or said anything at the
time. Unexplained is how all of these many possible witnesses could be
"in denial" or could have also repressed the memory.)
  At the same time, the memory is said to be stored someplace in the
brain or body. It is claimed that this stored memory "leaks" and
causes the child to have symptoms. Yet it appears that neither the
child nor those around the child has knowledge of the symptoms or else
the symptoms don't become evident until the person is an adult. It is
believed that even though the memory leaks, the person is unable to
access the memory. It is said that when the person is an adult and
becomes a patient who is in a safe place such as a therapist's office,
the patient can gain the insight that he or she has symptoms and that
these symptoms are a sign of past abuse that the person does not
remember. It is said that the fact that the patient does not remember
any abuse is a sign that the abuse was so terrible that memories of it
were repressed or dissociated. It is believed that with the help of a
therapist and such "memory recovery" techniques as hypnosis, sodium
amytal, dream interpretation, journaling, guided imagery,
participation in survivor groups or reading survivor literature, the
person is able to remember the abuse and the memory is presumed to be
accurate. It is said that in order to "heal" from the childhood abuse,
the patient can be empowered by confronting and sometimes suing the
alleged perpetrator. It is said that the patient stops being a
"victim" by cutting off all contact with the alleged perpetrator(s)
and anyone who does not validate his or her new memories.
  This describes how "recovered memories" were understood and
presented by trauma therapists and their supporters at the time the
FMS Foundation was formed. This is the way that they were reported by
accused parents who contacted the Foundation. As the nonsense of this
concept has become obvious, some trauma therapists have begun to
inflate the meaning of "recovered memories" to include "forgotten-and-
remembered" events. This inflation of meaning has confused or even
harmed patients by blurring the distinction between the claims that
have been challenged by the Foundation and the memories of those who
were genuinely abused. It has helped to fuel anger because it has made
those genuine victims feel they are not believed.
  The FMSF has challenged the meaning of "recovered memories" as
described in the literature. The FMSF has questioned the existence of
"repressed memory syndrome" as it has been presented in the literature
and in legal cases. The FMSF has never questioned the fact that people
forget and later remember all kinds of things, including traumatic
experiences. People do forget things. People do sometimes recall those
things. There is, however, no scientific evidence for the existence of
the constellation of beliefs that are included in the description of
"recovered memories" given above.

         Inflated and narrow meanings of "recovered memories"

  Those who inflate the meaning of recovered memories and then claim
that FMSF doubts them all, do so for their own political agendas. They
falsely characterize the Foundation's position so it can be more
easily attacked. A few of these same memory therapists have written
about studies that show some people have recovered memories of single
or brief events that might have been traumatic and for which there is
external corroboration. They then try to use these studies as a kind
of "existence proof" to say that people can recover
historically-accurate memories and thus the FMSF must be wrong because
they say all "recovered memories" are to be questioned. Of course,
that ignores what the FMSF has actually said.
  These same trauma therapists at other times want a very narrow
definition of "recovered memories." They say that the kinds of "false
memories" that have been shown to exist through scientific laboratory
studies are outside the scope of what real therapists do with real
patients and therefore they do not qualify as "recovered memories." In
this case they define "recovered memories" in a narrow sense as
something only therapists can find.

                          Carts and Horses:

  Is there scientific evidence that massive or robust amnesia caused
by a traumatic experience as described in the earlier literature
actually exists? That is a question that has been asked repeatedly by
the Foundation. In spite of the lack of scientific evidence, some
trauma therapists have cited the work of van der Kolk to show that
traumatic memories are stored differently. Ignoring for the moment
methodological problems with this work, there is nothing in the
biological theory that demonstrates that the memories would be
inaccessible. Indeed, there is evidence that such memories are more
intrusive than non-traumatic memories.[2] There is nothing in the
biological theory that could account for the fact that memories of
sexual abuse events are remembered any differently from memories of
other traumatic events. To date, believers in the biological theory
are putting the cart before the horse.
  There is still no scientific evidence that such a "recovered
repressed memory" phenomenon really exists. Speculative theories for a
process that has never been shown to exist are science fiction, not
established science.
  The Foundation has never said that any kind of memory is always
false or that any kind of memory is always true. We challenge anyone
to provide a citation from the Foundation literature that makes any
such claim. The Foundation has said that in order to know whether a
memory is true or false, there must be external corroboration. The
Foundation has said that those who have made the strong claim for the
existence of "recovered memories" as described in the early
literature, have the responsibility for providing the evidence.

[1] Hinnefeld, B. & Newman, R. (1997) Analysis of the Truth and
    Responsibility in Mental Health Practices Act and Similar
    Proposals. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 18(6)
[2] Shobe and Kihlstrom (1997) Is traumatic memory special? Current
    Directions in Psychological Science 6(3)

/                                                                    \
| "Over the past decade, according to many psychiatrists, a fad has  |
| taken hold in their profession that has led some of their          |
| colleagues to abuse the trust of their patients. Critics say that  |
| fad is a trendy diagnosis called multiple personality disorder,    |
| MPD. Its proponents assert that, frequently because of childhood   |
| trauma, an individual may create several different personalities   |
| in his or her own mind. The critics of the MPD diagnosis say these |
|`personalities' and the so-called memories they dredge up are       |
| frequently false, some of them planted by the therapist."          |
|                                                   Mike Wallace     |
|                                                60 Minutes, CBS     |
|                                              November 30, 1997     |

                          D E B U N K I N G  
        T R A U M A T I C   M E M O R Y   A S   S P E C I A L
                            by Allen Feld

  Moira Johnson, author of Spectral Evidence, said that we are
experiencing the "golden age of memory research." The publication of a
special memory issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science
(6,3: June, 1997) adds support for her view.
  Included in the many important articles in this issue is one that
asks, "Is Traumatic Memory Special?" by Katharine Shobe and John
Kihlstrom. For anyone who is wrestling with the often claimed, yet
unproved, mantra that "traumatic memory is special," this article is a
must. The arguments for this highly questionable hypothesis are
concisely described and then, with the precision of surgeons, the
authors detail the serious scientific flaws in the assumptions and
  After placing traumatic memory in historical perspective by
reviewing Janet, Breuer and Freud, the authors examine contemporary
voices. Much of contemporary belief in the specialness of traumatic
memory derives from the work of Lenore Terr, who posited that repeated
traumatic events occurring over an extended period of time (Type II
trauma) are poorly remembered, but that a single clearly defined
incident (Type I trauma) will not be forgotten. This theory was a
solution to the neuroscientific as well as the behavioral and
cognitive evidence that explicit memory for emotionally arousing
events tends to be permanent. Shobe and Kihlstrom show both the
deficiency in Terr's research and how other research readily explains
some of her data.
   Bessel van der Kolk, often associated with the concept of body
memories, argues that explicit memories (such as memory for details
and events) are interfered with by traumatic stress, while "sensory,
motor or affective representations" of traumatic events are deeply
imprinted as part of implicit memory.
  The blatant weakness of this research becomes apparent when the
process of selecting the sample, the strong potential for bias within
the sample, the lack of control for comparisons between traumatic and
non-traumatic events that were made by the subjects, the age when the
abuse may have happened and the retrospective nature of the study are
examined. The theory of "betrayal trauma" rests on the assumptions
that a betrayal (such as sexual abuse) by an important figure (like a
parent) and the dependence of the child on the abuser are the reasons
people forget their abuse. This theory would explain why trauma
effects on memory seem variable. Shobe and Kihlstrom note that this
theory, proposed by Jennifer Freyd, is "...almost entirely
speculative" (73). They claim that some of the scientific
justifications that Freyd attempts to use "are of unclear relevance to
her theory" (ibid.). Freyd speculated that Type II traumas involved
betrayal but she did not deal with the methodological problems of
those studies.
  Shobe and Kihlstrom debunk Charles Whitfield's belief that traumatic
memory is state dependent. They note that "All memory is dependent on
the degree of congruence between the context in which encoding took
place and that in which retrieval is attempted." (ibid.) This is
particularly important because it seriously undermines the
justification of memory recovery techniques (e.g. hypnosis, other
hypnotic-like techniques like age regression, guided imagery, sodium
amytal, etc.) to enhance memory.
  Even if there were research demonstrating that traumatic memories
are state dependent, there would still be no reason to conclude that
they are special. (There is, however, no laboratory or clinical
evidence that traumatic memory is state dependent.)
  Shobe and Kihlstrom's article surveys a key claim that proponents of
traumatic memory often make in the courts. One wishes that all judges
who have to make a decision concerning the scientific basis for
evidence presented in recovered memory cases would read this article.
  Other informative articles in this issue are:

  LYNN, S.J. & PAYNE, D.G. Memory as the theater of the past: The
    psychology of false memories
  PAYNE, D.G. et al:Compelling memory illusions: The qualitative
    characteristics of false memories
  LOFTUS, E.G.: Memory for a past that never was
  SCHACTER, D.: False recognition and the brain
  BRUCK, M. & CECI, S.J.: The suggestibility of young children
  LYNN, S.J. et al: Recalling the unrecallable: Should hypnosis be
    used to recover memories in psychotherapy?

/                                                                    \
| "British psychiatrists have put another nail in the coffin of what |
| has unfortunately become a popular theory -- the notion that the   |
| mind can repress traumatic memories. That idea spawned "recovered  |
| memory" therapy, in which a patient revisits a memory that has     |
| allegedly been forgotten...Great Britain's Royal College of        |
| Psychiatrists has concluded that any memory recovered through      |
| hypnosis, dream interpretation or 'regression therapy' is almost   |
| certainly false...Cheers to the Royal College."                    |
|                                     Editorial, Durham Herald-Sun   |
|                                                 January 17, 1998   |

                 A   R E M A R K A B L E   C L A I M
                           by Pamela Freyd

  "This study establishes once and for all ...." is a remarkable claim
to find in a research report. It immediately raises questions as to
whether the authors might have an underlying political agenda because
researchers usually underscore the limitations of their studies and
the need for replication.
  In "Objective documentation of child abuse and dissociation in 12
murderers with dissociative identity disorder" published in the
December 1997 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry, Dorothy
Otnow Lewis et al claim to have established once and for all the
relationship between dissociative identity disorder and early
childhood abuse.[1] The article has already been widely cited.
  The authors examined twelve convicted murderers psychiatrically,
neurologically and for dissociative phenomena. They tell us that the
clinical data regarding the murderers' symptoms and abuse histories
are in the public domain, mostly through legal documents. The authors
found that all the murderers showed dissociative identity disorder and
that they had also showed signs of it in childhood. They report that
the subjects had amnesia for the abuse and underreported it.
  The fact that all subjects showed childhood evidence of the disorder
is interesting because it contrasts with the cases brought to the
attention of the Foundation where people showed no symptoms of
dissociative disorder until they became involved in therapy as
adults. It coincides with the observation by Daniel Schacter that
"patients who recover previously forgotten memories involving years of
horrific abuse should also have a documented history of severe
pathology that indicates a long-standing dissociative disorder." [2]
While the study reports details of the dissociative phenomena, it does
not report on the results of the neurological exams. This is
intriguing. In a July 1986 article in the American Journal of
Psychiatry, Dr. Lewis reported on clinical evaluations of 15 death row
inmates.[3] In that study, all were reported to have histories of
severe head injury, 5 had major neurological impairment and 7 others
had less serious neurological problems such as blackouts. Other tests
showed evidence of central nervous system dysfunction. On
psychological testing, ten had evidence of significant cognitive
dysfunction. Do the subjects in the 1997 study show similar results?
If not, then how would the difference in neurological impairment
between the two samples be explained? And if they did have
neurological damage, then is it justified to claim that symptoms are
from psychological sources (i.e. abuse)?
  Dr. Lewis has studied convicted murderers for many years and has
been an expert witness in a number of trials. She has found evidence
of multiple personality disorder when other experts did not. In a
report on the trial of serial rapist Arthur Shawcross, her method for
uncovering memories was described:

  "Lewis turns on the Shawcross video and fast-forwards it to the part
  where the prisoner has been hypnotized and Lewis has asked him-for
  the third or fourth time-whether he recalls any abuse by his
  mother." Boston Globe, July 7, 1991, Alison Bass.

  For some years now we've been hearing from the established
psychotherapeutic associations that only "fringe therapists" use
hypnotism to recover memories, and only incompetents lead their
clients with repeated suggestive questioning. Does this study of 12
convicted murderers establish, "once and for all, the linkage between
early severe abuse and dissociative identity disorder?"

[1] Lewis, D. O. et al (1997) Objective documentation of child abuse
  and dissociation in 12 murderers with dissociative identity
  disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry 154:12, 1703-1710.
[2] Schacter, D. L. (1996) Searching for Memory. New York: Basic
  Books. page 262
[3] Lewis, D. O. et al. (1986) Psychiatric, neurological, and
  psychoeducational characteristics of 15 death row inmates in the
  United States. American Journal of Psychiatry 143:7, 838-845.

| Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance. |
|                                      Martin Luther King, Jr. 1963  |

                        by Paul Simpson, Ed.D.

  The World Conference of Christian Counselors represents one of the
most important gatherings for Christian professional counselors.
Sponsored by the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC),
it is held only every few years. I was invited to chair a panel
discussion of FMS this year. The other members of the panel were
strong believers in the accuracy of recovered memory but were honestly
seeking to address the FMS issues.
  There were 2500 Christian professionals from all over the world for
the 4-day event. Sessions ranged from clinical depression, to sex
addictions to multiple personalities and beyond. I brought a simple
and important message: the false memory crisis is real and must be
addressed. The Foundation was helpful in providing information packets
for participants.
  The dialogue during the panel discussion was lively and we had
respectful disagreements. My presentation focused on the basics:

    *Theories of repression and dissociation are neither scientific
       nor Biblical.
    *Recovered memory therapy constitutes professional malpractice and
       directly contradicts a Biblical standard of conduct.
    *False memories are a scientific fact and may be caused by use of
       memory recovery techniques.
    *It is necessary to develop a balanced approach that considers the
    *There are practical steps for dealing with recovered memory

  Sadly, after the presentation, one prominent therapist let me know
that "science meant nothing to (him)" and that "relational truth" was
more important than scientific or Biblical truth. I asked him what he
meant by "relational truth." He replied that it would take too long to
explain. Puzzled and left to guess what "relational truth" comprised,
I asked a second question: "Are you applying this relational truth to
accused families?" He had no response.
  The Christian counseling community has far to go in coming to terms
with their responsibility in the destruction of thousands of lives of
clients and their families. But there is progress. The recent
multi-million dollar judgments, the criminal indictments and the
recommendations of the Royal College of Psychiatrists are helping to
break through. Having the FMS message presented at the World
Conference was an important step towards awakening the Christian
community. I thank the Foundation for information and the families
that helped make my participation a reality.

  Paul Simpson.Ed.D is the author of Second Thoughts (1996). He
  directs the "Building Bridges" program in Tucson, Arizona.

       /                                                     \
       | It is time to stand up and fight for a return to    |
       | reason and plain common sense. I feel the challenge |
       | that faces all people from all walks of life is to  |
       | seek the truth, test the truth, and speak the truth.|
       |                                    Montaigne, 1580  |

                  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 six 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?

CALIFORNIA: In our local group we have parceled out some jobs and I
took on the task of keeping the Board of Behavioral Science Examiners
informed of the latest activities that surround incompetent
therapists. Last month I sent them (1) Royal College of Psychiatrists
Recommendations; (2) New York Times (11/5/97) article about the $10.6
million settlement in Burgus v Braun; and (3) Houston Chronicle
(10/30/97) article about the federal criminal indictments of 5 mental
health workers.

MONTANA: Once I made a connection with the Foundation (1996) and
gained knowledge of what had happened to our family, I knew it was our
responsibility as a family to share the knowledge with others. Since
my wife and I are teachers, the natural thing to do was to educate. As
we moved forward, helping others seemed to temper the pain we were
  We went public with a local newspaper and held a public meeting. To
my despair only 7 people attended. I was somewhat discouraged but came
to realize that most people have a tough time coming forward when they
have been accused.
  After regrouping, I contacted a counseling training program within
the Montana University system. Our family conducted a 3-hour training
session with 12 master level therapists-in-training. We were well
  We arranged a sectional meeting at the Montana Counseling
Association State Convention in 1997. We secured CEUs for therapists
and renewal credits for teachers. Our local newspaper released a
wonderful article. As the two-day conference unfolded, we had 104 in
attendance, 51 therapists, a newspaper reporter from Montana's largest
newspaper, the local TV station, the head psychiatrist from Shodair
Hospital, the largest sexual abuse care hospital in Montana, 2
counselors/directors from the largest private college in the
northwest, an administrative assistant from Montana's Managed Care
organization, the State Director for the LDS Social Services and
Families in the United States and Canada. Pamela Freyd and the
Rutherford Family were the speakers.
  The program was stunning. Our first meeting less than a year ago
attracted 7 people. This year 104 attended. We know we are not in this
battle alone. We will continue to assist all those who will listen and
those who are in need of what we can offer.

MONTANA: The "60-Minutes" story has been great publicity for our area.
It has shaken the very core of the mental health community in
Bozeman. We have scheduled two workshops for therapists in January.
Both have received approval for CEUs. Nadean Cool and her daughter Kim
will be speaking at both.

NEW YORK: I wrote to my senator regarding New York State's "recovered
memory" Bill S.4477. I enclosed information about FMS. I also enclosed
my personal and professional objections to the bill. Upon receipt of
my letter, which arrived during the week following "60 Minutes"
coverage of the subject, I received a call from Senator Volker's
counsel who informed me that my letter, coupled with its opportune
timing had convinced the Senator not to reintroduce the bill in the
next legislative session.

WISCONSIN: Reporters aren't usually very interested in talking to me,
but when I called and said "60 Minutes" was doing a story, they
listened and they wrote! We had 4 newspapers in the state do front-
page stories on Nadean Cool and "60 Minutes." Two local CBS affiliates
also did FMS stories on their evening news. Two reporters thanked me
for the tip. Am I ever glad that I called them.

COLORADO: In April of 1997, my husband and I, frustrated because we
felt we were ineffective in trying to reach our estranged daughter,
decided to sponsor an educational seminar on false memory in Northern
Colorado. We shared our plan with the community director at Mountain
Crest Behavioral Healthcare System, the local psychiatric facility and
they offered to co-sponsor the event. We entitled the seminar "When
Memories Lie...The Psychological, Legal, Sociological and Emotional
Impact of Recovered Memory Therapy."
  During the next six months, our major task was arranging
knowledgeable speakers on the subject. We were fortunate to have the
enthusiastic cooperation of Pamela Freyd, Ph.D., who spoke in depth of
the results of the FMSF Surveys of Families, Retractors and
Lawsuits. Eleanor Goldstein, Founder of SIRS, explained how FMS
developed. Amos Martinez, Ph.D., Director of, and Walter Simmon,
Ph.D., Member of the Colorado Grievance Board explained the State's
position on false memory therapy. Richard Ofshe, Ph.D., Professor of
Sociology spoke on the economical and moral implications of practicing
recovered memory therapy. Attorney David Lane presented the legal side
of the issue and how the courts are viewing testimony. Bringing it all
to life was the Rutherford Family with their compelling story about
getting into and out of and surviving the devastation of recovered
memory therapy.
  As we contacted many potential speakers, my husband and I were
overwhelmed with the enthusiasm expressed by everyone with whom we
spoke. We were delighted and humbled by the willingness of parents,
families and friends to contribute endless hours typing, distributing
posters and sending our mailings. The newspapers in the three largest
cities in Northern Colorado did full page articles on the event.
Attendance at the seminar was approximately 200 people. We have made
the tapes of the sessions available to the Foundation so that others
may participate in this program. An order blank is included in this
newsletter for these professional talks. Next month there will be a
special tape for families available featuring the Rutherford Family.
  We feel that many people truly made a difference.

  Send your ideas to Katie Spanuello c/o FMSF

  |                      Requesting Information:                    |
  |                                                                 |
  | If the therapy that has affected your family is in any way      |
  | connected to the church community (especially Assembly of God)  |
  | or advertised as Religious Counseling, or Christian Counseling, |
  | please contact:                                                 |
  |                                  Tom Rutherford                 |
  |                                  3669 S. Ridgecrest Ave         |
  |                                  Springfield, MO  65807         |
  |                                  Home: 417-883-8617             |
  |                                  Fax: 417-886-9464              |

                       L E G A L   C O R N E R
                              FMSF Staff

                       SUMMARY OF RECENT CASES

(Copies of motions and unpublished decisions are available from the
FMSF Brief Bank.)

LEMMERMAN v. FEALK, 534 N.W.2d 695, (Mich, July 5, 1995). The Michigan
Supreme Court held that neither the discovery rule nor the disability
statute extend the limitations period for tort actions allegedly
delayed because of repression of memory of assaults. "It cannot be
concluded with any reasonable degree of confidence that fact finders
could fairly and reliably resolve the questions before them, given the
state of the art regarding repressed memory and the absence of
objective verification."

BORAWICK v. SHAY, 68 F.3d 597 (2nd Cir., Conn., October 17, 1995),
cert denied. The U.S. Second Circuit Court affirmed dismissal of
Complaint following an in limine ruling prohibiting plaintiff from
testifying based on hypnotically-refreshed recollections of sexual
abuse. The court stated, "The fact remains that the literature has not
yet conclusively demonstrated that hypnosis is a consistently
effective means to retrieve repressed memories of traumatic, past
experiences accurately." The court expressed concern over the risks of
suggestibility, confabulation, and memory hardening when hypnosis
triggers the testimony.

WOODROFFE v. HANSENCLEVER, 540 N.W.2d 45 (Iowa, Nov. 22, 1995). The
Iowa Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in a case where "the
plaintiff is asserting multiple causes of action against a defendant
based on memory surfacing sporadically after many years." The
extension of the statute of limitations sought by plaintiff was
described as favoring a "rolling statute of limitations" where each
time plaintiff recalls something new, the "clock" would be reset and
the plaintiff would have additional time to bring another lawsuit.

BLACKOWIAK v. KEMP, 546 N.W.2d 1 (Minn, April 19, 1996). The
Minnesota Supreme Court held that the state statute of limitations for
sexual abuse is to be interpreted under an objective reasonable person
standard as to whether the plaintiff had reason to know of the sexual
abuse, since, as a matter of law, injury is inferred because of the
nature of the criminal sexual conduct. To construe, the court wrote,
the statute as dependent on when the victim may "acknowledge" or
"appreciate" the nature and extent of the harm resulting from the
abuse is "a wholly subjective inquiry" which is "simply not relevant
to the ultimate question of the time at which the claimant knew or
should have known that he/she was sexually abused."

HUNTER v. BROWN, 1996 WL 57944 (Tenn. App., February 13, 1996) slip
copy. In this case of first impression, the Tennessee Court of
Appeals declined to apply the discovery rule to toll the statute of
limitations in "repressed memory" cases. The Court noted that the
"inherent lack of verifiable and objective evidence in these cases
distinguishes them from cases in which Tennessee courts have applied
the discovery rule [previously]. We find that there is simply too much
indecision in the scientific community as to the credibility of
repressed memory." Affirmed by the Tennessee Supreme Court, Hunter v
Brown which declined to rule on the question of applicability of the
discovery rule in "repressed memory" cases because it found that under
the facts of the case, the claim was time-barred.

S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1, 39 Tex. Supp. J. 386, (Tex., March 14,
1996) The Texas Supreme Court held that in order to apply the
discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations under any set of
facts, including repressed memory claims, the wrongful event and
injury must be "objectively verifiable" and inherently undiscoverable.
After a thorough review of expert testimony and scientific literature,
the court concluded that the scientific community has not reached
consensus on how to gauge the truth or falsity of "recovered"
memories. Therefore, the court held that expert opinion in this area
does not meet the objective verifiability requirement for extending
the discovery rule.

KELLY, et al, v. MARCANTONIO, et al, 678 A.2d 873, (R.I., July 11,
1996). The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the reliability of
repressed memory theory must first be determined prior to extending
the statute of limitations. The court instructed trial judges to hold
an evidentiary hearing reviewing "the entire scientific theory of
repressed recollection and the scientific method through which such
recollections are recovered" to determine whether the specific
"repressed recollection" is "sufficiently relevant, reliable, and
scientifically and/or medically established." The court held that the
claim may be brought only if the trial judge determines that the
theory is "scientifically accepted and valid" and the evidence shows
the Plaintiff to be of "unsound mind."

TRAVIS v. ZITER, 681 So.2d 1348 (Ala., July 12, 1996). The Alabama
Supreme Court ruled that alleged repressed memories do not qualify as
disability to extend the statute of limitations. After a review of the
literature regarding repressed memories, the court concluded, "there
is no consensus of scientific thought in support of the repressed
memory theory." The court emphasized that no court which addressed
"the speculative nature of the repressed memory theory" allowed the
issue to be decided by the jury. Doe v. Maskell, 679 A.2d 1087 (Md.,
July 29, 1996), cert denied 117 S.Ct. 770 (1997). The Court of
Appeals, Maryland's highest court, held that "repression of memories
is an insufficient trigger" to justify extension of the statute of
limitations for filing civil suits. After a review of the scientific
literature and the "dangers of iatrogenic (therapist created)
memories," the court concluded, "We are unconvinced that repression
exists as a phenomenon separate and apart from the normal process of
forgetting. Because we find these two processes to be
indistinguishable scientifically, it follows that they should be
treated the same legally." The court affirmed the lower court's ruling
which had concluded, following a week-long evidentiary hearing, that
the testimony regarding repressed memory was of insufficient
scientific reliability under Reed/Frye or Daubert. See, Doe v. Maskell
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland,
No. 9423601/CL185756, May 5, 1995.

COMM. OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CRAWFORD, 682 A.2d 323 (Pa. Super, July 30,
1996). A Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a murder conviction
based on testimony derived from repressed memories, stating that the
trial court should have analyzed whether, in Pennsylvania, the
admission of the revived repressed memory testimony was appropriate.
The court noted that the theory of repressed memories is "widely
debated and many are critical of the theory." It is not a subject
juries are normally familiar with or able to "draw conclusions as to
its accuracy or credibility" without the assistance of expert
testimony. State of Rhode Island v. Quattrocchi, 681 A.2d 879 (R.I.,
July 31, 1996). The Rhode Island Supreme Court overturned a conviction
on sex abuse charges, because the trial court failed to hold a
preliminary hearing, without a jury, to determine whether the
accuser's "flashbacks" of abuse were reliable. The court "reviewed the
controversy over the reliability and admissibility of testimony,
expert and otherwise, relating to repressed recollection," and noted
that studies show that the psychoanalytic process can lead to a
distortion of the truth. Based on these conclusions, the court
instructed trial justices in both civil and criminal cases to
"exercise a gatekeeping function and hold a preliminary evidentiary
hearing outside the presence of the jury in order to determine whether
such evidence is reliable and whether the situation is one on which
expert testimony is appropriate...The failure to hold such a hearing
constitutes error." The court specifically stated that cross-
examination alone is an insufficient means to determine the
reliability of such testimony and is unlikely to lead to the truth.

M.E.H. v. L.H., 669 N.E.2d 1228, 218 Ill. Dec. 702 (Ill.App.2nd Dist.,
August 28, 1996). The Illinois Appellate Court declined to apply the
discovery rule to a "repressed memory" claim finding that, by
definition, an individual claiming "repressed" memories must have had
some memory to repress and therefore can be assumed to have known of
the alleged event at the time it occurred. The court reasoned that a
traumatic assault by its very nature puts the individual on notice of
the injury and that the actionable conduct might be involved. The
court concluded, citing Tyson v. Tyson with approval, "If we applied
the discovery rule to such actions, the statute of limitations would
be effectively eliminated and its purpose ignored. A person would have
an unlimited time to bring an action, while the facts became
increasingly difficult to determine. The potential for spurious claims
would be great and the probability of the court's determining the
truth would be unreasonably low." Affirmed by the Illinois Supreme
Court, M.E.H. v. L.H., 1997 WL 562001 (Ill., Sept. 4, 1997), slip

KNODE v. HARTMAN, U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Cir., No. 94-11120,
Sept. 9, 1996, unreported. The U.S. Court of Appeals found a
"repressed memory" claim barred by Texas' two-year statute of
limitations. The court concluded that "recovered" memories of
Complainant's sister were not sufficient to establish the objective
verification of the claims as required under S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d
1 (Tex., 1996).

LOGERQUIST v. DANFORTH, 932 P.2d 281 (Ariz. App. Div. 2, October 3,
1996). The Arizona Court of Appeals held that "repressed memory"
claims may invoke the discovery rule -assuming that "the trial court
determines that evidence of the underlying claim of repressed memory
is admissible." The court noted that the trial court had not addressed
or ruled on the issue of the admissibility of repressed memory under
Frye. Since it did not, and "since their resolution seemingly will
require analysis and determination of facts and opinions," the
appellate court remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent
with its decision. Regardless, the plaintiff retains the burden of
establishing that the discovery rule applies.

ENGSTROM v. ENGSTROM, No. B098146, (Cal. App., 2nd App. Dist., Div. 2,
June 18, 1997) unpublished. Cert. denied (Cal., Sept. 3, 1997),
No. B098146. In an unpublished opinion, a California Court of Appeal
affirmed a Superior Court's judgment of non-suit since appellant had
no memories of childhood abuse other than those generated during the
period he was in therapy and "compelling" evidence showed that those
memories did not meet the Kelly-Frye standard of admissibility. The
court ruled, therefore, that appellant was "rightly precluded from
testifying to any recovered repressed memories." The court also noted
that even were an appellant to meet the "delayed discovery" provision
of California statute of limitations, Section 340.1, the additional
evidentiary hurdle must be surmounted before that appellant would
actually be able to testify to any claimed recovered repressed
memories. See, Engstrom v. Engstrom, Superior Ct., Los Angeles Co.,
California, No. VC-016157 (October 11, 1995).

27, 1997). The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of
complaints in seven consolidated cases involving both Type 1 and Type
2 claims. In addressing the Type 2 repressed memory claims and after a
review of case law in other jurisdictions, the court concluded that it
would be contrary to public policy and would defeat the purpose of the
limitation statutes to allow claims of repressed memory to invoke the
discovery rule to indefinitely toll the statute of limitations.

1997). The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's
ruling that the party offering repressed memory testimony of either an
expert or complainant has the burden to prove it sufficiently reliable
to be admitted. The question of reliability is to be considered on a
case-by-case basis, but "tempered with skepticism" according to
factors based on Daubert and the availability of any direct
corroboration. The court specified why the phenomenon cannot currently
be considered reliable or to have gained general acceptance in the
scientific community. The court noted that if the phenomenon were ever
able to satisfy the court's objections and be found reliable, then
additional inquiry into the circumstances of memory recovery
(especially any therapeutic process) may be called for. See, State of
New Hampshire v. Hungerford, 1995 WL 378571 (N.H. Super., May 23,

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. WALTERS, 1997 WL 937024 (N.H., Aug. 6,
1997), slip copy. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the lower
court's ruling which had allowed complainant's repressed memory
testimony in a criminal sexual assault trial. Citing Hungerford, the
court reaffirmed that the proponent of repressed memory testimony held
the burden of demonstrating that the testimony is reliable. In
addition, the court reiterated that repressed memories must satisfy
the eight-pronged admissibility test enunciated in Hungerford in order
to demonstrate that the testimony is reliable. Noting the difficulties
the defense would face in cross-examining a dream or flashback, the
court reiterated its conclusion in Hungerford, "[t]he indicia of
reliability presented in the particular memories in this case do not
rise to such a level that they overcome the divisive state of the
scientific debate on the issue."

BARRETT v. HYLDBURG, 1997 WL 434876 (N.C., Aug. 5, 1997). The North
Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's finding that
Plaintiff's testimony as to her allegedly repressed memories was
precluded, absent accompanying expert testimony explaining the
phenomenon of memory repression. The court elected in its discretion
to address this singular issue presented by the Plaintiff although it
noted that plaintiff's appeal is premature. See Barrett v. Hyldburg,
Superior Ct, Buncombe Co., North Carolina, No. 94-CVS-0793, January
23, 1996.

RAMONA v. RAMONA, 66 Cal. Rptr.2d 766 (Ca. App., Aug. 19, 1997). In a
unanimous opinion, the Second District Court of Appeals ordered a
lower court to dismiss a "repressed memory" claim because, the court
concluded, the testimony was tainted by the drug sodium amytal which
was administered during therapy. The court concluded that the
repressed memory testimony of Plaintiff is "inadmissible under Kelly
due to the lack of general acceptance in the scientific community of
the reliability of memories recalled after a sodium amytal interview."
See, Ramona v. Ramona, Superior Ct., Los Angeles Co., California,
No. KC-009493, March 11, 1997.

DALRYMPLE v. BROWN, 1997 WL 499945 (Pa., Aug. 25, 1997). The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to apply the discovery rule to
cases involving "repressed memories." The court held that repressed
memories do not provide the kind of objective evidence required to
invoke the discovery rule or to demonstrate an undiscoverable
injury. The concurring opinion noted that, "the validity of repressed
memory theory is subject to considerable debate in the psychological
community and some courts have rejected its admissibility."


STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. HUNGERFORD, 1995 WL 378571 (N.H. Super., May
23, 1995). In May 1995, after a two-week long Frye/Daubert hearing and
a thorough factual review, Superior Court Judge Groff concluded that
the State failed to meet its burden of proving that there was general
acceptance of the phenomenon of repressed memory in the psychological
community, and, further, that the State failed to demonstrate that the
phenomenon was reliable. "The Court finds that the testimony of the
victims as to their memory of the assaults shall not be admitted at
trial because the phenomenon of memory repression, and the process of
therapy used in these cases to recover memories, have not gained
general acceptance in the field of psychology; and are not
scientifically reliable... Testimony that is dependent upon recovery
of a repressed memory through therapy cannot be logically
disassociated from the underlying scientific concept or the technique
of recovery." Affirmed. State of New Hampshire v. Hungerford, 1997 WL
358620 (N.H., July 1, 1997).

ENGSTROM v. ENGSTROM, Superior Ct., Los Angeles Co., California, No.
VC016157, Oct. 11, 1995. Superior Court Judge Sutton granted a motion
to exclude the testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses, including
expert witnesses, regarding "repressed memories," "repression" or
"dissociation," finding that "the phenomenon of 'memory repression' is
not generally accepted as valid and reliable by a respectable majority
of the pertinent scientific community and that the techniques and
procedures utilized in the retrieval process have not gained general
acceptance in the field of psychology or psychiatry." Following a 402
hearing on September 6, 1995, Judge Sutton found the testimony
proffered by plaintiff and his expert witnesses did not meet the
standard required under Kelly/Frye. The court labeled the repressed
memory theory and retrieval process "junk science." A judgment of
non-suit followed this ruling. Affirmed, Engstrom v. Engstrom,
No. B098146, (Cal. App., 2nd App. Dist., Div. 2, June 18, 1997)

CARLSON v. HUMENANSKY, No. CX-93-7260, 2nd Dist., Ramsey Co.,
Minnesota, Dec. 29, 1995. District Court judge Bertrand Poritsky ruled
that the concept of repression does not meet either the Frye or
Daubert standard and that "expert testimony which assumes the validity
of this concept of repression be excluded." An expert's testimony and
conclusions may not be based on the reliability of this concept. I do
not find it to reach the threshold of reliability for general

Illinois, No. ___, Oct. 25, 1995. Murder charges against defendants
Stegman and Rickman were based on Stegman's daughter's "recovered"
memories of the murder. A woman's body had been found in 1967 and the
murder was never solved. The daughter's medical records verified that
she had been hypnotized, even though the State at first denied that
she had ever been under hypnosis. On Oct. 11, 1995, the judge granted
a motion (paralleling arguments found in Hungerford) to hold a
pre-trial hearing based on Frye and Daubert to determine the
admissibility of expert testimony and testimony derived from repressed
memory therapy. Then on Oct. 25, 1995, the state withdrew the murder
charges. Stegman has recently filed a malpractice suit against his
daughter's therapists.

BARRETT v. HYLDBURG, Superior Court, Buncombe Co., North Carolina,
Case No. 94-CVS-0793, January 23, 1996. Judge Ronald Bogle granted
defense motion to exclude all evidence derived from alleged repressed
memories and left the order open for such additional findings of fact
as may be appropriate. "[T]his court is of the opinion, considering
all of the evidence that has been presented, the arguments of counsel,
the scientific evidence, the deposition evidence, the case law, and
the matters contained in the file, that the evidence sought to be
introduced is not reliable and should not be received into evidence in
this trial." The court concluded, "there has been no general
acceptance in the relevant scientific community of the theory of
repressed memory....The reliability of repressed memory evidence
itself has not been shown, and therefore, the evidence should be
excluded at trial." Affirmed in part, Barrett v. Hyldburg, 1997 WL
434876 (N.C., Aug. 5, 1997).

DALRYMPLE v. BROWN, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1628 Philadelphia
1995 (J.A52010/1995) February 21, 1996. The Superior Court of
Pennsylvania concluded that the "discovery rule" does not operate to
toll the statute of limitations when plaintiff claims psychological
repression of alleged sexual abuse. The court held that in applying
the discovery rule, the objective standard of "reasonable diligence"
is to apply. Affirmed by Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See, Dalrymple
v. Brown, 1997 WL 499945 (Pa., Aug. 25, 1997).

THOMASON v. VICE, Superior Court, San Joaquin County, California, No.
263209, Order June 25, 1996, Decision, March 4, 1996. Superior court
Judge F. Clark Sueyres excluded expert testimony as to repressed
memory because "there is no general acceptance by the scientific
community of this scientific technique." In an earlier Order (June 25,
1996), the court in effect excluded lay testimony on recovered
repressed memory, holding that because the phenomenon of recovered
repressed memory is beyond the ken of the jury, in order for the jury
to be able to evaluate the witness's credibility, her testimony must
be supported by the testimony of a scientific expert explaining the
scientific principles underlying the phenomenon.

DOE v. MASKELL, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, No.
9423601/ CL185756, May 5, 1995. Circuit Court Judge Hilary Caplan
dismissed the suit in 1995, following a week-long evidentiary hearing,
after which the court concluded that the testimony regarding repressed
memory was of insufficient scientific reliability under Reed/Frye or
Daubert. Affirmed. Doe v. Maskell, et al, 679 A.2d 1087 (Md., July 29,
1996), cert denied 117 S.Ct. 770 (1997).

FRANKLIN v. STEVENSON, Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake
County, Utah, No. 94-090177PI, Order dated December 6, 1996. Judge
Kenneth Rigtrup reversed a jury verdict in this case which had been
based on claims of recovered repressed memories of childhood sexual
abuse. In an Order Granting Final Judgment Notwithstanding the
Verdict, Judge Rigtrup ruled that the plaintiff's testimony should not
have been considered reliable, stating the court could see no
difference between hypnotic suggestion and the "inherently unreliable"
techniques used to enhance plaintiff's memory, concluding, "there is
no scientific evidence in this cases...that there is any scientific
basis for 'recovery' of a memory through the use of these techniques."
Order has been appealed.

J.M. v. MERKL, District Court, Tenth Judicial District, Anoka Co.,
Minnesota, March 3, 1997. At the close of presentation of Plaintiff's
case at trial, District Court Judge James D. Gibbs granted a defense
motion for a directed verdict for the defendant. In an Order and
Memorandum of Law, Judge Gibbs found that the standard set forth in
Frye is applicable to this case as to the admissibility of the theory
of revitalization of repressed memories. Judge Gibbs wrote that upon
review of plaintiff's expert testimony, it "failed to meet the more
flexible standard as set forth in Daubert and certainly did not meet
the Frye standard, thereby disallowing [the expert's] testimony
regarding the revitalization of repressed memories." The Court found
that the qualifications of the expert were insufficient to lay
foundation for reliability of his testimony in the area.

  (It should be noted that at least three other trial courts, at the
  time of this writing, are considering motions to hold evidentiary
  hearings on the question of the reliability of repressed memory
  claims and the theory on which they are based. Motions to limit the
  admissibility of repressed memory testimony had been presented in
  several cases which were voluntarily dismissed prior to a ruling on
  those motions.)

   |                E S T A T E   P L A N N I N G                |
   | If you have questions about how to include the FMSF in your |
   |   estate planning, contact Charles Caviness 800-289-9060.   |
   |         (Available 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.)        |

                        B O O K   R E V I E W
                You The Jury, A Recovered Memory Case
       Mark E. Roseman, William B. Craig and Gini Graham Scott
                     Seven Locks Press, 467 pages
                  Reviewer: Professor Ralph Slovenko
In this book attorneys Mark E. Roseman and William B. Craig, with the
assistance of Gini Graham Scott, take the reader through the trial of
a case involving a 27-year-old woman who accuses her stepfather of
sexually abusing her when she was a youngster-abuse that she
remembered only after she became an adult.
  Although the alleged incidents occurred more than 15 years ago, the
complainant is convinced they actually happened. She says that because
of what her stepfather did, she "psychologically dissociated and
buried her memories of her childhood sexual abuse, resulting in a
dissociative amnesia condition."
  The stepfather, on the other hand, insists he is innocent and claims
that a psychologist planted the memories in his stepdaughter's mind.
  In presenting the views of the adversaries, Roseman represents the
plaintiff and Craig represents the defendant. In the opening parts of
the book the lawyers meet their clients, decide to take the case, and
investigate it. About halfway through the book the trial begins. Along
with the presentation of witnesses, lay and expert, the lawyers argue
for or against the existence of recovered memories on behalf of their
  At the end of the book there is a verdict form and readers are asked
to cast their verdict for the plaintiff or the defendant. The results
of the vote will be announced at the 1998 Book Expo of America. It's
the reason for the book's title - You the Jury.
  The question is not asked but it would be interesting to learn
whether readers changed their minds after reading the book. I would
doubt it. The arguments pro and con are well-known, especially to
members of FMSF.
  And about the legal process, there is actually not much in the book
that any layperson does not already know from seeing trials on
television or reading about them in many courtroom novels. The book is
a primer on preparing for trial and going to trial.
  Be that as it may, one thing is certain: Parents who have been
accused of sexual abuse can identify with the disbelief and the
desperation suffered by the parties in the case. It is well described.

  Ralph Slovenko, J.D. Ph.D. is Professor of Law and Psychiatry at
  Wayne State University, and a member of the FMSF Scientific Advisory
  Board. He is the author of Psychiatry and Criminal Culpability (New
  York: Wiley).

           Stranger Than Fiction: When Our Minds Betray Us
       By Marc Feldman & Jacqueline Feldman with Roxenne Smith
       Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1998. 270 pp
                   Reviewer: Loren Pankrantz, Ph.D.
In Stranger Than Fiction, University of Alabama psychiatrists Marc and
Jacqueline Feldman review a spectrum of mental disorders in which a
person's thinking becomes unintentionally distorted. One chapter of
interest to readers of this newsletter is on the false memory
  I have long been acquainted with the work of Marc Feldman because of
our common interest in psychiatric consultation on medical services
and, more specifically, in factitious disorders-those conditions
manufactured or created by patients that allow them to play a sick
role. Dr. Feldman, thus, is acquainted with patients who are not
always accurate in what they report to their health-care providers. I
was not surprised, therefore, to see a chapter in this book devoted to
the false memory syndrome.
  Here, in the midst of other "lies of the mind" the false memory
syndrome seems so ordinary. The authors have no ax to grind, no side
to take, and no need to make anyone look foolish. Nevertheless, they
leave no doubt about their position on this phenomenon. While not
ruling out the possibility of repressed memories, they take "strong
issue with the extent to which repressed memories are reported to
  The authors attack the unscientific use of survivors' symptom check
list as "a crude home test kit" that is deceptively simpleminded. They
dismiss the idea that current feelings are strong indicators of abuse
as suggested in The Courage to Heal. Adopting such approaches, they
declare, allows recovery therapists to "write themselves an
intellectual blank check."
  Why do patients cling so fiercely to a painful conclusion of abuse
when the only evidence is a memory constructed from shadows? The
Feldmans' responses are insightful and sensitive. Having bought their
recovered memories at such a high price, patients are not easily
persuaded to relinquish what they believe to be their only hope for
wellness. Further, these patients bond with their therapists, whose
treatment styles usually encourage excessive attachment.
  Marc Feldman describes a patient who made up stories of sexual abuse
in a survivors' group. But when the patient retracted her claims, her
therapists said she was now trying to protect herself from painful
memories. Caught in this dilemma, she was then too angry to form a
relationship with any therapist and also too dysfunctional to make it
on her own. Feldman helped her identify her strengths and create
specific goals for therapy. He then had her describe the attributes,
therapeutic skills, and educational training she wanted in a
therapist. This sensitive strategy allowed her to begin reclaiming her
  The Feldmans offer a masterful review of the false memory syndrome,
but the chapter does not stop there. They continue with sections on
facilitated communication, satanic ritual abuse, and John Mack's alien
abductions-topics that belong together.
  I have long believed that John Mack, the Harvard psychiatrist who
describes alien abductions, should receive an award from the False
Memory Syndrome Foundation. Here's why. The idea of recovering
memories of sexual abuse has a certain popular appeal that is easily
believable, but John Mack has unwittingly shown the public that some
people will endorse any idea, no matter how utterly without objective
  Of course, Mack is only one in a long history of those who believe
it is possible to communicate with "something out there." I have been
collecting historical books on this topic for many years. For example,
Swedenborg (1688-1772) discoursed with spirits and angels about the
inhabitants of all our nearby planets and some of the moons (Earths in
Our Solar System). Some dismissed him as psychotic.
  At times it is difficult to tell whether the visionary is under the
influence of narcotics, hysteria, seizures, or delirium. (See for
example, Clanny, The Miraculous Case of Mary Jobson, 1841.) The
Seeress of Prevorst (Kerner, 1845) was medically ill also, but her
communication with spirits about the geography of spiritual realms
were explained by magnetism. Kerner now had a scientific explanation
for her ability. How can anyone be so absurd as to assert that her
vision can be ascribed to the influence of others, he taunted the
reader in his preface in (vain) hope of eliminating suggestion as an
  Then in 1851, Alphonse Cahagnet published The Celestial Telegraph,
which described the startling results of his experiments in mesmerism
with eight normal individuals. As in the case of Mack, Cahagnet's
subjects contacted a world unknown but expected by many. Their vivid
descriptions of heaven, like those of Mack's subjects, fit the notions
of the day about what things out there should look like. For example,
the reader discovers that there is no sex in heaven and that our
families and friends are there in white robes, eagerly awaiting our
arrival. Cahagnet believed, like Mack, that the convergence of these
stories by multiple subjects confirmed their reality. With the
introduction of modern spiritualism in 1848, messages arrived more
directly, first with raps, then on slates, and finally through the
voices of mediums-those go-betweens for the bereaved and their loved
ones. Spirits were eager to tell us how happy they were on the other
side. (See such early books as Post, Voices from the Spirit World,
1852; Hewitt, Messages from the Superior State, 1853.) Eventually,
spiritualism fell apart as the tricks of mediums were unraveled and
people lost interest in heaven. But the idea of someone out their
trying to contact us has never disappeared. Mack has simply wrapped
Swedenborg's fascination with people from other planets in modern
  Because Stranger than Fiction is written for the general public,
people will learn about the false memory syndrome who might not read a
whole book on the topic. I highly recommend it. However, I have some
quarrels with pieces here and there. The book's introduction is more
likely to confuse than illuminate the reader when trying to define
lies of the mind. Also, the discussion of defense mechanisms and
insight is too simplistic for these sophisticated authors.
Nevertheless, the general public will greatly enjoy this book,
especially the many fascinating case examples.

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

|                        Response to a Notice                        |
|                                                                    |
| The notice placed by Lee Holmes in the December newsletter asking  |
| for contact from people affected by Confronting Abuse, LDS         |
| Perspective" generated much interest. Lee writes that he now has a |
| group of over 50 people who wish to move forward.                  |

                 A   R E T R A C T O R   S P E A K S 
                          by Beth Rutherford

  Editor's Note: We are presenting Beth's story in two parts. Part I
  relates Beth's therapy experiences which led to memories of parental
  abuse. Part II will be presented in a future issue of the 
  Newsletter. It will relate how Beth came to realize that her
  memories were false and about the subsequent lawsuit filed by the
  Rutherford family.

Beth Rutherford, Springfield, MO went for counseling at age 19 due to
stress from her work as a nurse in a cancer unit. The first time she
went into the counselor's office she was certain that she had a
wonderful family and childhood. However, during 2 1/2 years of therapy
with a church counselor, she began recovering "memories" of being
sexually abused by her father between the ages of 7 and 14.
Allegations were made against her father (a credentialed minister).
She accused him of many things including impregnating her twice and
performing a coat hanger abortion on her. If prosecuted, he would face
7 years to life in prison. A series of events over many months brought
Beth to the realization that these "memories" were false memories.
Beth later retracted and rejoined the family. Upon being medically
examined, Beth was found to be a virgin. She now is speaking out to
help prevent what happened to her from happening to others.

                             Beth's Story
  How did the reconstruction of my childhood and supposed recovery of
"past memories" occur in therapy?
  It was a _process_. It happened slowly, and I never stood back and
looked at 'A to Z' all at once. I was absorbed into this process one
"letter" at a time. The following is a general overview of the

  P - Putting doubt in my mind about my family, our relationships, my
      childhood, and my own memory.
  R - Remembering my childhood.
  O - Omitting the good and focusing on the perceived bad.
  C - Commitment that dreams and ideas are "true memories" and
      flashbacks of reality.
  E - Emotionalizing the memories and establishing loyalties to my
  S - Separating from my parents and from all those who did not
      believe me. Then taking....
  S - Steps of accusation and confrontation.

  Each one of these phases was groundwork for bringing me deeper into
believing that terrible sexual abuse had actually happened to me. In
my conversations with other victims of this therapy, this process
seems to be a common thread in all of our experiences with Age
Regression/Recovered Memory Therapy.

  The starting point for me was the therapist asking me if I had ever
been sexually abused. After I got over the shock, I emphatically said,
"No, never!" I was told that I fit the signs (symptom list) of being
  The power of suggestion is an underestimated power. In my second
session I happened to tell my therapist that I sometimes had strange
dreams of heated arguments between my father and me, dreams of having
my father send bears after me, and of his coming after me with a
knife. I was told that these were dreams that sexually abused people
have and, therefore, I had to have been sexually abused. This was the
start of the downhill slide of my life for the next 2 1/2 years.
  The following are a few examples of the conversations that I had in
therapy that put doubts in my mind, causing me to begin to wonder if
perhaps I had been a victim of sexual abuse:

  Therapist: You're a high achiever in school (4.0 GPA). This suggests
      that you have been sexually abused.
  Beth: How?
  Therapist: You absorbed yourself with your academic studies in order
      to cope with the abuse you experienced at home.
  Beth: But, why don't I remember any of this?
  Therapist: It is because you have repressed it. It's the only way
      you could deal with the pain. Now you are mature enough to
      handle the information your mind is trying to reveal to you.
  Beth: Really?
  Therapist: You need to trust me. I know what I'm talking about when
      it comes to sexual abuse. I will help you recover your past and
      work through it. You see, Beth, the only way you will ever be a
      mentally healthy person is to recover these memories and deal
      with them. Then you can become a truly whole person.

  The suggestion that your family and childhood may not be as good as
you thought is powerfully implanted.

  I was asked to remember and tell what it was like growing up in my
home. I shared various stories, conversations, events, told about
places, and gave multiple details. I described what our home looked
like, how many rooms it had, where all of the bedrooms were, etc.
These statements gave my therapist specific events and details to work
with as she weaved an amazing abuse story and all the while using my
own stories with a new interpretation and twist. For example, in
describing one of the homes we lived in, I told my therapist about a
little storage shed that we had. This later became a place in my
"memories" where I had been tied up and objects were inserted in me.

  In this phase of therapy, I began to talk less and less about the
good in my family. When I attempted to point out times of happiness, I
was told that this was not the focus of our session. Every wonderful
time I described from my childhood was taken and twisted into an
example of a dysfunctional family.
  Example 1: I told the therapist about times when my Dad and I wrote
out checks and paid bills together when I was 9 years old. Instead of
seeing the good in this situation, that I was learning about finances
and enjoying a grown-up activity, my therapist focused on a twisted
reinterpretation, stating that my father treated me as a marriage
partner, and that he really should have been doing this with my mom.
The therapist said that this was an indication that he preferred me
over my mother.
  Example 2: I shared about a few times that my sisters and I got a
peck on the lips as a good-bye from my parents when they would be
leaving on a trip or going away for a few days. Instead of seeing this
as a beautiful and simple demonstration of parental love, the
therapist suggested that only a husband and a wife should ever kiss on
the lips, that it was wrong for a daughter and father to do so, and
that this was inappropriate sexual behavior on the part of my father.
  Example 3: My parents would encourage me to do well in school since
academics was a natural ability and interest of mine. Instead of
seeing this as parental support for my tendencies toward and enjoyment
of academics, the therapist reinterpreted the parental words of
encouragement, saying, "Your parents were feeling guilty about the
fact that they were abusing you. If you did well in school, they
wouldn't feel like they were causing you any damage or harm by the
abuse they were committing."
  Over time I came to believe that I had an incorrect memory of my
childhood and that my therapist really had the correct view. I was
told that people who were abused are not good judges of their own past
because if abuse is all you have known or grown up with, you would not
see it as wrong or abnormal.

  As the focus on sexual abuse in our therapy sessions escalated, so
did the sexual content and intensity of my dreams. I would come into
the next therapy session and was asked what I had dreamed about
recently. I was told that these were actual memories (not dreams or
fantasies) and that through dreams my mind was revealing facts to me.
  I was asked to concentrate deeply on my childhood. In this state of
deep concentration and focus on earlier years, I went into hypnotic
and trance-like states.
  After "coming out" of one of these trances, I was told by my
therapist that I had just revealed an event of sexual abuse and
described for her something that had happened to me. She would then
read back to me what she had written down about the "memory" I had
recovered. I trusted my counselor. I looked up to her (she had an MS
degree in counseling-psychology and BSW in social work). She was a
professional. Although I didn't consciously remember what happened in
those trance-like states, I felt that I could trust her when she would
explain, "Beth, you have just had a flashback into your past. . .these
are real events that have actually happened to you. . ."

  We talked about what a victim "feels" like and focused on the
emotions of a victim: feelings of helplessness, loss of control,
anger, hatred of your mother for not protecting you from your father,
feeling dirty and afraid. As I began to internalize these emotions,
they became a part of my thinking and my feelings.
  I began having "body memories." When coming out of a trance, I could
actually feel the pain of being penetrated. My legs would go numb from
'remembering' times of being tied up. Again, I was told that this all
was repressed and was now coming out; my mind was now allowing me to
know what really happened to me as a child. These physical symptoms
only reinforced for me that these times of abuse had to have happened
or I would not be feeling the physical pain.
  A highly significant phase of fully believing in the reality of my
recovered "memories" was going to other mental health professionals
for evaluations. A psychiatrist and a psychologist concluded from
their psychological testing and evaluation that indeed I had been
severely traumatized as a child. With these results, I fully believed
that my good and happy childhood was really a cruel joke. (I only wish
that I realized then what I know now, that Psychological testing is
not a proof of history. It is only a reflection of what you believe
and what is in your mind at the time of testing.)

  I told my therapist everything: every dinner conversation held at
home, my parents' phone calls that I overheard, the comments my dad
and mom made to me, etc. I called her from my closet at home if I felt
scared. There were times I might call her four or more times a day in
addition to my numerous therapy sessions. Sometimes I had two and
three therapy sessions a week. Some were two- and three-hour
marathons each.
  I sneaked into my father's office and got into his files and found
papers he had to sign. I brought them to the therapist so that she
could copy them for herself, and then I sneaked them back into my
father's files.
  I would have given my life to be her daughter. An emotional bond was
formed between us. I felt like only she could save me from my broken
life. I thought that only she truly knew me and, therefore, only she
could help me. I lived for my therapist and therapy sessions.

  I was told that the only way that I was going to be able to be a
healthy adult was to get away from my infectious parents, because they
were like cancer and I had to "cut them out" in order to be a mentally
healthy adult. The therapist told me that they were the cause of all
the problems in my life, and I must be the one to break the cycle of
abuse in my family so that I in turn would not abuse my children. I
was told that my parents' refusal to admit guilt meant that I must
separate from them, for they were in denial.
  By this time, I had deteriorated physically. I weighed 87 pounds,
was on medication, and hated life. I was told that in order to have
any happiness in my life, I had to get away from my sick parents and
any relatives who would not believe me. Only by cutting them all out
of my life was healing possible.

  Not every son or daughter takes this step. I was more than
encouraged; I actually felt pressured to do this by the therapist. My
plan was to get away from my parents and never see them again.
However, accusations were brought against my parents in an
ecclesiastical meeting, an absolute nightmare for them. It was the
first time they were informed of what 2 1/2 years of therapy had
  To accuse my parents was a statement of defiance. I told them that
just because they wouldn't admit what they had done to me didn't mean
I would back down from my belief that they did it. Making these
accusations was driven by the therapist, who consistently told me that
to accuse is the only way true healing can begin.
  I was never further from true healing! I went to her office 2 1/2
years earlier as a normal, well adjusted, happy young adult with job
stress. And after 2 1/2 years of "treatment" I was unrecognizable! I
was a wreck mentally, physically, socially, financially and
educationally. I was jobless with a destroyed past, present, and
future. Thank God, He helped me find my way out of "therapy" and put
me on the road of recovery.

IN SUMMARY, each situation is different. Those of us who are victims
of False Memory Syndrome initially go to a therapist for different
reasons. For me, it was job stress. For others it may be a painful
divorce, a death in the family, marital problems, problems with a
child, a tragic pregnancy, etc. But one thing is certain, we never
walked into the therapist's office with the idea that we had been
sexually abused. Unfortunately however, we all left with that idea.
  Each person is an individual with individual needs who warrants
being treated as such. If you went to a medical doctor's office with
indigestion and wanted him to treat you for the indigestion, would it
be acceptable medical practice for a doctor:

  *to neglect to give you a physical examination;
  *to not verify symptoms with external evidence and tests, or not
   take a medical history, etc.;
  *to extemporaneously diagnose you with cancer of the stomach;
  *to proceed with years of treatment (chemo/radiation/experimental
  *to talk you into having a surgery to cut out the cancer by removing
   part of your stomach;
  *to watch you deteriorate in every way; only to discover you never
   had cancer at all?

  Would this be acceptable medical practice? Of course not! So why are
similar methods tolerated in the professional mental health community?
There is something wrong with "methodology" or "services rendered" if
an unsuspecting client comes in with a little headache and goes out
with no arms or legs....comes in with one problem and leaves with a
life shattered to pieces. What ever happened to the sensibility of the
Hippocratic Oath, "To Do No Harm." Yes, there are real people who do
have real cancer who need treatment. And of course, there are real
people, who have had experienced real sexual abuse who may need
assistance in dealing with that horrendous load of agony and pain.
Those people deserve to be believed, listened to and helped. One case
of sexual abuse is one case too many.... a nightmare for any who have
lived through it. But to diagnose someone as sexually abused and to
lead people to believe that horrible things happened to them that in
reality never destroy play with peoples' minds
is morally despicable malpractice.

/                                                                    \
| "Given the difficulty in distinguishing true from false memories,  |
| and given the lack of evidence for repression, as well as for the  |
| necessity of memory recovery in the healing process, we contend    |
| that therapy focused on memory recovery does not provide enough    |
| documented benefits to justify the risk of false memory creation." |
|                                                                    |
| Hyman, Jr. I. and Loftus, E. F., Some people recover memories of   |
| childhood trauma that never really happened. in Trauma and Memory: |
| Clinical and Legal Controversies (Edited by Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, |
| Lisa A. Uyehara, M..D.. and Mark R. Elin, Ph.D.)New York: Oxford U |
| Press, 1997, page 4                                                |

                   F R O M   O U R   R E A D E R S

Some stories do have happy endings. Our family is now re-united and
all fifteen will be with us at our house for Christmas.
                                                      A Mom and Dad

Our accusing daughter and her two sisters all came for Christmas. They
flew in from different parts of the country to stay for two days. It
was fabulous. For the first time in over seven years we felt that we
have a family once again. I can only say to others, "Don't give up
                                                              A Dad

  I thought it wouldn't matter if she died. My daughter died. It
matters. Death is final.
  Be there for your children no matter what they have done. Be there
to hold their hand.
  Death is final. I didn't get to be there with her when she died.
                                                    Grieving Mother

  Our long nightmare of a legal case due to false accusations by a
beloved daughter is over, thanks in part to a ruling of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a case involving abuse claims similar to
those against us. The many many prayers said on our behalf have been
heard and answered. Thank you. Thank you. All of you.
  Although there has been a legal victory of sorts, it is bittersweet
because our child is lost to us and her brothers, sisters, nieces,
nephews, aunts and uncles and grandmother. She has renounced us
all. We pray daily for her to gain understanding and change her
  We will be eternally grateful for your unwavering support.
                                                   A Mom and Dad

  I feel moved to write you as this is another story with a happy
ending. I was accused by our daughter of sexual abuse that she
"remembered" in what she described as a flashback. This was following
extensive therapy and her search for why she did not have peace in
regard to her spiritual journey.
  My wife and I were separated from both of our children in a most
horrid, heart-rendering meeting with them and her therapist. The
separation and no contact lasted 5 years. I was told I could not have
contact unless I first admitted to the (false) accusations.
  Fortunately, my wife was finally able to reunite with the
children. She then took some major steps in working on reconciliation
for the whole family. Two months ago with the aid of some key trusted
people something was set up for me too.
  After a couple of hours and many tears on both sides, a complete
reconciliation took place. It is unbelievable. We are just overjoyed
to be together again.
  My daughter has not said she does not believe the abuse occurred,
nor does she say it did. She says the Lord moved her to drop the
sexual abuse allegations.
  We want to thank you for all you have done and are doing for those
involved in this agony. We also have had a very close-knit local
support group for parents falsely accused. With these people we were
able to share our grief, cry together, pray for one another and uphold
each other.
  We are a new family, a new relationship. It is truly a rebirth and
we give God the glory and will let Him be the judge.
                                                        A Happy Dad

*                    S T A T E   M E E T I N G S                     *
*                           ______________                           *
*                           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.                     *
*             _________________________________________              *
*             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)                    *
*                                                                    *
*                           ______________                           *
*                           TEXAS MEETINGS                           *
* Pamela Freyd and Eleanor Goldstein will talk about their new book  *
*                       Smiling through Tears                        *
*                                                                    *
*  Dallas Saturday March 28, 1998     Houston Sunday March 29, 1998  *
*            1 - 5 p.m                           1 - 5 p.m.          *
*         For information:                     For information:      *
*     George: (214) 239-5108                 Jo: (713) 464-3942      *
*                                                                    *
*                              _______                               *
*                              INDIANA                               *
*         Saturday, April 18, 1998   8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.          *
*                  Speakers:  The Rutherford Family                  *
* Continental breakfast and delicious luncheon included. The         *
* meeting will be in Indianapolis and is sponsored by the Indiana    *
* Association for Responsible Mental Health Practices.               *
*                      For more information call:                    *
*  Nickie: (317) 471-0922; Fax: 317-334-9839  or Pat: 219-482-2847   *
*                                                                    *
*          +----------------------------------------------+          *
*          |             April -- New Mexico              |          *
*          |  May -- Vermont, Northern New York, Toronto  |          *
*          +----------------------------------------------+          *

                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
   Andover - 2nd Sun. (MO) @ 1pm
        Frank (508) 263-9795
  Grand Rapids Area-Jenison - 1st Mon. (MO)
        Bill & Marge (616) 383-0382
  Greater Detroit Area - 3rd Sun. (MO)
        Nancy (810) 642-8077
        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
        Tom (417) 883-8617
        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)
        Sy (505) 758-0726
  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. (MO)
        (No meeting in 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

  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 
  Task Force FMS of Werkgroep Fictieve 
        Anna (31) 20-693-5692
        Colleen (09) 416-7443
        Ake Moller FAX (48) 431-217-90
  The British False Memory Society
        Roger Scotford (44) 1225 868-682
           Deadline for the March Newsletter is February 5
                  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,      January 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

              V I D E O   T A P E   O R D E R   F O R M
                  W H E N   M E M O R I E S   L I E
                           (Colorado Seminar)

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

                                   DATE:   /   /

Ordered By:                        Ship to:

Please type or print information:
| QUANT- |  #  |            DESCRIPTION             | UNIT  | AMOUNT |
|  ITY   |     |                                    | PRICE |        |
|        | 440 | Defines Colorado Grievance Board   |  3.00 |        |
|        | 441 | Pameal Freyd, Ph.D.                |  3.00 |        |
|        |     |             David Lane, Attorney   |       |        |
|        | 442 | The Rutherford Family              |  3.00 |        |
|        | 443 | Eleanor Goldstein,                 |  3.00 |        |
|        |     |          Richard Ofshe, Ph.D.      |       |        |
                                                   SUBTOTAL |        |
                                                            |        |
                                    ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION |        |
                                                            |        |
                                                  TOTAL DUE |        |
                                                            |        |

Cost of tapes:
  Each Tape      $3.00
  Shipping and packaging in Continental U.S.
  1-2 Tapes      $4.00
  3-4 Tapes      $6.00
  5-8 Tapes      $8.00

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

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

                     THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST