FMSF NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE - June 1998 - Vol. 7, No. 5, 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
    Legal Corner                          THE NEXT ISSUE WILL COMBINE
      August Piper, M.D.
        Helen Cowles                             JULY AND AUGUST
          Make a Difference
            From Our Readers
              Bulletin Board 

Dear Friends,

  ``It was a pleasure to see it worked out.''

  ``Who would have believed that such a large group of people could
  write and unanimously agree on such an important statement in less
  than 24 hours?''

On May 16 and 17, 1998, members of the False Memory Syndrome
Foundation Professional and Scientific Advisory Board met in
Philadelphia to discuss the changes that have taken place since the
Foundation was formed in March of 1992 and to advise the Foundation on
future direction. The assembled group produced a statement that will
be published in the July/August newsletter. The concise statement
addresses the current status of scientific understanding of
``recovered memories,'' and the continuing need for the Foundation.
  At the meeting, the FMSF Directors honored Martin T. Orne, M.D.,
Ph.D., and Harold I. Lief, M.D. who were instrumental in the founding
of the FMSF. Their wisdom and guidance in setting the standards of the
Scientific Advisory Board contributed to FMSF's credibility. The
Advisory Board is no monolith of opinion about psychiatric issues. On
the contrary, the members hold diverse views, but they are unanimous
on the importance of applying sound science to these questions.
  The last meeting of the Scientific Advisory Board was in 1993. How
different things were then. There were few articles or books that
raised the essential question of the historical accuracy of ``recovered
repressed memories'' of childhood sexual abuse; and legal cases were
decided against parents based only on claims of the special accuracy
of such memories.
  We now seem to be in a transition period of public understanding
about recovered memories. For example, most appellate courts have
noted that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the
theory of repression but the Arizona Supreme Court in April allowed
suits tbased on this theory to extend the statute of limitations. (The
summary and analysis of that decision (p.7) are fascinating reading
and document the need for ongoing educational efforts.)
  Another example of this transition is the divergent media treatment
of Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD; officially DID for Dissociative
Identity Disorder). Its advocates claim that MPD is caused by
childhood sexual abuse. A powerful article by Joan Acocella entitled
``The Politics of Hysteria'' appeared in the April 6, 1998 issue of
The New Yorker. Acocella notes that the recovered memory movement has
done serious damage to feminism by bringing back the old ``weak-woman
stereotype,'' and that ``the patient forfeits the privileges of being
an adult-self-knowledge, moral agency.'' She minces no words: ``If MPD
was supposed to rescue insight therapy, it did the opposite: it
covered insight therapy with shame.'' The New Yorker critique is so
completely devastating that one might conclude that the problem is
  Television programs, however, give just the opposite perspective. On
May 11, 1998, for example, Oprah Winfrey uncritically accepted the
belief that mental disorders are the result of sexual abuse. Any
association that may exist between past abuse and mental disorders is
much more complex. But it has been the handling of MPD that causes
this writer anxiety. The MPD movement received a major kick-off in the
1980s because it was presented with the imprimatur of medical
authorities. Two television programs in the past half year seem to be
doing it all over again.
  Last December the daytime talk show Leeza featured RaLynne, a mother
of four children who was said to have 300 personalities. While Leeza
acknowledged that there can be skeptics of this disorder, Stuart
Gluck, M.D., the Medical Director of Charter San Jose who treated
RaLynne for three years, was presented to confirm the reality of this
diagnosis in general and in RaLynne in particular. Throughout the
program, the camera focuses on the scars on RaLynne's arm, a result of
her self-cutting. At the same time RaLynne and her children are seen
smiling and laughing. We are given a picture of a normal person with
an exotic disorder for whom life now is fine.
  Leeza continued with RaLynne the next day. This time Dr. Don
Hackenberg, M.D. was the expert psychiatrist. He told the world that
RaLynne was a multiple because she had been victimized by a ``satanic
cult.'' He told us that we didn't know or understand this because
``satanic cults act in secrecy.'' Again the program showed close-ups
of the scars on RaLynne's arm even while portraying her life now as
normal. Sadly, RaLynne died in March, 1998.
  On March 4, 1998, Prime Time Live featured two segments on MPD
reported by Diane Sawyer. The first segment featured Chris Sizemore
(the real name behind ``Three Faces of Eve'') who told us that she
developed not just 3 but 22 personalities. What she did not tell Diane
Sawyer on television is what was revealed by Acocella in The New
Yorker that ``having MPD was `fun'--that when she recovered, the
`magic' went out of her life.''
  In the second segment Sawyer introduced us to an MPD patient named
``Lucy,'' a nurse who told us that she never switches alters when she
is on duty at work but who happened to switch during the taping of the
program. Her doctor, Richard Moskovitz, M.D., whom we are told has
just published a book on the topic and thus is ``an expert,''
authenticates the reality of the diagnosis. Dr. Moskovitz has hospital
priviledges at Charter Springs Hospital, Florida.
  Sawyer told us that two-thirds of those diagnosed with MPD try to
take their own lives. (She omitted the fact that these attempts are
mostly after the diagnosis and memory recovery.) While she said that
there are skeptics, she then said that 80 percent of doctors in a
recent survey believe in the diagnosis. (The survey was of doctors in
veterans' hospitals; other more recent surveys find nothing like this
result.) Her chief expert was David Spiegel, M.D. who appeared four
times. His father, Herb Spiegel, M.D. appeared just once to say that
MPD is greatly over diagnosed and it is an embarrassment to
psychiatry. David Spiegel then assured us that MPD is not over-
  As long as we continue to have television programs that present MPD
and recovered memories in an unbalanced and romantic fashion, we have
a problem. We must continue our work.

     |                      SPECIAL THANKS                      |
     |                                                          |
     |      We extend a very special `Thank you' to all of      |
     |     the people who help prepare the FMSF Newsletter.     |  
     |                                                          |
     |  EDITORIAL SUPPORT: Toby Feld, Allen Feld,               |
     |         Janet Fetkewicz, Howard Fishman, Peter Freyd     |
     |  RESEARCH: 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                    |

CLAIM: The FMS Foundation encourages parents ``to sue their own
children'' (Made by Lynn Henderson in ``Suppressing Memory,'' Law and
Social Inquiry, Summer 1997.)

FACT: The recommendation that parents should sue their own children
has been made by Cynthia Bowman and Elizabeth Mertz. The Foundation,
in contrast, has consistently urged family reconciliation. It has
never suggested that parents sue their own distressed children who had
turned to mental health professionals for help. (``The appropriate
individual to sue is the child herself, rather than the therapist,
unless the therapist has in fact republished the defamatory
information.'' page 585, Bowman & Mertz (1996) ``A Dangerous
Direction: Legal Intervention in Sexual Abuse Survivor Therapy''
Harvard Law Review Vol 109:549.) It is surprising that this error
appeared since Elizabeth Mertz is one of the editors of Law and Social
Inquiry. See also Bowman & Mertz, ``What Should the Courts do About
Memories of Sexual Abuse?'', Judges Journal Fall 1996.

CLAIM: The FMS Foundation encourages parents ``to picket therapists.''
(Made by Lynn Henderson in ``Suppressing Memory,'' Law and Social
Inquiry, Summer 1997.)

FACT: The FMS Foundation has encouraged families and professionals to
hold seminars to help educate the public about the problems of FMS. It
has encouraged them to see that libraries and bookstores offer books
on all sides of this issue. In Seattle, Washington, retired
construction worker and registered mental health professional Chuck
Noah [1] has chosen to picket as his way to protest. It should be
noted that FMSF families and speakers have been picketed in CT, CA,
MD, and IL to name just a few places.

[1] Noah obtained his ``registered mental health professional'' status
    to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain. He believes the State of
    Washington Mental Health law is a sham.

/                                                                    \ 
|                     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.                     |

		      Muddled Thinking Continues
FMSF Staff Each year Jefferson Medical College in Pwhiladelphia hosts
a prestigious lecture series in honor of Albert M. Biele. Paul McHugh,
M.D. and Lenore Terr, M.D. have been past speakers. This year the
featured speaker was psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk, M.D. whose May
13th talk was titled ``Social and Neurobiological Dimensions of
Compulsions to Forget and Repeat Trauma.'' He began his lecture with a
brief history of psychiatry's interest in trauma from the early
theories of Charcot, Janet and Freud to the current work of Lenore
Terr, M.D. and Judith Herman, M.D. He then reviewed several of his own
studies on victims of trauma and veterans of combat who had been
diagnosed with PTSD.
  In his presentation, van der Kolk either did not realize or just
neglected to mention the limitations of the research he
described. With his own research, for example, he failed to discuss
the possible bias of subject selection or whether the trauma reported
by his subjects was verified. When discussing other studies, he did
not mention methodological strengths or weaknesses. Indeed,
participants may have left this lecture with misconceptions about what
research has actually shown. Van der Kolk told the audience, for
example, that 37% of the subjects in the Linda Meyer Williams 1995
study [1] forgot abuse. But the Williams study does not provide
evidence as to whether subjects forgot or did not report abuse
incidents. When factors such as childhood amnesia are accounted for,
the Williams results are strikingly reduced.
  During the talk, van der Kolk, who is known for his theory of ``body
memories,'' endorsed the use of Eye Movement Desensitization and
Reprocessing (EMDR) for the treatment of patients diagnosed with
  Do professionals, medical students and residents go to talks
expecting accurate information? Or has the age of docudrama encroached
on mental health continuing education? The audience's lack of critical
questions seemed to indicate that people accepted the conclusions. If
this presentation is indicative of the quality of programs offered by
medical teaching institutions across the country, the muddled thinking
and lack of scientific understanding that has been at the root of the
FMS problem will be with us for a long time.

[1] William, LM (1995) Recovered memories of abuse in women with
    documented child sexual victimization histories. J of Traumatic
    Stress, 8(4), 649-673
[2] van der Kolk September 9, 1997 Netherlands TV documentary. When
    asked if EMDR could be used with blind people, van der Kolk stated
    that the doctor could snap his fingers on each side of a patient's
    head. He noted that the critical factor is moving from one side to
    the other. He said that Zulu tribespeople process their trauma by
    dancing on one foot and then the other. Dr. van der Kolk should be
    asked for the studies that allow him to make statements such as these.

      Press Conference to Kick Off Request for Wenatchee Review
A press conference will be held at the New York Academy of Science on
May 27 to publicize the widespread support that now exists for a
congressional review of the Wenatchee situation. A coalition of groups
has determined that congressional review is needed to determine the
conditions that contributed to the excessive prosecutions. Speakers
will include Mike Wallace, Arthur Miller, William Styon, Nat Hentoff
and many other notables.

       Ontario Sues U.S. Firm for 'luring' Patients over Border
		     Vancouver Sun, April 7, 1998
The Ontario government is suing Tenet Healthcare Corporation (formerly
National Medical Enterprises) for $175 million for luring provincial
residents to the United States for unnecessary treatments that were
then billed to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. According to the
documents filed in a Wisconsin court on April 1, NME sent agents into
Ontario to convince patients to enter drug rehabilitation and other
psychiatric programs in the United States. The treatment often was not
		    Prison Cases to be Reexamined
Canadian Federal Minister of Justice Anne Mc Lellan has agreed to
raise the issue of people in prison based only on ``recovered memory''
evidence at the next meeting of Attorneys General. This is in response
to the petition of Alan Gold, President of the Criminal Lawyers
Association signed by many prominent citizens. Canadian media coverage
has been very supportive of such a review.

            |          SMILING THROUGH TEARS            |
            |                                           |
            |    Pamela Freyd and Eleanor Goldstein     |
            |               Upton Books                 |
            |          ISBN No 9-89777.125.7            |
            |                  $14.95                   |
            |                                           |
            | Over 125 cartoons by more than 65         |
            | cartoonists lead the way through a        |
            | description of the complex web of         |
            | psychological and social elements that    |
            | have nurtured the recovered memory        |
            | movement.                                 |
            |                                           |
            |            Advance comments:              |
            |                                           |
            | ``At once both thoroughtly informative    |
            | and devastatingly witty.''                |
            |                               Alan Gold   |
            |      Criminal Defense Attorney, Toronto   |
            |                                           |
            | ``I think the book is terrific. I liked   |
            | it because it supported a lot of the      |
            | opinions I've had on psychiatry, cults,   |
            | brain-washing and other ideas mentioned   |
            | in the book.''                            |
            |                             Mort Walker   |
            |                Creator of Beetle Bailey   |
            |                                           |
            | ``It's a must read''                      |
            |                  Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D.  |
            |      Author of Myth of Repressed Memory   |

		Review of paper by C. Brooks Brenneis
			      Allen Feld

| ``If this represents the level of documentation so confidently     |
| presented by Alpert et al., one may indeed be left with serious    |
| questions about the strength of their overall argument.'' (p 537)  |

  I find it impossible to be even-handed.  The conclusions drawn by
the clinicians may be even weaker than assessed by the researchers;
conversely, the critique offered by the clinicians of the researchers'
evidence is more impassioned than apt. (p. 532, Brenneis, 1997).
  I'm guilty of admiring C. Brooks Brenneis' writings. He deals with
complex issues in a manner that I find understandable; he is an
experienced practitioner with impressive credentials in
psychoanalysis; he cuts to the heart of the ``recovered memory'' issue
by stripping away the often passionate debate surrounding it; he
understands and is influenced by science in his clinical practice and
writings. He also has the courage to speak his convictions. A frequent
author in psychoanalytical journals, Brenneis dares to write about
issues important to FMSF. He frequently challenges his fellow
clinicians to examine their beliefs and recognize how those beliefs
often influence the outcome of their therapy.
  In 1993, the American Psychological Association appointed six Ph.D.
psychologists (three clinicians: Judith L. Alpert, Laura S. Brown,
Christine A. Courtois, and three researchers: Stephen J. Ceci,
Elizabeth F. Loftus and Peter A. Ornstein) to a Working Group On
Investigation of Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse. Brenneis has
critiqued the published results of that working group.[1]
  Brenneis argues that clinicians Alpert, Brown and Courtois ignore
essential facts about Sigmund Freud's work in pressing their case for
``repressed memories.'' He points out that they have relied on the
work of van der Kolk to buttress their use of Janet who a century ago
developed the unsubstantiated notion that there is a relationship
between trauma, dissociation and amnesia. He notes that they are also
in error in relying on the theory of Lenore Terr that if trauma is
repeated it is more likely to be forgotten than is a single episode.
Terr also believes that it is possible to use current symptoms to
determine historical events.
  Brenneis writes: ``Aside from the fact that Terr's notion about
forgetting repeated trauma is inconsistent with nearly all that is
known about memory, no one has tested this hypothesis in a rigorous
way.'' Rigorous testing, he notes, would ``require judges to be blind to
individual's histories (trauma, no trauma) to observe their behavior
and examine their dreams and accounts of somatosensory experience.
Could they divine the nature of the underlying trauma, if it existed?''
  Brenneis reviews the anecdotal evidence used by Alpert et al. to
support their belief that people frequently forget abuse. He observed
that some of the cases they used were based on media accounts, others
had too few details to allow for close examination and still others
had so many potential flaws that their accuracy could reasonably be in
question. Commenting on one study Brenneis notes, ``If this represents
the level of documentation so confidently presented by Alpert et al.,
one may indeed be left with serious questions about the strength of
their overall argument.'' Indeed, this comment is apt for the
clinicians' general use of anecdotal evidence.
  Brenneis expresses concern that Alpert, Brown and Courtois do not
demonstrate reasonable familiarity with laboratory/empirical research.
He cites their use of a 1981 study by Bower as an example. That study
was used to support their interpretation of the place that state- or
mood-dependent memory plays in helping someone recall alleged abuse.
However, as Brenneis points out, in 1989 Bower & Mayer wrote that in
six other studies they had been unable to find stable evidence for a
mood dependent retrieval effect. Students in their first research
course are introduced to the necessity of replicating research to
affirm the importance of the findings in the original research. The
inability to replicate the 1981 research is ignored by Alpert, Brown
and Courtois.
  The clinicians' bias against experimental research is evident.
Brenneis notes that while they criticize laboratory research as
irrelevant to clinical situations, they show no reluctance to use it
when they like the results. And, he points out, they actually
overstated the value of these results.
  Brenneis goes on to introduce the notion of ``Mutual influence out of
awareness...'' that is to be found in therapist patient interactions.
Based on the early work of Martin Orne, he writes about the indirect
communications and cues that flow between client and therapist and
about the embedding of beliefs that are out of awareness. At the same
time, Brenneis is accutely aware and appreciative that the therapeutic
process depends on the important interactions between therapists and
  Brenneis has no trouble separating scientific skepticism and
critical examination from disbelief in stories of true victimization.
He reminds Alpert, Brown and Courtois that their ``uncritical...
interpretations of the assembled evidence may, paradoxically, enhance
the 'disbelief in victims stories'''.
  Brenneis concludes by pointing out that people are often resistant
to change even in the face of contrary evidence. ``We are emotionally
invested in our cherished beliefs and resist altering them,'' he
writes.(p. 543) While both the clinicians and the scientists defend
their views with passion, Brenneis perceives that the clinicians
``weigh their [own] evidence far too heavily and that of the
researchers far too lightly'' (ibid.). It is difficult separating
cherished beliefs of clinicians from clinical evidence. Recovered
memories may reflect the cherished beliefs of the clinicians who help
recover them..

[1] Brenneis, C. B., Final report of APA Working Group on
    Investigation of Memories of Childhood Abuse: A critical
    commentary. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 14(4), 531-547.

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

Newsletter readers may find the following book by C. Brooks Brenneis
of interest: Recovered memory of trauma: Transferring the present to
the past. International Universities Press, 1997.

|                         Psychology Astray:                         |
|  Fallacies in Studies of ``Repressed Memory'' and Childhood Trauma |
|                   by Harrison G. Pope, Jr., M.D.                   |
|                            Upton Books                             |
| This is an indispensable guide for any person who wants or needs   |
| to understand the research claims about recovered memories. A      |
| review by Stuart Sutherland in the prestigious Nature magazine     |
| (July 17, 1997) says that the book is a ``model of clear thinking  |
| and clear exposition.'' The book is an outgrowth of the ``Focus on |
| Science'' columns that have appeared in this newsletter.           |

                        B O O K   R E V I E W
		      Memory Mayhem in Australia
	  We save our forests -- Let's save our family trees
			by June and Ken Godwin
		     181 pages. Private printing.

  The authors will make this book available to those FMSF members who
  are interested. Write to Editor, FMSF Newsletter for information.
  Cost is $15.00 Australian plus postage.

Memory Mayhem in Australia: We save our forests -- Let's save our
family trees chronicles media and legal repressed memory events in
Australia from 1992 through the end of 1997. Bringing the chronology
to life with family stories and many quotes, this book will serve as
an invaluable resource to historians and sociologists studying the
international spread of a belief system and how it was interpreted
within a particular culture and government.
  The book is not a scholarly tome but rather a very personal account
that incorporates media and legal information to support the authors'
purpose: ``to record how ordinary well-integrated families were blown
apart by the re-birth of Freudian-type psychotherapy'' (page 110).
  According to the authors, 1994 was a watershed year for FMS in
Australia: the Australian False Memory Society was formed; the Bunbury
case came to public attention (see FMSF Newsletter January 1995); and
Richard Guilliatt published articles that later became Talk of the
Devil 1996 (see FMSF Newsletter June 1997). In 1994, the authors
attended the FMSF and John Hopkins Memory and Reality: Reconciliation
conference (Baltimore) and the chapter describing the conference is
the most complete account available.
  The authors believe that the crisis is waning in Australia. Not only
did the Australian Psychological Society come out with very strong and
very clear guidelines (see FMSF Newsletter June 1995), but others in
positions of authority have had the courage to speak out. Their
optimism may be premature, however, as there have been a number of
recent reports of American recovered memory and MPD therapists on
speaking tours in Australia.
  In support of their view that Australia is becoming more sensible,
the authors note that the most notorious day care case in Australia,
``Mr. Bubbles,'' has been exposed as a fraud. Dr. Schlebaum, one of the
doctors responsible for the prosecutions in that case, appeared before
a government commission in late 1996 and wept as she admitted that she
had presented false evidence in letters to parents of children
attending a kindergarten. Among other things, she had alleged that
cannibalism had been witnessed by the children.
  The FMS phenomenon in Australia has both similarities and
differences with that experienced in North America. Ultimately,
however, the unnecessary human suffering caused by professional
arrogance and ignorance of science and an abandonment of reason is at
the heart of the FMS problem.

/                                                                    \
|         $950,000 Damages for Couple in `Mr. Bubbles' case          |
|                                                                    |
| In 1988, the police in New South Wales charged Dawn and Tony       |
| Deren, the owners of the Seabeach Kindergarten, with sexual abuse  |
| of five children in a case that came to be known as `Mr. Bubbles.' |
| After a 6-week committal hearing in November 1989, all charges of  |
| sexual assault were dismissed against them.                        |
|   The Derens filed five defamation actions after police            |
| allegations were published in newspapers. The Deren's lawyer said  |
| public comments reported to have been made by police would have    |
| established their guilt in the minds of ordinary readers. The      |
| award of $950,000 (Australian) is the first suit to be decided.    |
|                                      Sydney Morning Herald, 2/1/98 |

                       L E G A L   C O R N E R
                              FMSF Staff
	       Federal Judge Dismisses Sex Abuse Cases
    Smith v. O'Connell, et al., Kelly v. Marcantonio, et al., 1998
	       U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3456, March 17, 1998.[1] 
In March 1998, the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island dismissed
three suits filed by men who allege they were sexually abused as
teenagers by priests. All of the suits were filed more than 8 years
after the alleged abuse occurred and more than 5 years after the
plaintiffs attained the age of majority. Therefore, the suits are
time-barred under Rhode Island law unless the limitations period is
tolled by either of two provisions of the statute of limitations: 1)
where claimants' reasons for delay in filing constitute a condition of
``unsound mind'';[2] and/or 2) where the failure of church officials
to disclose their alleged knowledge of previous sexual misconduct by
the priests amounted to ``fraudulent concealment.'' The plaintiffs
were required to meet the burden of establishing that their claims met
these provisions.
  Plaintiffs alleged their delay in filing was due either to a
temporary inability to remember alleged acts of abuse or difficulty in
overcoming a reluctance to ``re-live'' the matter by initiating legal
action. Following a review of Rhode Island case law, the federal court
found that these claims did not meet the statutory definition of
``unsound mind'' and so could not toll (extend) the statue of
limitations. The court defined ``unsound mind'' as a person who is
incompetent or incapable of managing daily affairs. The court noted
that this definition ``provides a relatively reliable and objective
test.'' On the other hand, the court explained, expanding ``unsound
mind'' to the conditions claimed by the plaintiffs would ``lead to
inconsistency and uncertainty; would open the door to stale and
fraudulent claims and would create an exception that swallows the
rule....It would transform 'unsound mind' into an amorphous concept
requiring an individualized and highly subjective determination in
every case as to whether a particular condition qualifies and, if so,
whether and how long a particular plaintiff, in fact, suffered from
that condition. The difficulty of making that determination would be
compounded by the fact that it necessarily turns on facts that no
longer exist.'' A more subjective definition of ``unsound mind'' would
lead to several difficulties including the problem of rebutting a
plaintiff's claims regarding a past psychological condition probably
based on testimony from experts who never examined the plaintiff when
the condition allegedly existed.
  The federal court, reviewing Rhode Island law, held that
``fraudulent concealment''[3] of a cause of action requires something
more than a defendant's failure to volunteer information that might be
useful in proving that defendant liable for a tortious act. In this
case, the plaintiffs did not allege fraudulent misrepresentation and
the court held that an alleged ``mere silence or a failure to
volunteer information does not amount to an actual
  The court, therefore, granted the defendants' motions for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs' attorney Carl P. DeLuca said he would appeal the
decision. There are 43 similar lawsuits filed in both federal and
state courts in Rhode Island.

[1] For history, see Smith v. O'Connell, 986 F. Supp. 73,1997 736515
    (D.R.I., 1997).
[2] Many states extend the limitations period for persons who are of
    ``unsound mind.'' How that term is defined varies from state to
    state and generally means that a person is either unable to
    function in normal life or is unable to understand her legal
    rights. Very few courts have found a repressed memory claim to
    toll the statute of limitations under this provision. See FMSF
    Working Paper for details.
[3] No defendant may use a statute of limitations defense if they
    fraudulently concealed or misrepresented material facts so as to
    mislead the plaintiff into believing that no cause of action
    existed until the limitations period expired.

	     Florida Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of
		     ``Traumatic Amnesia'' Claim
       Hearndon v. Graham, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3754, 4/14/98.
In April 1998, a Florida appeals court affirmed dismissal of a suit in
which the claimant, aged 32, alleged that she suffered from
``'traumatic amnesia' or a related syndrome'' caused by sexual abuse
by her stepfather from the time she was 8 until she was 15. The court
also certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court for a ruling on
whether cases alleging child abuse in which the claimant alleges
``traumatic amnesia'' caused by the abuse would toll the statue of
limitations under delayed discovery doctrine.
  In so doing, the appellate court noted that the Florida Supreme
Court had not yet considered a repressed memory claim. In 1989, a
Florida Appellate Court [4] dismissed a child sexual abuse claim in
which the claimant allegedly had repressed but ``rediscovered''
memories of abuse when she sought psychological counseling just prior
to filing the complaint. That appeals court also held that the alleged
incestuous acts, if taken as true, damaged the appellant at the time
they occurred and therefore held that the action was time-barred as a
matter of law.
  The Hearndon court felt that recent decisions in related areas by
the Florida Supreme Court indicated that the court might treat the
``traumatic amnesia'' alleged in this case differently from the
``rediscovered memories'' alleged in Lindabury. The court also wanted
confirmation from the Florida Supreme Court that the discovery rule
statute enacted in 1993 could not be applied retroactively to revive a
claim which was already time-barred under a previous statute.

[4] Lindabury v. Lindabury, 552 So.2d 1117 (Fla.3d DCA 1989).

	   Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Discovery Rule
		  Applies to Repressed Memory Claim
	      Doe v. Roe, 1998 WL 157004, April 7, 1998.
In April 1998, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the discovery rule
applies to a claim of repressed memory of sexual abuse. The court also
concluded that there is a genuine issue of material fact with respect
to when the plaintiff discovered her claim and whether she was of
unsound mind and thus incapable of bringing a claim. Both questions,
the court said, cannot be determined on a summary judgment motion and
are questions for a jury to decide. In so ruling, the Arizona Supreme
Court reversed an earlier ruling by the Arizona Court of Appeals [5]
and remanded the case to the trial court.
  Because of the atypical approach taken by the court, we will
summarize the claims it relied on and point out areas of divergence
with the majority of appellate court rulings on similar issues.
Although the court noted that Arizona statues of limitations were
adopted from very similar Texas statutes, the court did not cite the
Texas Supreme Court [6] decision interpreting those statutes. The
Texas Supreme Court had before it extensive submissions and expert
testimony regarding the scientific status of ``recovered'' memories.
The Arizona Supreme Court did not. In fact, the issue had not been
raised by either party.[7] The court's long discussion of the
repressed memory/false memory debate was, therefore, uninformed by
expert testimony and the cases cited were not representative.
  Plaintiff Jane Doe claimed that it was not until age 30 that she
recalled sexual abuse by her father from age 8 to 15. In 1989 (nearly
3 years prior to filing), she claims she had a flashback of her father
sexually assaulting her. She sought therapy immediately and began to
recall additional events of brutal abuse which she discussed only with
her therapist, though the record does not specify the dates these new
images emerged. In June 1990 (slightly under 2 years prior to filing)
she disclosed an ``especially heinous incident'' to her therapist, but
claimed she ``still remembered only a fraction'' of the alleged
abuse. The court emphasized that according to Plaintiff prior to June
1990, she was ``in denial'' and ``not ready to talk'' about the abuse
or to ``deal with it.'' Doe's therapist averred that Doe was ``very
committed to her recovery.''
  The court concluded that these assertions were sufficient to fall
under the due diligence requirement of the discovery rule. In
addition, it said a jury could find plaintiff of ``unsound mind''
based on the claims. The court assumed that the process of memory
repression and recall has been demonstrated through empirical research
and that victims of sexual abuse may experience partial recall of
repressed memories over long periods of time. Therefore, the court
concluded that determination of when Plaintiff's knowledge and
acceptance was sufficient to constitute a cause of action is a
question for a jury to decide. The court held that the case could not
be dismissed on a summary judgment motion.
  Similar claims have been decided by some 200 appellate courts. A
review of 80 appellate rulings also considering summary judgment
motions shows that 3/4 were dismissed outright and over half of the
remaining decisions were remanded to the trial court for a
determination, using objective standards, of the date of discovery or
of the status of plaintiff's mental state. The overwhelming majority
of courts, hearing claims not unlike those before the Arizona court,
have held that the statute of limitations is not tolled under
disability exception. Specifically, an ``inability to communicate,''
or a state of ``denial'' does not meet the objective standard other
jurisdictions apply. Nor have the majority of jurisdictions, as the
Arizona court suggests, applied the discovery rule to similar claims.
Finally, because neither party briefed the question of the validity of
repressed memory, the court's discussion should be taken as dicta,
that, is, observations which are not binding on the case in
question. It is not clear how the Arizona court's approach will, as it
hopes, achieve ``a reasonable degree of rationality and consistency.''

[5] Doe v. Roe, 1996 Ariz App. LEXIS 169. See FMSF Newsletter
    Sept. 1996.
[6] S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex., 1996) (The scientific community
    has not reached consensus on how to gauge the truth or falsity of
    ``recovered'' memories, therefore, statute of limitations not
    tolled unless the event and injury were, among other things,
    ``objectively verifiable.'')
[7] Defendants stated that in the event of remand, they preserved the
    right to object to evidence of repressed memory on the ground that
    it does not conform to accepted scientific theory and is therefore
    inadmissible under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.,
/                                                                    \
|                       TO SEXUAL ABUSE CASES?                       |
|                                                                    |
| This sidebar in the hard-copy edition appears as the next section  |
| in this e-mail edition.                                            |

       Missouri Hypnotherapist Pleads Guilty to Insurance Fraud
		      State of Missouri v. Lamb
	   St. Louis Co., Circuit Ct., MO, No. 96CR-2151A.
On April 23, hypnotherapist Geraldine Lamb pled guilty to three felony
criminal charges of insurance fraud and a misdemeanor charge of
practicing psychology without a license. Lamb admitted that she
submitted falsified bills for insurance payment that stated the
patients were treated by two psychologists, when the patients were, in
fact, treated by Lamb. Last month each of the psychologists pled
guilty to misdemeanor counts for their role in the scheme. Lamb is
scheduled to be sentenced in June.
  Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon said, ``Geraldine Lamb lacked
the training, competence and certification to diagnose the serious
mental and psychological disorders that she did.'' In addition to
convincing or coercing some of her patients into believing that they
were the victims of ritual or satanic abuse, Nixon said Lamb told some
patients they were suppressing memories of abuse and that they must
disassociate themselves from their families and friends. Lamb also
breached patient confidence by disclosing information about patients
to other unauthorized persons.
  Nixon obtained a civil court order against Lamb in May 1996
preventing her from counseling and directing Lamb to refer her
patients to licensed professionals.

  Malpractice Suit Against Nationally Known Author Renee Fredrickson
			      Is Settled
			  Doe v. Fredrickson
       District Ct., Ramsey Co., Minnesota, No. C6-97-3540.[8]
In mid-May, Renee Fredrickson, psychologist and author of a book on
``repressed memories,'' agreed to pay $175,000 to a former client who
accused Fredrickson of implanting false memories of childhood sexual
  The malpractice suit, filed in April 1997, alleged Fredrickson used
hypnosis, guided imagery, dream interpretation, automatic writing,
``body memories,'' misinformation, suggestion, and other ``memory
recovery'' methods to implant terrifying false memories of incest and
ritual cult abuse. The plaintiff, listed as Jane Doe, claims
Fredrickson used hypnosis on her to ``recover memories'' without
obtaining informed consent. ``Had I been informed of the dangers I
would never have dreamed of submitting to the procedure,'' Doe
stated. As a result of the new ``memories'' that developed during her
10 months of therapy, Doe states she became suicidally depressed for
the first time in her life and made false accusations to her immediate
and extended family. Her family relationships were shattered by these
  Doe says therapists need to distinguish between long-standing
childhood abuse memories and ``recovered memories'' created in
therapy. ``Childhood sexual abuse is a major problem that needs to be
addressed,'' Doe said. ``The creation of false memories in therapy is
a separate problem that also needs to be solved.''
  Doe is represented by William Mavity of Minneapolis and R.
Christopher Barden. Barden said that his client settled out of court
because Fredrickson's total malpractice insurance coverage was capped
at $200,000.
  Jane Doe and her husband have also filed a complaint with the
Minnesota Board of Psychology. That complaint is still under
investigation by the Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

[8] See FMSF Brief Bank #138.

		  George Franklin Case Moves Forward
   Franklin v. Terr, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6365, April 30, 1998.[9]
George Franklin won a preliminary battle in his effort to avenge a murder
conviction based on his daughter's ``repressed memory.'' A federal judge
refused to throw out a wrongful prosecution case against San Mateo County
District Attorney James Fox and two deputies.
  ``This case is a very disturbing case,'' U.S. District Judge Charles
Breyer said during arguments. Breyer kept the defendants from the
District Attorney's office in the case because of their role in an
ill-conceived scheme to elicit a confession from Franklin. Breyer
differentiated between the roles attorneys play in prosecuting a case
-- for which they have absolute immunity from suit -- from work they
do as investigators.
  Before Franklin's 1990 trial, prosecutors sent his daughter to visit
her father in jail. As jail personnel monitored their conversation,
Franklin's daughter asked leading questions that her father refused to
answer and gestured toward a sign that warned inmates that
conversations were being monitored. During closing arguments,
prosecutors were permitted to use Franklin's gesture as well as his
refusal to answer his daughter's questions as proof of his guilt. The
prosecutors' attempted sting, Franklin argues, led directly to his
conviction. It also deprived him of his right to be represented by
counsel at all times.
  Franklin's attorneys, Andrew Schwartz and Dennis Riordan, also
contend that Franklin's daughter, expert witness Lenore Terr,
sheriff's investigators and prosecutors conspired to suppress from the
jury the fact that his daughter used hypnosis to help bring the memory
of her playmate's murder to the fore some 20 years after the fact.
This charge was dismissed. Also dismissed from the suit were two
psychotherapists who served as expert witnesses during Franklin's
criminal trial, because immunity is granted to all witnesses.
  Franklin spent almost seven years in prison for the murder of his
daughter's childhood friend before his conviction was overturned in
1995.[10] His daughter, drawing on supposedly repressed memories of
the day of the killing, testified against Franklin. Later, questions
were raised about her testimony because many of the details she
described had been published in the media years earlier. Franklin has
sought to clear his name since his release from jail in July 1996.

[9]  See FMSF Brief Bank #167.

[10] In April 1995, U.S. District Court D. Lowell Jensen overturned
     Franklin's murder conviction and life sentence and ordered the
     man free. The First District Court of Appeal upheld the
     conviction. In April 1998, The Recorder cited Judge Jensen's
     decision in the Franklin case as an example of the judge's
     knowledge of the law and integrity. In Jensen's dozen years on
     the federal bench, the senior judge has consistently had one of
     the lowest reversal rates in the district.

	 Houston Jury Found No Wrongdoing by Psychotherapist;
		       Juror: ``From Day One''
 Jones v. Lurie, 125th Dist. Ct., Harris Co., Texas, 95-39005-A.[11]
On May 4, a Houston jury found psychotherapist Dorothy Lurie not
responsible for her patient's mental anguish after she helped the
woman recover false memories of murdering babies and cannibalism. The
lawsuit, filed in 1995 by Kristi Jones, alleged that the mental-health
providers who treated her over a 5-year period implanted false
memories and wrongly convinced her that she had multiple
personalities. The only defendant at trial was Dr. Lurie, who had
treated Jones the longest. The other mental health-providers
originally named in the case settled with Jones before the trial
started. Though the amounts were supposed to be confidential, Lurie's
attorney said that the settlements totaled $480,000.
  ``From day one we were all on Dr. Lurie's side and thought Jones had
no case, but we were prepared to listen,'' said one juror quoted in
the Houston Chronicle. ``We couldn't ruin a psychologist's career
because of the abuse she (Jones) suffered as a child.'' Even though
the juror said she felt the psychotherapist believed the stories that
Jones told her, she still didn't fault the treatment.
  During the trial which began April 20, Jones testified that Lurie
implanted false memories that Jones' father had impregnated her six
times and that not only had Jones killed her own children, but more
than 100 others. Jones, however, had never been pregnant. As she
became convinced that she had done these things, she grew increasingly
depressed and suicidal. Lurie tried to elicit additional details of
the stories, telling Jones her alter egos would reveal them, because
the memories were too painful for Jones herself to bear.
  Jones' attorney John Osborne said that Lurie never tried to dissuade
his client from believing she had been tortured and participated in
atrocious acts as a child, but instead pressured her to believe those
fantasies. Osborne showed the jury that Lurie once ``validated''
Jones' stories of cannibalism and murder to a police detective. Lurie
admitted telling police that she believed Jones' stories were true and
she consistently wrote on insurance forms and government documents
that Jones needed to believe the stories that her alter egos told her.
  Plaintiff's expert, psychologist Terence Campbell, described areas
where, he said, Lurie's practice did not meet the standards
established by the American Psychological Association. He said Jones
only displayed a minor problem when she first saw Lurie in 1989, which
should have been cured with no more than two months of therapy.
However, there was no evidence that Lurie ever came up with a
treatment plan for Jones or addressed the reason Jones originally
entered therapy. He said Lurie had the professional obligation to warn
Jones that recovered memories are unreliable, especially since Jones
was on psychotropic drugs during three of the sessions.
  Jones' attorney showed the jury a videotape from a drug-induced
session Lurie had conducted with Jones. Jones was lying in a hospital
bed holding a teddy bear as sodium amytal, a barbituate that produces
a hypnotic effect, was being administered to her intravenously by an
attending psychiatrist.[12] Lurie said to Jones, ``I'd like you to go
inside. Who's going to come out today?'' ``Robbie,'' replied Jones in
a dazed and monotone voice, referring to a boy alter ego. Later, Lurie
asked Robbie about alleged abuse, using suggestive questions.
  The defense argued that Jones' upbringing was troubled and had led
to her problems as an adult. They also argued that Lurie followed
proper procedures at the time in treating multiple personality
disorder. Lurie said her role was not to confront Jones about her
stories, but be an ``empathic listener'' and to accept them so she
could begin resolving her internal conflicts.

[11] Testimony reported in the Houston Chronicle, 4/20/98-5/4/98. See
     also, Jones v. Miller, 1998 Tex.App. LEXIS 398.

[12] The psychiatrist who administered the medication told Lurie he
     was concerned that she was asking leading questions and refused
     to work with her if she continued in the future. The psychiatrist
     wrote that Lurie had a ``shared insanity'' with Jones because
     Lurie seemed to believe Jones had been programmed by Nazis with
     electroshock when she was a child.

		Updates: Cases We Have Been Following

  SOUZAS AWAIT DECISION: Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Elizabeth
Dolan allowed Raymond and Shirley Souza to remain under house arrest
until she decides whether they should get a new trial. Dolan is also
expected to rule on attorney Kevin Nixon's motion that the judge
revise the Souza's 9- to 15-year prison sentence and place them on
probation, or at least give them jail credit for five years under
house arrest.

  AMIRAULTS AWAIT DECISION: Cheryl Amirault LeFave still awaits a
Superior Court ruling considering arguments that children at her
family's day care center were questioned improperly.

go to press, the civil rights case against Wenatchee officials
concludes its 7th week. Plaintiffs and their families are suing police
detective Robert Perez, state social workers, and city and county
officials for false arrest and misconduct during an investigation of
child abuse. During the course of the trial, Superior Court Judge
Michael Donahue has broadened the case's scope. The Wenatchee World
and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer continue to report highlights of
trial testimony. Testimony is expected to continue for another 3
  Testimony was heard from Plaintiffs in the case. Wenatchee police
chief Perez was questioned closely about possible conflict of interest
when he became the foster parent of two of the girls who eventually
became the source of 29,729 counts of child rape against 43 people
including the girls' parents. One of the girls testified that she had
been abused along with children of 20 adults in her 700 square foot
home for weekly sex. When asked, she was unable to provide concrete
details.Testimony was also heard from Sarah Doggett, 19, who described
her family's experiences during 1994-95. At the time, she said, she
was adamant that there was no abuse by her parents, and insisted she
was a virgin. Even so, she said, Perez, told her, ``We know your dad
raped you. Why don't you admit it?'' She and her sister were placed in
foster care. Her parents were both convicted of child rape and
sentenced to 10 years. Those convictions were reversed last year by a
state appellate panel which sharply criticized the methods used to
gather evidence in that case. Sarah Doggett has filed her own lawsuit
over handling of the case. Another 15-year-old child, who said she
wanted to testify, will not do so. She had retracted her allegations
in 1996, but her guardian and psychiatrist say she is now too fragile
to testify. Social workers were questioned about the reasons the
children were removed from their families and placed in foster care
and about the therapy and interviews given the children.

                        TO SEXUAL ABUSE CASES?

The Arizona Supreme Court listed rulings from 16 states which, it
said, showed that the majority of states do apply the discovery rule
to sexual abuse cases. Such a list is misleading because it does not
consider recent decisions from state supreme courts in MARYLAND,
clearly refused to apply the discovery rule to repressed memory
claims.[1] Nor were similar appellate decisions from courts in
FLORIDA, ILLINOIS, NEW YORK, and TENNESSEE mentioned.[2] Especially
relevant, but overlooked by the Arizona Supreme Court, were a RHODE
ISLAND decision [3] which held that one of the requirements for
extending the statute of limitations is a determination of the
reliability of repressed recollection theory; and the TEXAS Supreme
Court ruling [4] which held that in order to apply the discovery rule,
the wrongful event and injury must be ``objectively verifiable'' as
well as inherently undiscoverable. Two recent rulings, one in ILLINOIS
[5] and the other from the IOWA Supreme Court [6] are particularly
relevant to the issues before the Arizona Court. Neither was
mentioned. Both rulings rejected the continuing tort approach in which
a new cause of action is allowed for each new ``memory.'' Nor did the
Arizona court mention decisions by the ALABAMA Supreme Court [7] or
the MICHIGAN Supreme Court [8] which held that alleged repressed
memories do not qualify as disability to extend the statute of
limitations.  Finally, the court may have found the NEW HAMPSHIRE
Supreme Court's detailed ruling [9] which followed extensive pretrial
evidentiary hearings instructive. The New Hampshire court found
testimony based on ``repressed memory'' to be insufficiently reliable
to be admitted at trial.
  Not all of the 16 jurisdictions cited by the court as applying the
discovery rule actually do so. A 1996 decision from Maine's Supreme
Court, while cited as applying the discovery rule,[10] actually does
no such thing.  As the Supreme Court of MAINE explained in 1997,[11]
``Within recent years, we have _declined_ requests in sexual abuse
cases (to adopt a judicially crafted discovery rule) see Nuccio and
McAfee, and plaintiff offers no compelling reason to reexamine our
carefully considered precedent.'' (emphasis added)
  An early Wisconsin Appellate Court decision,[12] often cited
nationally as allowing claims of incest to proceed to trial long after
the alleged event, was codified in 1987. Since then the WISCONSIN
Supreme Court has considered ``repressed memory'' claims twice,
finally overruling the Appellate ruling. In 1995, it cautioned that
the discovery rule should apply ``only when allowing meritorious
claims outweighs the threat of stale or fraudulent actions.'' The
court further stated that it was not convinced that ``even careful
cross-examination in this esoteric and largely unproved field is
likely to reveal the truth.''[13] Then in 1997, the court
unequivocally held, ``as a matter of law we conclude that it would be
contrary to public policy, and would defeat the purposes of
limitations statutes, to allow claims of repressed memory to invoke
the discovery rule and to indefinitely toll the statutory limitations
for these plaintiffs...The measured response of our legislature
supports this conclusion.''[14] It is unclear why neither of these
recent rulings were cited by the Arizona court.
  Other courts, when faced with the discovery rule question, have
declined to apply the discovery rule to the specific ``repressed
memory'' allegations presented and have declined to judicially adopt
the discovery rule to ``repressed memory'' claims in general.[15] The
SOUTH CAROLINA Supreme Court [16] stated unequivocally that it could
not apply the discovery rule without authority from the legislature.
An early Illinois appellate decision was cited by the Arizona court as
among those jurisdictions applying the discovery rule. However, the
court failed to mention that the decision was reversed when it was
reheard in 1991.[17] It also failed to mention a ruling by the
ILLINOIS Supreme Court [18] last year which not only affirmed
dismissal of a ``repressed memory'' claim based on the facts alleged,
but also pointedly declined to rule on whether or not the discovery
rule applied.  Similarly, in 1992 the OKLAHOMA Supreme Court [19]
stated, ``nor do we formulate any specific rule governing the
application of the discovery rule to sexual abuse cases.'' The court
held that the discovery rule did not apply to the repressed memory
suit before it. Soon after, the Oklahoma legislature, responding to
the concerns voiced in that decision, enacted a statute mandating that
actions for child sexual abuse be based on objective, verifiable
evidence of both the abuse and the suppression of memory of abuse.
  It should be noted that some jurisdictions do apply the discovery
rule to ``repressed memory'' claims -- but only where stringent
restrictions are met. For example, the NEVADA Supreme Court [20] held
that absent clear and convincing evidence of the abuse, the discovery
rule does not apply. The INDIANA Supreme Court,[21] in determining
whether to grant summary judgment, considered whether defendant's
conduct amounted to fraudulent concealment of material facts from
plaintiff and whether plaintiff exercised due diligence in bringing
the action.
  In 1994, the NEW HAMPSHIRE Supreme Court [22] emphasized that on
remand, plaintiff carries the burden to substantiate allegations of
abuse ``and, if challenged, to validate the phenomenon of memory
repression itself and the admissibility of evidence flowing
therefrom.'' However, following two 1997 New Hampshire Supreme Court
decisions,[23] it appears that even were the NH statute of limitations
tolled, testimony based on ``repressed memory'' would not be
admissible at trial.
  Of the remaining rulings cited by the Arizona court, several courts
remanded the cases for a determination of when the plaintiff
objectively could have discovered her cause of action.[24] For
example, courts applying NEW JERSEY law [25] have typically ordered a
so-called Lopez hearing to determine the plaintiff's mental state and
have specifically found a therapist's affidavit insufficient to meet
the plaintiff's burden of showing existence of disability.
  In 1994, the OHIO Supreme Court [26] held that a 1-year discovery
ruled applies to ``repressed memory'' cases. Since then, 11 Ohio
Appellate Courts have considered similar cases (most on summary
judgment motions). Even applying the discovery rule, 10 appellate
courts have affirmed dismissal of the claims and one remanded the
matter for further proceedings to determine the dates of recall. In
most of the remaining jurisdictions, the case law has not been settled
by a state supreme court decision, and state appellate court rulings
currently represent a wide range of views.
  It is, therefore, clearly not the case that the majority of
jurisdictions apply the discovery rule to ``repressed memory''
claims. On the contrary, most recent appellate decisions have strongly
cautioned against accepting repressed memory claims because of the
unknown reliability of the repression theory and the lack of reliable
methods of determining the truth of a ``repressed memory'' claim
absent corroboration. Many courts have, therefore, refused to apply
the discovery rule to repressed memory claims.

[1]  Doe v. Maskell, 679 A.2d 1087 (Md., 1996), cert denied 117
     S.Ct. 770 (1997); Lemmerman v. Fealk, 534 N.W.2d 695 (Mich,
     1995), Blackowiak v.  Kemp, 546 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1996); Dalrymple
     v. Brown, 1997 WL 499945 (Pa.  1997); Shippen v. Parrott, 506
     N.W.2d 82 (S.D. 1993); Doe v. Archdiocese, 565 N.W.2d 94
     (Wis. 1997).
[2]  Lindabury v. Lindabury, 552 So.2d 1117 (Fla. App. 1989); M.E.H.
     v. L.H., 669 N.E.2d 1228 (Ill.App. 1996), aff'd 1997 WL 562001;
     Burpee v. Burpee, 578 N.Y.S.2d 359 (N.Y. Supp. 1991), aff'd, 950
     F.2d 721 (3d Cir. 1991); Hunter v. Brown, 1996 WL 57944 (Tenn.
     App., 1996) aff'd 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 540.
[3]  Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I., 1996)
[4]  S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996).
[5]  M.E.H. v. L.H., supra.
[6]  Woodroffe v. Hansencleaver, 540 N.W.2d 45 (Iowa, 1995).
[7]  Travis v. Ziter, 681 So.2d 1348 (Ala. 1996).
[8]  Lemmerman v. Fealk, supra.
[9]  New Hampshire v. Hungerford, 1997 WL 358620 (N.H. 1997); New
     Hampshire v.  Walters, 1997 WL 937024 (N.H. 1997).
[10] Nuccio v. Nuccio, 673 A.2D 1331 (Me. 1996).
[11] Harkness v. Fitzgerald, 1997 Me 207 (1997).
[12] Hammer v. Hammer, 418 N.W.2d 23 (Wis. App. 1987), rev. denied,
     428 N.W.2d 552 (Wis. 1988).
[13] Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese, 1995 WL 383226 (Wis.).
[14] Doe v. Archdiocese, 565 N.W.2d 94 (Wis. 1997).
[15] See, e.g., Wolford v. Mollett, 1995 Ky.App. LEXIS 90, (Affirmed
     dismissal and stated, ``We do not address the issue of whether
     the delayed discovery rule should be made applicable to repressed
     memory cases involving childhood sexual abuse.''); Doe v. Roman
     Catholic Church, 656 So.2d 5 (La. App.) cert. denied, 662 So.2d
     478 (La.1995). ``(Louisiana courts have not yet fully addressed
     the specific question of whether prescription is suspended when
     all memories of sexual abuse are repressed'' and affirmed
     dismissal based on the record.)
[16] Doe v. R.D., 417 S.E.2d 541 (S.C. 1992).
[17] Johnson v. Johnson, 701 F. Supp. 1363 (N.D. Ill. 1988); Johnson
     v. Johnson, 766 F.Supp. 662 (N.D.Ill. 1991). In 1991, the
     Illinois appellate court held the repressed memory claim to be
     time-barred and that the counselor's diagnosis regarding
     plaintiff's alleged disability did not raise a triable issue
     since the counselor's association with the woman began long after
     the alleged events and nearly 20 years after she reached the age
     of majority.
[18] M.E.H. v. L.H., supra.
[19] Lovelace v. Keohane, 831 P.2d 624 (Okla. 1992).
[20] Petersen v. Bruen, 106 Nev. 271, 792 P.2d 18 (Nev. 1990).
[21] Fager v. Hundt, 610 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. 1993).
[22] McCollum v. D'Arcy, 638 A.2d 797 (N.H., 1994). Similar approach
     taken by, e.g., Peterson v. Huso, 1996 WL 411851 (N.D.)
     (``Because of the potential unreliability of some recovered
     memories, courts should seek to employ reasonable safeguards to
     ensure the proper use of such memories.''); Olsen v. Hooley, 865     
     P.2d 1345 (Utah 1993) (discussed issues raised because of
     ``dearth of empirical scientific evidence regarding the
     authenticity and reliability of revived memories'' and
     difficulties in ascertaining accuracy of memories.)  23 New
     Hampshire v. Hungerford; New Hampshire v. Walters, supra.
[24] Farris v. Compton, 652 A.2d 49 (D.C. 1994); Sheehan v. Sheehan,
     901 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. 1995); Jones v. Jones, 576 A.2d 316 (N.J.
     Super. A.D.), cert. denied, 585 A.2d 412 (N.J. Super. 1990).
[25] See, e.g., Datonni v. Yannelli, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19982,
     applying New Jersey law.
[26] Ault v. Jasko, 637 N.E.2d 870 (Ohio, 1994).

/                                                                    \
|                  False Accusations Harm Community                  |
|                                                                    |
| It is time to focus on the totality of harm: to make the public    |
| aware that the source of a false accusation harmful to an          |
| individual and/or a family is also the source of equal and coex-   |
| tensive harm to a community.                                       |
|                               Leah M. Franklin, February 17, 1998  |


		 Or, A Few Thoughts on the Eve of the
     1998 FMSF Scientific and Professional Advisory Board Meeting
			August Piper Jr., M.D.

Adam Smith once called science ``the great antidote to the poison of
enthusiasm and superstition.'' This sentiment may inspire some people.
But, with respect to the psychotherapy-induced false-memory
phenomenon, I think Einstein struck closer to the mark. He said
splitting the nucleus of an atom was easier than crushing a single
illogical human belief.
  Now hold on! you may object. Why adopt such a sour and crepehanging
attitude? After all, just look at what has been wrought in the past
few years. See how many academics and scholars have written sober,
solidly-researched, thoughtful papers strongly supporting what the
FMSF has said all along. See how some of ``recovered-memory''
therapy's main proponents have begun to move toward the Foundation's
positions. See how often courts are striking down the arguments of
those advocating this kind of therapy. And see how professional
societies in some countries (with the distressing exception of those
in the USA) have issued position papers debunking recovered-memory
theories and practices. So again: why the pessimism?
  Well, we Cassandras have grounds for our gloomy outlook. The
accomplishments listed above do indeed represent real strides. But
these strides occur on the distant mountaintops, far removed from the
lowly trenches and vineyards where ordinary practitioners like me
labor, and where much of the recovered- and false-memory mischief
occurs. For example, consider the first of the following four reasons
for pessimism:

  1) I recently admitted a young woman -- call her Ms. A -- to a
hospital to treat her panic disorder. The modern treatment for this
condition is both well-established and generally quite
effective. First, medication blocks the panic symptoms. Then the
patient repeatedly exposes him- or herself to the panic-inducing
stimulus. Simple, effective, straightforward.
  But a chart note written by Ms. A's Ph.D. psychotherapist was very
distressing. She said the patient needed ``to work through her sexual
abuse issues.'' She also opined that the abuse had something to do
with the genesis of Ms. A's panic symptoms.
  Readers may wonder why this distressed me so much. First of all,
when I took Ms. A's history, she had mentioned nothing whatever about
sexual mistreatment -- which of course made me wonder how significant
the ``sexual abuse'' had been to her. When the therapist interviewed
the patient, did she steer the interview toward a discussion of
childhood mistreatment?
  The second reason for distress: Ms. A had sought hospitalization to
be treated for her panic disorder, not for her ``sexual abuse
issues.'' Readers should know that a shift in focus such as that
recommended by the Ph.D.  psychotherapist -- that is, from the
patient's concerns to the treater's -- is a feature of what the
professional literature defines as the false memory syndrome. [1]
  The third reason was more subtle. It had to do with the
professional's obligation to keep reasonably abreast of current
developments in his or her area of expertise. The therapist was
recommending that Ms. A. begin insight-oriented, psychodynamic therapy
(psychodynamic psychotherapies link today's symptoms and difficulties
to unconscious conflicts rooted in the past). Psychiatric research has
conclusively demonstrated -- years ago -- that whatever other merits
these kinds of therapies may have, they are quite ineffective in
treating panic disorder. Thus, I was distressed because the therapist
was recommending an unnecessary, useless, and possibly harmful therapy
to my patient.
  In short, I was vexed to see that Adam Smith's ``great antidote''
had not been able to filter down even to one of my own colleagues.

  2) I would simply not have believed something I saw a few months ago
if not for the evidence of my own eyes. The something was an
advertisement for ``the therapy of the 1990's'': ``A powerful, safe,
and inexpensive technique...for self-healing and self-understanding.''
  Here, too, readers may wonder why this was so distressing. After
all, what could be upsetting about a psychotherapy offering, through
hypnosis, a chance to ``clarify your life purpose within a few hours
and remove any stumbling blocks that may be preventing you from
achieving the goals you carefully planned?'' Just this: the therapist
offering this treatment believes you planned these goals before you
were born.
  Yep, you got it -- the advertisement was for ``past life regression
  The therapist in the advertisement also claimed certification in
forensic hypnosis. This gave me a start, because I had thought, based
on reading the forensic psychiatric literature, that the courts
severely restrict hypnotically-refreshed testimony. They are quite
aware of, and quite concerned about, the memory-distorting effect of
hypnosis. In fact, in some jurisdictions, hypnotically-enhanced
testimony may well be completely disqualified. Now, perhaps I have
missed something here, but it seems a waste of money to pay a
psychotherapist to do something that gets one's case tossed out of
  But it isn't just boring old earthly things like legal troubles that
one can address in the therapy of the 1990's. Higher matters are of

  You are in the earth plane now to do important work. You are a
  unique blend of a vast number of existences both physical and
  non-physical and your present self is but a minute portion of your
  totality. [Most] of that which is MOTIVATING or RESTRICTING
  [emphasis in original] you now emanates from memories that were
  already installed and active within you when you entered this
  life. Most therapies [examine only] present life memories. . . and
  thus treatment becomes lengthy, frustrating, and expensive.

  The therapist promises that you can explore some of the following
important issues in a past-life regression session: past-life memories
that affect your health, awakening past-life abilities, understanding
and healing incestuous relationships, death experiences and beyond,
and -- last but by no means least important -- your choice of parents.

  3) But do not think, dear reader, that such -- shall we say unusual
-- psychotherapies are found exclusively on the fringe. Oh no.
Professionals can get continuing education credit from groups
sponsoring conferences and workshops in all manner of psychotherapies
--``Past Life Regression Therapy'' and ``Thought Field Therapy'' are
just two such examples. Who accredits organizations to offer
continuing education for such therapies? Why, no less than the
American Psychological Association (APA).
  As the Association notes, authorizing educational credits does not
necessarily mean that it endorses these psychotherapies. But one can
only wonder about the public's perception. Is perception of such
treatments' efficacy affected by even the appearance of APA
endorsement? Does the perception encourage the belief that all
psychotherapies are created equal, that ``all have won and all must
now have prizes''?
  Such a belief would be exceedingly unfortunate: simply put, some
therapies work better than others.

  4) A final reason for pessimism: the tenacity with which some
advocates of improper psychotherapy adhere to their treatment
models. In the teeth of a flood of adverse publicity, and amidst a
blizzard of lawsuits, they hold their positions. As an example, one
psychotherapist was encouraging his patients to believe they and their
parents had participated in all the assorted horrors of recovered-
memory therapy: you know -- the usual barbequings of live babies;
ritual sex with children and animals; marriages to satan; and various
beheadings, mutilations and disembowelments. Some years ago he nearly
lost his license because of such practices. Nevertheless, he still
maintains, even today, that his therapy techniques were proper. He is
not unique. Several psychiatrists adopt this same public stance --
despite having lost several big-figure ``recovered-memory'' lawsuits.

*   *   *

  I am writing this column en route to the FMSF Professional and
Scientific Advisory Board meeting. The meeting was called to plan the
organization's future. One obvious question will doubtlessly be asked
at this meeting: is there still need for the work of the FMSF?  Can
anyone reading these four reasons for pessimism fail to see the

  P.S. Does anyone know the exact wording of the Einstein quote? And
did Einstein actually say that?

[1] See de Rivera (1997). The Construction of False Memory Syndrome:
    The Experience of Retractors. Psychological Inquiry 8, 271-292
    (p. 271).
[2] Those interested in this subject might wish to read Stevenson
    (1994). A Case of the Psychotherapist's Fallacy: Hypnotic
    Regression to ``Previous Lives.'' American Journal of Clinical
    Hypnosis 36, 188-193.

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

  In his next column Dr. Piper will respond to two letters. One is
  from a reader in California, who wonders why therapists so doggedly
  persist in performing ``recovered-memory'' therapy. The other letter
  inquires about the recurring theme of whether parents should forgive
  a child who refuses to apologize for his or her accusations.

/                                                                    \
|                          From a brochure:                          |
|                 New Age Publishing, Inc. Presents                  |
|                     Accredited 5-day training                      |
|                      April, May, October 1998                      |
|                        BRIAN L. WEISS, M.D.                        |
|                     THROUGH TIME INTO HEALING                      |
| ``Healing the Mind and the Body with Visualization, Hypnosis, and  |
| Meditation Techniques, and Past Life Regression Therapy''          |
|   ``Each seminar will take place at a luxurious resort where       |
| exquisite surroundings, spa amenities, and the shared experience   |
| of 125 participants create an atmosphere essential to this         |
| in-depth exploration.''                                            |
|               Am Psychological Assn credit available               |
|                  PAST LIFE THERAPY    CORRECTION                   |
|                                                                    |
| We were in error when we listed the American Psychological         |
| Association as approving continuing education credits for some     |
| Brian Weiss seminars on Past Life Therapy provided by New Age      |
| Publications (FMSF Newsletter 6/98, p.13). Our information came    |
| from two telephone calls to the number listed on the brochure to   |
| ask what organization approved the credits for psychologists. On   |
| both occasions we were told the American Psychological             |
| Association. That information was wrong: New Age Publications is   |
| not a provider approved by the American Psychological Association. |

/                                                                    \
|    From a brochure of the American Academy of Psychotherapists     |
|                   1997 Institute and Conference                    |
|                       THOUGHT FIELD THERAPY:                       |
|                          A PARADIGM SHIFT                          |
| ``Thought Field Therapy (TFT) is revolutionizing psychotherapy.    |
| Directed at the body's energy system and thought fields, TFT heals |
| at a fundamental level and is rapid and thorough in its effect. It |
| is psychotherapy at the quantum level. TFT uses energy meridian    |
| treatment points used in Oriental cultures since ancient times.    |
| Stimulating those points in an appropriate ordered sequence        |
| provides dramatic rapid improvement in individuals suffering from  |
| trauma, anxiety, addictive urges, phobias, and more. This workshop |
| will train participants in TFT trauma treatment and give them the  |
| opportunity to see and experience this powerful therapy (CE:3)''   |
|               Am Psychological Assn credit available               |

			   By Helen Cowles

In our part of the world, around Tucson, Arizona, gardening is not for
the faint of heart. The land, parched for so much of the year, yields
very little in the way of leaf mulch or dried grasses -- in short, the
organics are missing in our soils. The animal life, too, is in
constant need. When creatures discover our gardens, so carefully
mulched, manured, composted, and watered, they greedily devour
everything they can reach. Birds swoop down on each newly seeded row,
so that the gardener has to plant two seeds for each plant he hopes to
harvest. At least two. And that's not all. Just when it seems that
this will be the year to finally real a good crop of peas or tomatoes
or whatever, the weather will suddenly turn scorchingly hot -- in
March or April, no less, and the vegetables will wither on the vine.
  So what keeps us gardening? By some miracle, we manage to hit it big
with at least one crop each year. One year, I had Bibb lettuce -- here
on this rocky mountainside -- from January all the way through March.
Another year, the wind and the birds had seeded the dill all over the
yard. I picked the delicate fronds from between the gravel mulch for
all my early spring salads. (Aphids later got all the dill that came
up in the proper places in the garden.)
  And then there was the spring of the English peas. I had planted
them in early January, not hoping for much. The birds must have still
been south, though, because the germination rate was just spectacular.
The weather stayed blessedly cool that year -- all through February. I
had to wear several layers to keep warm when I rode horseback in the
mountains. I watched my peas bloom, set fruit, and begin to swell. I
should say, we watched them, because my exquisite little Sophie, my
daughter's child, watched with me, as I told her how wonderful they
would taste. She was only three, and I had to help her climb over the
timber that surrounded my tiny garden. I had laid a board from one
raised bed to the other, and she would place her rounded little frame
squarely on the improvised seat and watch me weed. As the peas grew
large enough to eat, I would pick them and pod them, then fill her
cupped little hands with them. She would chomp them down and ask for
  And then, it ended. My daughter, for her own reasons, went to see a
therapist, a woman with her master's degree in social work, who had
taken some courses in ``women's issues.'' After helping my daughter
recover some traumatic ``lost'' memories, she recommended that my
daughter separate herself from all of this family that would not --
could not -- believe what did not happen. And she took Sophie away.
  Sophie is eight now. I have not seen her for half of her life. I
still plant peas each January. But there has not been a good year for
peas since that time when she was a little girl. One year, the
radishes and carrots were wonderful. This past year, the basil amazed
us all with its fecundity.
  I keep on gardening. I know that when I least expect it, the rains
will be just right, the sun will delay exerting its authority on our
rocky slopes, and, once again, the peas will thrive. And I will keep a
board to span the sides of the raised beds, just in case.

  Reprinted from Green Prints, the magazine that shares the human --
  not the how-to, side of gardening. Information: Green Prints,
  P.O. Box 1355, Fairview, NC 28730.

/                                                                    \
|                    Little Fragments of Reality                     |
|                                                                    |
| ``My false memories were comprised of things that I had seen in    |
| movies and read in books, read in the newspaper, dreamt about,     |
| little fragments of reality and fantasy that had been brought all  |
| together to make a story that seemed to fit.''                     |
|                                                   Diana Anderson   |
|                                                   March 13, 1997   |
|                                         ABC Good Morning America   |

                  M A K E   A   D I F F E R E N C E

   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 20,000 have reported similar experiences. 
   Together we have made a difference.

CALIFORNIA: Parents are helping to get the book Manufacturing Victims
into the hands of every sitting judge, commissioner and referee in the
County of Santa Cruz, California. Author Tana Dineen has been gracious
enough to sign all twelve of the books we requested, a fact we will
mention as part of the reason for our follow-up letter to the local
``triers of fact'' next month.  We hope that our effort will help the
judges have a better understanding of the limits of what is known and
what is taken on faith in psychotherapy

MICHIGAN: Does your state have a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Our state does, and last December I wrote to the state requesting
information on our accusing daughter's therapist. The Chief Freedom of
Information Officer responded, giving me information on her licensing
status and whether any disciplinary action had been taken against
her. He also acknowledged receiving my allegation against her which I
had submitted. He sent me a copy of her licensing file and the rules
and regulations regarding social workers in the state of Michigan.
  The department took no further disciplinary action in this matter,
and claimed an exemption from release of further information as this
release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the licensee's
  But the next person who requests information about her will be told
about my allegation, and that may lead to something. I encourage
others to find out if their state has such a measure.

TENNESSEE: From time to time, I note parents are unable to make
contact with their children. My children would return all the mail I
  I hit upon an idea that I use from time to time, especially on
urgent matters that I must transmit to my children. Using my computer,
I first use minimum type size. Then, since a postal card is five and
one-half inches wide, I set the lateral margins on an eight and
one-half paper to be one and one-half inches on each side. . . a total
of three inches. This allows for copy to extend only five and one-half
inches wide.
  Then I set the top and bottom margins to three and three-quarters
inches each. Eureka! The message is compact, fits the postal card, and
I simply scotch tape it to the card and drop it in the mail. The post
cards I sent have never been returned.

  Send your ideas to Katie Spanuello c/o FMSF

/                                                                    \
|                           Shrink to Fit:                           |
|                                                                    |
| Californians are more likely than other Americans to get audited.  |
| ``Sure. The IRS has to audit all those multiple personalities. Can |
| you imagine what Roseanne's taxes look like?  'I'm sorry, ma'am.   |
| Twenty-two different personalities cannot all claim a home office  |
| deduction on the same office.''' (Premiere Radio)                  |
|                                 Los Angeles Times, April 14, 1998  |
|                                          Laugh Lines; Punch Lines  |

                   F R O M   O U R   R E A D E R S
			     A Connection
Since the Sheriff came to the door some thirteen years ago charging me
with abuse of my own daughter whom I had raised myself, I started
grinding my teeth, developed a tightness in my stomach and still often
cannot sleep at night. When the accusation came, I immediately told
the rest of my family. I think my openness was instrumental in winning
their universal support during a bitter custody battle. They provided
wonderful comfort through my trial, my acquittal and the ensuing
  For years, I have sent letters to my accusing daughter whom I still
love deeply. Generally they were trivial and chatty, but on occasion
there would be a little blaming, hurt or anger which only resulted in
an outburst from her and another year of silence. Still I persevered.
I kept her up on happy family events, our holiday gatherings, but I
also wrote her real stories about our tragedies and our family
history. I left nothing out. After all, she had grown up in this
family. What is a family but shared history and experiences?
  From my extensive albums, I occasionally sent old photos to her. I
included some of her when she was young and some when she was in high
school but also some current family photos. I remarried and my wife
helped me with my letters, especially by deleting signs of bitterness
from my writings.
  After a while, I stopped writing identification on the backs of the
photos.  I sent older and older photos until she had no recollection
who was in them, Aunt _ or Uncle _. One day a letter came. ``...Is the
second picture of you and your siblings? I say this because the two on
the left look like Uncle S and Aunt M. This can only lead me to
believe that you are the second to the right. You would be the tallest
since you were first born.....''
  Well, I'll be! What a relief after 10 years of separation and
animosity. My daughter is now happily married, a teacher and we write
regularly and lightly about Cabbages and Kings -- still anything but
the ``elephant in the front room.'' My tension has lessened and I no
longer fume in the shower.
  I am not one to dance around subjects. If she eventually wants to
visit the family, I feel we must talk about the real issue with a
neutral party, someone who doesn't have too many degrees to stand in
the way of common sense. This mediator could help us arbitrate our
different claims. In the meantime, we enjoy what we have, even if it
is banter.
                                                         John Stephens
			   Apologize First
Please add my name to the parents who say ``She must apologize and
retract first'' (From Our Readers, April 1998). That is exactly how I
feel. My daughter must retract before she can fully resume her place
in our family.
                                                                 A Mom
			 Sanctified Memories?
Here is a wrinkle we have not seen reported before: using religion to
cloak the ``sanctity'' of a false memory.
  Our son recently reported to us a long 1997 conversation between our
accusing daughter and our son and his wife in which they attempted to
rationally expose the fallacy of her recovered memory. The
conversation ended thus:

    Son: I don't see how you can believe this (accusation)!

    Daughter: God told me.
When telling us about the conversations, our son said, ``What can you
say to that?''
  This development has come five years after the accusation. We have
wondered whether there is any link between our accusing daughter and
her family shifting to a more fundamentalist church or to her original
counseling by a clergyman that led to her accusation.
                                                   A Mother and Father

  Editor's Comment:: We recently heard an audiotape of a radio
  broadcast from New Life Clinics called: ``Finding Courage after
  Sexual Abuse.'' A response to a telephone caller who described a
  repeated dream gives some insight as to why a person might come to
  think that she learned of her abuse from God. The host said: ``I
  told her I thought that it [the dream] was God showing her she can
  take care of her inner child....It would be godly to nurture that
  inner child.''

  There is a section in Victims of Memory, 2nd edition by Mark
  Pendergrast that examines religious counseling. On page 476
  Pendergrast quotes the author of The Wounded Heart, D. Allender:
  ``The denial [of repressed memories] is an affront to God. It
  assumes that God is neither good nor strong enough to help during
  the recall process. Ultimately, the choice to face past memories is
  the choice not to live a lie.''

  New Life Clinics, Radio Broadcast Tapes, Series: Finding Courage
  after Sexual Abuse, Series # S970602

			   Before and After
Dear Dad and ``M'',
  It's the day before my wedding and I'm thinking how fortunate I am
to have you both. You have both done so much for me and you've always
been willing to lend a hand.
  Dad, I love you very much and I thank God for you every day. I thank
him for giving you the strength to raise me not only as a father but a
mother too. I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate all the
love and support you gave me and the little notes we used to leave
each morning just to say ``I love you!'' I'll never forget all that
you have done for me.
 And ``M,'' you had to come into a household where I was probably not
always willing to accept another person as my mother, but you showed
me great love and treated me as your own. You were always there to
listen to those girlish things that are easier for women to talk
about. I just want to say ``Thank you and I love you.''
  You both have done so much for me through the years and you have put
so much into this wedding. We've had our times but that's only
natural. Dad and ``M,'' I just want you to know as I embark on a new
life that I will always be grateful for the morals and values you have
instilled in me and I hope I'm the kind of parent that you have been
to me. Again, thank you from the bottom of my heart. ``Fred'' loves
you both very much too, and we both thank you so much for everything.
  I'm writing this letter to request that you meet with me in my
therapist's office. I would like to address the past and deal with
some important issues that need to be resolved between us. This is my
second attempt at requesting you to meet with my therapist and I feel
that it is vital that we meet. Please contact my therapist ``Mary
Ann'' by tomorrow night with your answer.

Dear G,
  I met with your therapist ``Mary Ann'' on Friday March 11, 1994 and
she handed me a 14-page hand-written letter from you to read.
  G, all of the abuse you accused me of is false. I never sexually
abused you. Please remember that I will always love you, but right now
I don't like you or what you are trying to do to me and yourself. I
hope soon you will be well and yourself again and then I can help
you. I pray for you everyday.
  God bless you,
			  It Had to be Cash
Over two years ago, I received a long letter from my son detailing
every grievance he had about his childhood and teenage years. He
reported that his therapists said I was guilty of ``non-sexual sexual
abuse!'' It would be laughable if it were not so painful for all
  My son is in his middle thirties. My ex-husband was included in the
therapy but I was not. How can a therapist meet with one parent and
not the other?  Perhaps she decided to meet the parent who had the
ability to pay. My ex-husband told me that when he took out his
checkbook, a look of utter panic came on the therapist's face. ``No,
no, no!'' she cried, ``I must be paid in cash.''
 My son told me that his therapist had a Ph.D. degree and was on the
staff of a hospital in New York City. Later he told me she had an
M.D. degree.  How I wish that I had the name of my son's therapist so
that I could file a complaint with the state of New York and notify
the Internal Revenue Service.
  All I have left of my son are photographs and the loving notes and
cards he sent me before working with this therapist.
                                                              A Mother
			    Some Good News
Six years have passed since ``Sam's'' daughter had accused him of
sexual abuse, abuse she had no memories of prior to therapy. During
the next two years, the leaders of the denomination for which Sam was
a pastor took away his credentials. Sam has been working at a secular
job ever since.
  Sam called me on Easter Sunday. He had sent his daughter a copy of
the cassette tapes of the live radio broadcast in which I was
interviewed on ``Return to the Word'' by Dr. Ed Bulkley. I had sent
him these tapes and he then sent them to his daughter. SHOCK! She
listened to them.
  During the listening to the tapes a light came on. The realization
of the lie was made plain to her; her thinking was transformed. Her
reasoning was renewed and changed. Weeping, she called her dad, made a
full apology and requested the names and addresses of all the
denomination's church leaders, and many others that needed to have a
letter from her of a full recantation. She asked her dad to help her
write the letter and plans to have it notarized. She is desperate to
do everything she can to clear her dad's name and reputation, to
restore a starving, broken family and all the extended family members.
  I wrote a note of my great joy to Sam and his wife ``Alice,'' how
happy I am for their daughter and extended family. This made a
wonderful Easter for me but most certainly for Sam and Alice!!
                                                        Tom Rutherford

			    N O T I C E S

 |          The Rutherford Family speaks to FMSF Families           |
 | ``This video helped me realize what my daughter went through!''  |
 |                          Don't miss it.                          |
 |                     Order form on last page.                     |
|                      THE POWER OF SUGGESTION,                      |
|             A documentary video produced by Sue Inder              |
|                      Aired on March 31, 1998.                      |
|                                                                    |
| Sue writes: My husband was accused in 1993 by his then 30-year old |
| daughter. For two years we tried to figure out what was going on.  |
| In 1995 my husband was convicted on nothing more than recovered    |
| memory evidence. In 1995 I saw ``Divided Memories'' by Ofra Bikel  |
| and learned about the FMS Foundation. That is when I finally saw   |
| the book my husband's daughter had studied, The Courage to Heal. I |
| produced this video to help myself and to educate others. It can   |
| be used to show on local cable stations.                           |
|                                                                    |
|            The price is $36.24 U.S. or $29.70 Canadian             |
|  Shaw Cable 11 Penticton, 1372 Fairview Rd, Penticton, BC, Canada  |
|                                                                    |
| Appearances by: Barry, Beyerstein, Pamela Freyd, Roma Hart,        |
| Michael Kenny, Elizabeth Loftus, Paul McHugh, Chuck Noah, Richard  |
| Ofshe, Jim Pennington, and Stan Stevens.                           |
|                    RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS WANTED                    |
|                                                                    |
| Psychologists and psychiatrists at the Johns Hopkins University    |
| School of Medicine are seeking volunteer participants. They are    |
| seeking adults (age 18+) who have ever claimed to have first       |
| forgotten and then remembered childhood physical or sexual abuse,  |
| regardless of whether they now believe those memories to be true   |
| or false.                                                          |
|                                                                    |
| This study has been reviewed and approved by the Joint Committee   |
| on Clinical Investigation of the Johns Hopkins University School   |
| of Medicine and by the Ad Hoc Research Committee of the FMS        |
| Foundation.                                                        |
|                                                                    |
| To volunteer for this study, or for more information, contact the  |
| Johns Hopkins investigators directly at (410) 955-3268 or the FMS  |
| Foundation at (800) 568-8882 and one of the investigators will     |
| call you. Leave your name, telephone number, and the best time to  |
| reach you.                                                         |
	      | The address of the web site maintained |
              |   for FMSF by Patrick Fitzgerald is:   |
              |     |
|                    RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS WANTED                    |
|       Experiences of 'recovering' and retracting memories of       |
|                       childhood sexual abuse                       |
|                                                                    |
| Ethical approval for this study has been granted by: False Memory  |
| Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), the British False Memory Society       |
| (BFMS) and the University of Portsmouth Ethics Committee. ALL      |
|   Outline of the study:                                            |
|   My name is James Ost and I am currently conducting a PhD on      |
| false memories at the University of Portsmouth, England. I am      |
| interested in the experiences of retractors, both in the process   |
| of 'recovering' a memory and the process of subsequently           |
| retracting it. I would therefore appreciate the help of retractors |
| willing to assist in my research by completing a questionnaire     |
| about their experiences.                                           |
|   The questionnaire has been designed to be sent by electronic     |
| mail. If you would like to participate and help me with this study |
| I would be very grateful if you could simply e-mail me             |
| ( and request a copy of the questionnaire.    |
| You will then be sent the questionnaire and full instructions on   |
| how to complete it via e-mail.                                     |
|   If you would like to help me but would rather not do so via      |
| e-mail I can arrange to have the questionnaires sent to you        |
| (either on a MAC/PC floppy disk for you to complete if you have    |
| access to a computer, or as a standard printed questionnaire). You |
| can obtain these questionnaires in either form by contacting me    |
| directly ( and requesting either a disk or    |
| printed copy of the questionnaire or, if you prefer to remain      |
| completely anonymous, through the FMSF who have kindly agreed to   |
| help me with this research. Thank you in advance for your help.    |
          |         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.)  |
*                    S T A T E   M E E T I N G S                     *
*               EASTERN MISSOURI and SOUTHERN ILLINOIS               *
*           Saturday, September 19, 1998  9 a.m. - 3 p.m.            *
*                        St. Louis, Missouri                         *
*                  SPEAKERS: The Rutherford Family                   *
*                   Public and FMS family sessions                   *
*             For information call Karen at 314-432-8789             *
                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
  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
  Colorado Springs
        Doris (719) 488-9738
  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 - Please call for mtg. time
        John & Nancy (352) 750-5446
  Tampa Bay Area
        Bob & Janet (813) 856-7091
        Wallie & Jill (770) 971-8917
  Carolyn (808) 261-5716
  Chicago & Suburbs - 1st Sun. (MO)
        Eileen (847) 985-7693
        Liz & Roger (847) 827-1056
        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)
        Pat (913) 738-4840
        Jan (816) 931-1340
  Louisville- Last Sun. (MO) @ 2pm
        Bob (502) 367-1838
        Francine (318) 457-2022
        Irvine & Arlene (207) 942-8473
  Freeport -  4th Sun. (MO)
        Carolyn  (207) 364-8891
   Ellicot City Area
        Margie (410) 750-8694
   Andover - 2nd Sun. (MO) @ 1pm
        Frank (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
  Ann Arbor
        Martha (734) 439-8119
        Terry & Collette (507) 642-3630
        Dan & Joan (612) 631-2247
  Kansas City  -  2nd Sun. (MO)
        Pat 738-4840
        Jan (816) 931-1340
  St. Louis Area  -  3rd Sun. (MO)
        Karen (314) 432-8789
        Mae (314) 837-1976
  Springfield - 4th Sat. (MO) @12:30pm
        Tom (417) 883-8617
        Roxie (417) 781-2058
  Lee & Avone (406) 443-3189
  See Wayne, PA
  Albuquerque  - 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
        Bob & Carole (440) 888-7963
  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)
        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 July Newsletter is June 15
                  Meeting notices MUST be in writing 
    and should be sent no later than TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO MEETING.

|          Do you have access to e-mail?  Send a message to          |
|                                         |
| if  you wish to receive electronic versions of this newsletter and |
| notices of radio and television  broadcasts  about  FMS.  All  the |
| message need say is "add to the FMS-News". 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,         June 1, 1998

AARON T. BECK, M.D., D.M.S., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA;  TERENCE W. CAMPBELL, Ph.D.,  Clinical  and  Forensic  Psychology,
Sterling Heights, MI;  ROSALIND CARTWRIGHT, Ph.D.,  Rush  Presbyterian
St. Lukes Medical Center, Chicago, IL; JEAN CHAPMAN, Ph.D., University
of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; LOREN CHAPMAN, Ph.D., University of Wiscon-
sin, Madison, WI; FREDERICK C. CREWS, Ph.D., University of California,
Berkeley,  CA;  ROBYN M. DAWES,  Ph.D.,  Carnegie  Mellon  University,
Pittsburgh,  PA;  DAVID F. DINGES, Ph.D.,  University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA; HENRY C. ELLIS, Ph.D.,  University  of  New  Mexico,
Albuquerque, NM; FRED H. FRANKEL, MBChB, DPM, Harvard University Medi-
cal School,  Boston MA;  GEORGE K. GANAWAY, M.D.,  Emory University of
Medicine,  Atlanta,  GA;  MARTIN GARDNER,  Author,  Hendersonville, NC
ROCHEL GELMAN, Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles, CA; HENRY
GLEITMAN, Ph.D.,  University of Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia, PA;  LILA
GLEITMAN, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; RICHARD
GREEN, M.D., J.D., Charing Cross Hospital, London;  DAVID A. HALPERIN,
M.D.,  Mount Sinai School of Medicine,  New York, NY;  ERNEST HILGARD,
Ph.D.,  Stanford University,  Palo Alto, CA;  JOHN HOCHMAN, M.D., UCLA
Medical School, Los Angeles, CA; DAVID S. HOLMES, Ph.D., University of
Kansas,  Lawrence, KS;  PHILIP S. HOLZMAN, Ph.D.,  Harvard University,
Cambridge,  MA;   ROBERT A. KARLIN,  Ph.D.,  Rutgers  University,  New 
Brunswick, NJ;  HAROLD LIEF, M.D.,  University of Pennsylvania, Phila-
delphia,  PA;  ELIZABETH LOFTUS, Ph.D., University of Washington, Sea-
tle, WA; SUSAN L. McELROY, M.D., University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,
OH; PAUL McHUGH, M.D., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; HAROLD
MERSKEY, D.M., University of Western Ontario, London, Canada;  SPENCER
HARRIS  MORFIT,  Author,  Westford, MA;  ULRIC NEISSER, Ph.D., Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.; RICHARD OFSHE, Ph.D., University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley, CA;  EMILY CAROTA ORNE, B.A., University of Pennsylvan-
ia, Philadelphia, PA; MARTIN ORNE, M.D., Ph.D., University of Pennsyl-
vania, Philadelphia, PA; LOREN PANKRATZ, Ph.D., Oregon Health Sciences
University, Portland, OR; CAMPBELL PERRY, Ph.D., Concordia University,
Montreal, Canada;  MICHAEL A. PERSINGER, Ph.D., Laurentian University,
Ontario,  Canada; AUGUST T. PIPER, Jr.,  M.D.,  Seattle, WA;  HARRISON
POPE, Jr.,  M.D.,  Harvard Medical School,  Boston,  MA;  JAMES RANDI,
Author  and  Magician, Plantation, FL;  HENRY L. ROEDIGER, III, Ph.D.,
Washington  University,  St. Louis, MO;  CAROLYN SAARI, Ph.D.,  Loyola
University,  Chicago, IL;  THEODORE SARBIN, Ph.D., University of Cali-
fornia,  Santa Cruz, CA;  THOMAS A. SEBEOK, Ph.D., Indiana University,
Bloomington,  IN;  MICHAEL  A.  SIMPSON,  M.R.C.S.,  L.R.C.P.,  M.R.C, 
D.O.M.,  Center for Psychosocial & Traumatic Stress,  Pretoria,  South
Africa;  MARGARET SINGER, Ph.D.,  University of California,  Berkeley,
CA;  RALPH SLOVENKO, J.D., Ph.D.,  Wayne State  University Law School,
Detroit, MI; DONALD SPENCE, Ph.D., Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center,
Piscataway,  NJ;  JEFFREY VICTOR, Ph.D.,  Jamestown Community College,
Jamestown,  NY;  HOLLIDA WAKEFIELD,  M.A.,  Institute of Psychological
Therapies, Northfield, MN;  CHARLES A. WEAVER, III, Ph.D.  Baylor Uni-
versity, Waco, TX.

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

Family - Includes Newsletter             $100_______

                       Additional Contribution:_____________


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

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

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



Street Address or P.O.Box

City                                 State         Zip+4

Telephone                           FAX

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

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

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

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

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

                                   DATE:   /   /

Ordered By:                        Ship to:

Please type or print information:
| QUANT- |  #  |            DESCRIPTION             | UNIT  | AMOUNT |
|  ITY   |     |                                    | PRICE |        |
|        | 442 | The Rutherford Family              | 10.00 |        |
|        |     |               Speaks to Families   |       |        |
                                                   SUBTOTAL |        |
                                                            |        |
                                    ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION |        |
                                                            |        |
                                                  TOTAL DUE |        |
                                                            |        |

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

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

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

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

                     THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST