FMSF NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE - November 1998 - Vol. 7, No. 9, 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
          Legal Corner
                From Our Readers
                   Bulletin Board
Dear Friends,

   A horror story of malpractice -- of restraints, drugs, isolation
and coercive therapy -- is unfolding in testimony in the federal
criminal trial against five former employees of the Spring Shadows
Glen private mental hospital. Whether that story also proves that the
defendants committed fraud will be up to the jury. In a 60-count
indictment, psychologist Judith Peterson, psychiatrists Richard Seward
and Gloria Keraga, therapist Sylvia Davis and hospital administrator
George Jerry Mueck were accused of mail fraud, insurance fraud and
knowingly misdiagnosing MPD in order to keep patients in the hospital.
   At this writing there is no way of knowing whether the federal
prosecutors will prove their criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt.
But we do know that the jury has heard that the hospital used its own
funds to pay the insurance premiums on some patient policies. The jury
heard tapes in which defendants used hypnosis with patients and then
they heard tapes in which the defendants told insurance
representatives that they did not use hypnosis at Spring Shadows Glen.
The jury saw many patient reports in which nurses' and therapists'
observations were completely different. The jury heard about a girl
who was admitted to the hospital just before her 13th birthday to
protect her from a satanic cult. The child's medical exam showed no
evidence of abuse, but in therapy, the girl came to tell stories of
multiple rapes.
   The defense has argued that the treatment of patients at Spring
Shadows Glen was appropriate because patients arrived having already
received a diagnosis of serious mental illness. They have pointed out
that some of the defendants really believed in the existence of
satanic cults that practiced murder and cannibalism. They have
attempted to lessen the credibility of prosecution witnesses by
pointing out inconsistencies in some testimony.
   Whether or not the defendants' conduct was a federal crime is still
an open question. Believing in satanic cults is, of course, not a
crime. But we wonder, for example, how could anyone -- whether he or
she believed in satanic cults or not -- take seriously any "memories"
elicited with the use of hypnosis? The American Medical Association
published the following in 1985:

   "The Council finds that recollections obtained during hypnosis can
   involve confabulations and pseudomemories and not only fail to be
   more accurate, but actually appear to be less reliable than non-
   hypnotic recall."  (American Medical Association, 1985)

   How could anyone -- whether he or she believed in satanic cults or
not -- overlook the controversial nature of the MPD diagnosis? A
survey done in 1988 of members of the International Society for the
Study of Multiple Personality and Dissociation (ISSMP&D, name changed
in 1995 to International Society for the Study of Dissociation, ISSD)
indicated that the members of that organization were well-aware of the
skepticism. (See p. 3)
   How could anyone -- whether he or she believed in satanic cults or
not -- overlook the laws and ethical codes that applied to the use of
restraints and isolation and think that the techniques used in
recovered memory therapy were acceptable -- either then or now?
   Whatever the jury ultimately decides about the issues of fraud,
this trial exposes the shameful horror of what took place at Spring
Shadows Glen. It shows the links between Spring Shadows Glen and the
group of people who worked with psychiatrist Bennett Braun in Chicago
against whom the Illinois licensing board has filed charges for
treatment of patients similar to that at Spring Shadows Glen. The
federal trial shows that the outrageous practices and beliefs did not
take place in a vacuum. The members of the ISSMP&D honored Bennett
Braun for the practices that are now questioned by the government.
   Across the country former patients have reported experiences
similar to those being exposed in the Houston and Chicago actions. It
is instructive how often they have told us that their doctors learned
about the satanic cults from seminars given through the ISSMP&D. Talks
were presented at American Psychiatric Association and American
Psychological Association meetings among others. Treatment procedures
were taught at these seminars. Videotapes and audiotapes of these
programs are still available. The recovered memory phenomenon did not
take place in a vacuum. Where was the rest of the mental health
profession? Where are they now?  

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

                            WHAT CAN I DO?

Former patients have told us about the experiences that served as
catalysts for them in questioning their therapy-acquired "memories,"
and that led to reuniting with their families. Mary Shanley, who was a
patient at Spring Shadows Glen, was part of a four-person panel at a
recent meeting of families in Chicago. Mary told the audience that
while she was still in the hospital she picked up a magazine that had
been left by a nurse containing an article about FMS and satanic
ritual abuse. She said that article helped her to realize that some
people were skeptical about such beliefs. The magazine had a telephone
number that she called to get information. Another panel member said
that she first began to question when she went to the library and saw
a display of Upton books. She said that it became clear to her that
the recovered-memory issue was controversial when she saw so many
books that questioned it. Another panel member said that a friend
phoned her one day and said "Turn on your television." She did and she
saw a program with FMS families and retractors.
   The message is clear: Information is needed. Our children were not
told the whole story. Because people who are caught in the recovered-
memory belief system will not accept material from parents and others
who love them, information must come from other sources: books and
libraries, magazine articles and television programs.
   If each person who has contacted the Foundation would accept the
responsibility for ensuring that local libraries have books with
accurate information about recovered memories, we will have taken a
big step in providing the information that is needed for people to
think for themselves.
     |                     |
     | is the address of the website that FMSF is developing. |
     |  The site currently has background information on the  |
     |       U.S.A. v Peterson trial in Houston, Texas.       |

                   WENATCHEE -- A PERSONAL TRAGEDY
                              FMSF Staff

Of all the casualties in the Wenatchee sex abuse investigations, none
seems more tragic than the controversial case of Harold and Idella
Everett. The couple spent nearly four years in prison for Wenatchee
child sex ring convictions that were recently overturned. The Everetts
were released from prison September 15, after a three-judge panel
ruled that intimidation and false information were used to get them to
say that they had raped and molested their five children, and that
improper methods were used to obtain accusations from their children.
Both the Everetts are illiterate, mentally disabled, and unable to
   Their plight after release was recently depicted in an article by
Andrew Schneider in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (9/28/98). The
Everetts have their freedom and each other, Schneider reports, and
little else -- no house, little clothing, and not much more than one
hundred dollars between them. They received no compensation for their
wrongful imprisonment, nothing even to begin to make up for the four
years spent in prison or the loss of their children.
   The Everett's five children, were removed by the state during the
investigation and trial. The Everetts don't know if they will ever
regain custody. Their twin boys are in foster homes; their older
daughter is in a mental hospital; their oldest son, now 18, was
adopted by an out-of-state family; and the Everetts are unsure of
where the state placed their younger daughter. The two daughters had
been the main accusers of many other adults as well as the Everetts.
   When they arrived in Wenatchee after their release from prison, the
Everetts knew that their tiny rental house would no longer be awaiting
them. But what they did not know was where their furniture and
personal belongings are now. In the meantime, they'll stay at Idella's
parents' house, sleeping on the floor.
   Although they now have their freedom, Harold thinks about the
others still wrongfully imprisoned, and wonders what will happen to
them. Idella hopes that the judge's decision that set them free will
help those people. More than 50 lawyers have joined with the
University of Washington's Innocence Project in an attempt to win new
trials for those still in prison.

                     BUT IT'S IN THE DSM (Part 4)
                              FMSF Staff

Multiple personality disorder was included in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual-III in 1980. This fact has encouraged some people
to claim that MPD was generally accepted in the medical community. A
1988 study, however, raises serious questions about the acceptance of
MPD in the professional community.

          Professional Skepticism about Multiple Personality
                             Paul F. Dell
   Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Vol. 176 #9, 1988 528-531

The author randomly selected 40 psychiatrists, 40 Ph.D.-level
psychologists, and 40 masters-level therapists who were members of the
International Society for the Study of Multiple Personality and
Dissociation (now known as the International Society for the Study of
Dissociation). Sixty-two of this group (52%) completed a questionnaire
asking if they had experienced skepticism about the MPD diagnosis. The
questionnaire asked how frequently respondents encountered skepticism,
who had shown skepticism, and whether it adversely affected the
patients' treatment. Respondents were also asked to report the worst
incident of skepticism they had encountered. Answers were assigned to
1 of 5 categories ranging from ordinary doubt to aggression.
   Ninety-eight percent of the respondents said they had encountered
skepticism; 82 percent considered the skepticism to be moderate to
extreme. Dell observed that "Psychiatrists not only tended to receive
the most extreme forms of skepticism, but were the most frequent (and
most severe) purveyors of that skepticism."
   Narratives of the worst incidents included practitioners who were
banned from their hospital units, who repeatedly had to undergo staff
reviews, or whose patients were refused admission to the hospital.
Respondents described nursing staff who refused to follow treatment
plans and medical directors who ordered staff not to treat patients as
having MPD. Dell commented that "the incidents were not rare
exceptions but instead almost the rule."
   Dell acknowledged that the 52 percent response rate weakened the
report. However, he commented that "even if we assume that non-
responders to the survey had encountered no skepticism, the data would
still indicate that more than 40 percent of clinicians who treat
patients with MPD have encountered strong disbelief, interference with
treatment, and extreme harassment."
   From where we sit, the results of this paper indicate that MPD was
not generally accepted in 1988. Rather, it seems obvious from the
ISSMP&D's own members that skepticism ran deep in 1988.  
                                                      To be continued.

/                                                                    \
| "The efficacy of psychotherapy for dissociative identity disorder  |
| is not a scientific fact."                                         |
|                                        Colin Ross and Joan Ellason |
|                    Am J. Psychiatry, p 1304, 155:9, 1998,1304-1305 |

                        An Architectural Mind:
         The Nature of Real, Created, and Fabricated Memories
                    for Emotional Childhood Events
                    Dissertation by Stephen Porter
                    University of British Columbia
        John C. Yuille and Darrin R. Lehman (Faculty Advisors)
The results of Stephen Porter's dissertation will be of interest to
newsletter readers. Porter examined (1) whether false memories for
emotional childhood events could be implanted, (2) whether real,
implanted and fabricated events could be discriminated, and (3)
whether there were individual differences in susceptibility.
   A questionnaire was sent to the participants' parents asking about
6 highly emotional events which participants may have experienced
between ages 4 and 10. Across 3 interviews, interviewers attempted to
elicit a false memory in 77 participants using guided imagery and
other techniques. In the first session, participants were interviewed
about a real and a false event, each introduced as true. In the next
two sessions, they were interviewed about the false event. At the end
of the final interview, they were also instructed to fabricate a
memory to the interviewer.
   Porter found that 26 percent of participants experienced complete
created memory and that 30 percent experienced a partial memory. He
found that real, created and fabricated memories differed on several
important features (e.g. confidence, vividness, details, repeated
details, coherence, stress, perspective). And he found that
participants who experienced a created or partial memory scored twice
as high on the Dissociative Experiences Scale.
   The dissertation may be obtained from the UBC Library. An
abbreviated version may be obtained from the author: Stephen Porter,
Ph.D., Chair/ Forensic Psychology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS,
B3H 4J1, Canada.
                         Accuracy of Reports
         of Recovered Memories of WWII Experiences Questioned
The current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
1998, Vol 29, No 5 contains four articles challenging a claim made by
Karon and Widener in a 1997 article as well as the Karon and
Widener's response to those challenges. The Karon and Widener
position is that "Repression obviously exists. Every psychodynamic
therapist sees it. The only way he or she could not see it is by
assuming that what patients say are lies." The challenges are written
by James C. Giglio, Scott Lilienfeld and Elizabeth Loftus, August
Piper, Jr., and Mark Pendergrast.
   Karon and Widener's original article asserted that case studies
of World War II combat neuroses provide ample evidence for the
existence of repression. One example was given of an airman injured in
a crash who was treated by a Veterans Affairs psychiatrist after the
war. The airman recovered the memory of the crash in therapy. Giglio
challenged the airman's story on the grounds that there was no
airplane used at the time as described in his story. The other authors
pointed to areas of weaknesses in the research cited by Karon and
Widener and commented that the anecdote and the cited research did not
support their claim.

   Karon, B.P. & Widener, A.J. (1997). Repressed memories and World
   War II: Lest we forget! Professional Psychology: Research and
   Practice, 28, 338-340.

   Karon, B.P. & Widener, A.J. (1998). Repressed memories: The Real
   Story. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1998, Vol
   29, No 5. 482-487.

Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood (1995) is a highly
acclaimed book by Binjamin Wilkomirski about his boyhood spent in the
concentration camps of Majdanek and Auschwitz where he saw his father
and his friends killed. Wilkomirski claimed that his childhood
memories surfaced as a result of psychotherapy. The book has been
translated into 12 languages and received many awards and the praise
of historians and reviewers. Research by Swiss writer Daniel
Ganzfried, however, has shown that Wilkomirski's book is more likely
than not fiction. According to Joseph Kahn in the Boston Globe
(10/20/98) the book "is sparking debate among Holocaust scholars over
the veracity of the book's author and the validity of 'recovered
memory' marketed as historical truth."

|               EXCERPTS FROM PROFESSIONAL STATEMENTS                |
|                                                                    |
|  ________________________________________________________________  |
|  Distinguishing true from false memories: external corroboration.  |
|                                                                    |
| "It is not known how to distinguish, with complete accuracy,       |
| memories based on true events from those derived from other        |
| sources."                                                          |
|                           (American Psychiatric Association, 1993) |
|                                                                    |
| "While aspects of the alleged abuse situation, as well as the      |
| context in which the memories emerge, can contribute to the        |
| assessment, there is no completely accurate way of determining the |
| validity of reports in the absence of corroborating information."  |
|                           (American Psychiatric Association, 1993) |
|                                                                    |
| "The AMA considered recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse   |
| to be of uncertain authenticity, which should be subject to        |
| external verification. The use of recovered memories is fraught    |
| with problems of potential missaplication."                        |
|                               (American Medical Association, 1994) |
|                                                                    |
| "The available scientific and clinical evidence does not allow     |
| accurate, inaccurate, and fabricated memories to be distinguished  |
| in the absence of independent corroboration."                      |
|                           (Australian Psychological Society, 1994) |
|                                                                    |
| "At present there are no scientifically valid criteria that would  |
| generally permit the reliable differentiation of true recovered    |
| memories of sexual abuse from pseudomemories."                     |
|                         (Michigan Psychological Association, 1995) |
|                                                                    |
| "At this point it is impossible, without other corroborative       |
| evidence, to distinguish a true memory from a false one."          |
|                         (American Psychological Association, 1995) |
|                                                                    |
| "Psychologists acknowledge that a definite conclusion that a       |
| memory is based on objective reality is not possible unless there  |
| is incontrovertible corroborating evidence."                       |
|                         (Canadian Psychological Association, 1996) |
|                                                                    |
|              _______________________________________               |
|              Hypnosis and memory recovery techniques               |
|                                                                    |
| "The Council finds that recollections obtained during hypnosis can |
| involve confabulations and pseudomemories and not only fail to be  |
| more accurate, but actually appear to be less reliable than non    |
| hypnotic recall."                                                  |
|                               (American Medical Association, 1985) |
|                                                                    |
| "Psychiatrists are advised to avoid engaging in any 'memory        |
| recovery techniques' which are based upon the expectation of past  |
| sexual abuse of which the patient has no memory. Such 'memory      |
| recovery techniques' may include drug-mediated interviews,         |
| hypnosis, regression therapies, guided imagery, 'body memories',   |
| literal dream interpretation and journaling. There is no evidence  |
| that the use of consciousness- altering techniques, such as drug-  |
| mediated interviews or hypnosis can reveal or accurately elaborate |
| factual information about any past experiences including childhood |
| sexual abuse. Techniques of regression therapy including 'age      |
| regression' and hypnotic regression are of unproven                |
| effectiveness."                                                    |
|                             (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1997) |
|                                                                    |
|           ______________________________________________           |
|           Caution on using a set of symptoms to diagnose           |
|                 child sexual abuse or a child abuser.              |
|                                                                    |
| "There is no uniform "profile" or other method to accurately       |
| distinguish those who have sexually abused children from those who |
| have not."                                                         |
|                           (American Psychiatric Association, 1993) |
|                                                                    |
| "Psychologists recognize that there is no constellation of         |
| symptoms which is diagnostic of child sexual abuse."               |
|                  (Canadian Psychological Association, August 1996) |
|                                                                    |
| "Previous sexual abuse in the absence of memories of these events  |
| cannot be diagnosed through a checklist of symptoms."              |
|                             (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1997) |

                       B O O K   R E V I E W S
                            Stolen Valor:
 How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of its Heroes and its History.
                   B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley.
 Dallas: Verity Press, 1998. 692 pp hardbound in dust jacket. $31.95.
           [Order from or]

                     Reviewed by Loren Pankratz,

In 1986, Dallas stockbroker B.G. Burkett agreed to raise money to
erect a Vietnam war memorial in Texas. He never realized that negative
stereotypes of the Vietnam veteran would make his task so difficult.
Three years later at the dedication of the memorial, television crews
approached Burkett asking for some comments from the vets. But instead
of approaching the distinguished members of the memorial fund
committee, the TV crew focused on an uninvited hodgepodge of men in
camouflage fatigues and blue jeans, sporting ponytails and scraggly
beards. Several wore the insignia of combat units or the green beret
of the elite Special Forces.
   Burkett fumed. It was exactly this image -- of veterans as pathetic
losers, wackos from war experiences -- that had made his fundraising
   He was not distressed merely because his fundraising colleagues had
been ignored. There was a deeper problem: something just didn't ring
true. He knew that veterans from elite units were the cream of the
crop, almost always college graduates with too much pride to be seen
in public unkempt and slovenly.
   During the early years of fundraising, Burkett had requested the
military records for one particularly obnoxious vet under the Freedom
of Information Act. The records confirmed what he had suspected all
along: this man was not a Green Beret. In fact, he had never even been
in Vietnam. He had served in Germany where he accumulated AWOLs and
was demoted in rank to sergeant.
   Thus began Burkett's private war to expose the lies of those who
twisted history. These false stories had driven out the true, and
stolen the valor of men who served their country with honor.
   This is a can't-put-it down book even though you often know what's
going to happen. Burkett describes the stories of hundreds of
individuals, from the anonymous guy holding a sign saying "Vet will
work for food," to the rich-and-famous: the hero behind the movie
"Born on the Fourth of July," Sylvester Stallone of "Rambo" fame, Dan
Rather, and a handful of congressmen. Then, with surgical precision he
exposes the truth as revealed in these peoples' detailed military
   But Burkett, by going beyond the anecdotal story, provides the
bigger picture. Most people believe all myths: that the Vietnam war
was fought by minorities and ghetto youth, and that our vets came home
to live on the streets and in prisons, haunted by the atrocities of
war, drowning their memories in drink and drugs. Burkett names the
reporters, activists, and politicians who, for their own ends, have
distorted or created history. He names the mental health professionals
who reinforced the myths. He provides excerpts from their reports and
from court proceedings.
   What the lady from Philadelphia did with recovered memories, the
guy from Dallas has done with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
   Burkett shows how thoroughly we have been caught in the pretenders'
web of lies. In 1992, Burkett read an editorial in Vietnam magazine
that boasted that the magazine's review board was scrupulous about
including only accurate history in their publication. The editor, Col.
Harry Summers, Jr., (Ret), a distinguished fellow at the Army War
College, had stated that he and his editors could tell phonies in "the
first three sentences." Burkett wrote, pointing out that in a previous
issue they had published a POW story that had been stolen from a book,
Everything We Had. And even the story in that book was bogus!
   Moreover, Summers had written an introduction to Shelby Stanton's
book, The Rise and Fall of an American Army. Summers praised Stanton
as a "Vietnam combat veteran decorated for valor and now retired as a
result of wounds suffered on the battlefield." But Stanton's claimed
combat experience as a Ranger performing underwater scuba missions in
the Mekong River was fabricated. Stanton was never in combat and did
not earn the medals he claimed. In fact, Stanton was never in Vietnam!
He had a desk job in Thailand for one year and was then retired from
the Army because of his asthma. A few issues later, Shelby Stanton's
name disappeared from the Vietnam's masthead.
   How did we mess up so badly?  We looked for what we wanted to
find. And where we could not find what we wanted, pretenders eagerly
gave us the stories we expected. We have parallels from history. For
example, things have not changed much since the end of the 16th
Century when a certain Bragadino arrived in Venice with stories of his
accomplishments in distant lands, like the ability to make gold
multiply through secret alchemical methods.[1] The people of the city
eagerly laid their fortunes at his feet. How could such a singular
aberration be explained in this great city?  Bragadino was immediately
lionized because everyone had been looking for him so earnestly.
   The next time your buddy shows you his Medal of Honor, open the
appendix of Stolen Valor and see if he is one of the surviving 170
Vietnam vets who actually earned the award. Burkett reveals how fake
medals and citations have become a cottage industry. Distinguished
Service Cross, Navy Cross, and Air Force Cross recipients are also
listed here for the first time.
   Check it out.

[1] DeFrancisco (1939) The Power of the Charlatan,

   Loren Pankratz, Ph.D. is a Consultation Psychologist and Clinical
   Professor, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland OR. He is
   the author of Patients Who Deceive, Charles C. Thomas, 1998. Dr.
   Pankratz is a member of the FMSF Scientific Advisory Board

                   The Great Children's Home Panic
                  Richard Webster, The Orwell Press
                 10 Radley House, Marston Ferry Road
                          Oxford OX2 7EA, UK
                        1998 ISBN 0 9515922 2X

                      Reviewed by P. T.

This slim (69 pages) and impromptu book by a British scholar R.
Webster (author of a highly acclaimed book Why Freud Was Wrong)
consists of three articles and an appendix. The first article, "Care
Goes on Trial," was originally published in the Guardian in January
1997, the second one, "Police, Care Workers and Creation on False
Allegations" was prepared for private circulation among people who had
become involved in the allegations this book describes, and the third
article was written exclusively for this book. In spite of its
brevity, it is one of the most insightful and powerful books written
on the topic of false accusations.
   A lot has been written about false accusations stemming from
"recovered memory therapy," false accusations by children in custody
disputes, and false accusations by children in day-care settings.  R.
Webster documents yet another category, namely accusations of sexual
abuse made by adults who used to be residents of various children's
homes, accusations based on what Webster calls "retrospective
investigation." The term "children's homes" is misleading. The major
investigations have been focused on institutions which deal not with
children but with exceptionally difficult adolescents. Most of those
who made complaints about sexual abuse have done so as adults, long
time after they left the allegedly abusive environment. And most of
the complaints were far from spontaneous. The vast majority of the
allegations were collected by police officers who were actively
seeking evidence against a certain suspect or the staff of particular
home. It is now a common knowledge among former residents of these
institutions that allegations of sexual abuse can result in successful
civil claims for amounts up to 100,000 pounds, or in hefty awards paid
by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Boards. Webster does not deny
that some of the accusations are true. But in more than a dozen cases
which have already came to light, independent observers have examined
the evidence and found it flawed and unconvincing
   Webster thoroughly analysis the roots and development of this
panic, which quickly moved through the "satanic ritual abuse" stage to
"paedophile rings" conspiracy. He discusses the role of social
services, police and the media. Between 1988-1991, three large
retrospective investigations were carried out in mainland Britain. In
one of them, the North Wales investigation, more than 600 individuals
made allegations against no less than 365 care workers from a variety
of care homes. Following these three original investigations, many
more have been launched in different parts of the country. In the
north-west alone, about forty care workers have been charged, and most
of them convicted, with prison terms up to 18 years. The convictions
were secured by "corroboration by quantity." In other words, if many
people alleged the same crime, the crime must have happened. It is
frightening that future investigations can be justified by reference
to the earlier, flawed convictions often based on fabricated
evidence. As recently as in January 1998, police revealed that they
had opened an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse in more
than seven children's homes in the Greater Manchester area with one of
the allegations dating back forty years. Webster informs the readers
that, for the present time, it would appear that a third of the police
forces in England are engaged in retrospective investigations into
care homes and that similar investigations are also in progress in
Wales and Scotland. And if the pattern of earlier investigations is
followed, it seems probable that a large number of those convicted
will be completely innocent. In Webster's words: "If we have indeed
created a machine for bringing about miscarriage of justice, then all
the evidence suggests that this machine is gathering momentum almost
by the day." Webster's tiny book is a wake up call for people who
still trust the western-world justice system and a call to action for
all concerned citizens on both sides of the Atlantic.

   P. T., Ph.D. is a chemical engineer. She is an Associate
   Professor at Laurentian University.

/                                                                    \
|  Child abuse is now the plot point of a thousand dramas in         |
| literature, theatre and cinema. A huge industry has emerged around |
| the fabrication of recovered memory syndrome. One hardly stands a  |
| chance of being interesting unless one can attest to being the     |
| product of abuse. Write a book about how you had sex with your dad |
| and become a celebrity. Child abuse has become so generalized, and |
| so obviously an idealized cause of the problems of adults, that we |
| no longer know how to mobilize repugnance. We are even less sure   |
| of whether it is a real, increasingly prevalent problem, or a      |
| frequency created by the attention devoted to it.                  |
|                                                    Ziauddin Sardar |
|                               The Herald (Glasgow) October 3, 1998 |
|                                        The Confusions of Childhood |

                      F M S F    E X P E N S E S
                      March 1997 - February 1998

                 Program Services/Education  $544,056
                 General Administration      $103,932
                 Membership                  $ 20,273
                 Fund Raising                $  7,008
                 TOTAL EXPENSES              $675,269

                Program Services include education and
                represent 81% of fiscal 1998 expenses.
| Dear Friends:                                                      |
|                                                                    |
| Think of the FMS Foundation as being like your favorite public     |
| broadcasting station. First, like that station, we make our appeal |
| once a year. If we are to continue, we must get financial support  |
| from our members and the readers of this newsletter. Second, we,   |
| too, provide an important public service worthy of support.        |
|                                                                    |
| If you are a regular reader of this publication, you understand    |
| the mission of FMSF better than any words can communicate. You     |
| know we are working to bring an end to the madness that has        |
| damaged or destroyed so many thousands of families and at the same |
| time encourage the mental health community to set standards that   |
| will lessen the risk of future disasters such as we have           |
| experienced.                                                       |
|                                                                    |
| If your family has not yet been reunited, help us because our work |
| will benefit you directly. If you are among the fortunate families |
| already reunited, help us to rescue those families left behind.    |
| They should experience the extraordinary joy and freedom from pain |
| that has come to you and yours.                                    |
|                                                                    |
| Please be generous. Wonderful progress has been made but much      |
| unnecessary suffering continues. The work of the False Memory      |
| Syndrome Foundation must continue.                                 |
|                                                                    |
| Contributions are tax deductible. Many supporters of non-profit    |
| organizations find it beneficial tax-wise to donate highly         |
| appreciated securities. If you think this might be applicable to   |
| you, you may want to talk with Charles Caviness who could answer   |
| your questions. His phone number is 1-800-289-9060                 |
I want to help the False Memory Syndrome Foundation continue its work.

I/we wish to pledge a donation of $______________ which is not for
membership or subscription. 

  Become a FRIEND of the Foundation by donating a minimum of $400
  above your membership dues.

My/our pledge will be paid as:
  [] A single lump sum payment enclosed.
  [] A single lump sum payment to made on _____mo, _____yr
  [] Two semi-annual payments
  [] Four quarterly payments
  [] Other (please specify) ______________________

Method of Payment:
  [] Credit Card ($25 minimum)
       Initial payment will be charged.
       Future payments will be billed
       VISA / MC / DISCOVER (please circle one)
       Card #          -         -        -   
  [] Check or Money Order (Make payable to the FMS Foundation in
       U.S. dollars.)



Street Address or P.O.Box

City                                 State         Zip+4

Home phone                           Office Phone

(_____)________________________     __________________________________
FAX                                 E-mail

MAIL the completed form 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

                       L E G A L   C O R N E R
                              FMSF Staff
          Criminal Trial Against Texas Therapists Continues
             United States of America v. Peterson, et al.
        U.S. Dist. Ct., Southern Dist., Texas, No. H-97-237.[1]
The defendants in a federal conspiracy and fraud case are charged
with, among other things, conspiring to defraud health insurance
providers of millions of dollars for the treatment of patients falsely
diagnosed as suffering from MPD said to be caused by severe ritualized
sexual abuse. All of the patients referred to in the indictment had
generous or unlimited insurance policies. Opening days of the trial
were dominated by insurance payment and billing documents which the
government maintained showed that the defendants had bilked insurance
companies for the treatment of ailments stemming from horrifying
images implanted by the therapists. Some of the documents referred to
the payment of insurance premiums by defendants so that treatment of
the Abney family could continue even after Mr. Abney requested that
his insurance coverage be discontinued for his wife and daughter.
Medical records of Lynn Carl and her children were also reviewed.
Carl had been awarded $5.8 million in damages last year after she
accused therapists of convincing her wrongly that she had suffered
horrifying cult abuse.
   On day 6 of the trial, a former patient at Spring Shadows Glen
began testifying about her treatment there. Mary Shanley testified
that she and her 9-year-old son were sent by their therapists in
Illinois [2] to the hospital for "deprogramming." Shanley remained in
the hospital for more than 2 years at a cost of more than $1 million.
Eventually, the insurance company was told that she had 10,000 alters.
Shanley testified that she was given such high amounts of salt when
her blood pressure became too low, that her body retained fluid.
Shanley said that she was told this was a "body memory" of a pregnancy
when she was in the cult. Shanley also described the use of physical
restraints during "abreactive" therapy sessions when therapists tried
to bring forth her alter personalities. Shanley said she was placed in
restraints more than 100 times during her stay -- sometimes for as
long as 20 hours at a time.
   On day 12 of the trial the defense began its cross-examination of
Shanley. Defense attorney Rusty Hardin asked Shanley to name specific
memories that had been implanted by the defendants. The defense hopes
to show that the defendants provided care that was appropriate for the
time. They say that the patients had already been diagnosed with
serious mental illnesses before they arrived at Spring Shadows Glen.
   Named in the 60-count federal indictment are psychologist Judith
Peterson; psychiatrists Richard Seward and Gloria Keraga; therapist
Sylvia Davis; and hospital administrator Jerry Mueck. The five former
employees of Spring Shadows Glen Hospital in Houston are charged with
conspiracy and mail fraud. Each count carries a maximum penalty of
five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
                            Editor's Note:
During September, the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation
(DPR) broadened its probe into doctors it charges are misusing
controversial repressed-memory therapies.
   The DPR Complaint is based on a false-memory case involving a woman
who -- along with her two young children -- had been placed in a
psychiatric ward after treatment convinced her that she was part of a
satanic cult. Through repressed memory therapy, including hypnosis,
Patricia Burgus was led to believe that she participated in a Satanic
cult despite the lack of any evidence to support that suggestion.
There were no bones, no missing person reports. Eventually Burgus
decided that her psychiatrists' suggestions were impossible and filed
suit against Dr. Bennett Braun, Dr. Elva Poznanski, Dr. Roberta Sachs,
and against Rush-Presbyterian where the treatment took place. That
suit was eventually settled out of court for $10.6 million. In the
settlement, the hospital and doctors did not admit any negligence.
   According to the Chicago Tribune (9/24/98), more patients who say
their lives were ruined by Dr. Braun have come forward, hoping their
names and stories can be added to the state's effort to revoke his
medical license.
       Illinois Regulators File Complaint Against Second Doctor
                         in False-Memory Case
The Illinois Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) is now
seeking to revoke the medical license of Dr. Elva Poznanski for her
treatment and care of two young brothers, ages 3 and 5. According to
the eight-count gross negligence complaint filed September 29,
Poznanski helped make the boys falsely believe they were abused and
had engaged in satanic activity during the time she oversaw the boys'
three-year "incarceration" in the child psychiatric ward in Rush
Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago. Poznanski was 
chief of child psychiatry at the center.
   Both boys were diagnosed with multiple personality disorder. One
boy was admitted before Halloween because it was feared the boy would
be killed by a satanic cult on that date. According to the boys'
mother, Patricia Burgus, Poznanski "brought real guns into therapy
with my children, supposedly to see if indeed my children had been
trained to use real guns...She allowed my son John to handcuff her as
part of his therapy. He was told this was part of his cult
   "[Poznanski] is just as responsible as Dr. Braun with regard to the
two children," said Tom Glasgow, DPR's chief of medical prosecutions.
"It's questionable even if a diagnosis for multiple personality
disorder can be made for children that age. She knew -- or should have
known -- inpatient therapy for them would be far more damaging than
helpful. This really is the most egregious part of the Burgus case."
   Braun's attorney, Harvey Harris, described Poznanski as a well-
respected leader and practitioner in her field. A preliminary hearing
for Poznanski is scheduled for Nov. 9.
        Testimony at Disciplinary Hearing of Dr. Bennett Braun
                       Tells of "Brainwashing"
Hearings on whether to revoke the medical license of Dr. Bennett
Braun, a leader in the controversial field of recovered memory and
multiple personality therapy, began September 28. The Complaint issued
by the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) alleges
that Braun's techniques almost destroyed the lives of the Burgus
family. An angry group of Braun's former patients and their family
members attended the hearing, but Braun did not appear.
   Patricia Burgus described how she sought out treatment for
depression after the difficult birth of her second son. She was
referred to Dr. Braun and Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center
where she was diagnosed as having MPD. Braun then told Burgus that it
was likely she was involved in a satanic cult that participated in
satanic sexual ritual abuse, since this was typical of patients with
MPD. Both Burgus and her sons, then ages 3 and 5, were placed in
locked psychiatric wards for two to three years. "We were put on
massive experimental medicines, we were hypnotized, we were
brainwashed," Burgus said. "...It was brutal, it was brainwashing and
it should never have taken place in this country."
   Braun's attorney, Harvey Harris, accused Burgus of conducting a
"vendetta" against him. He said he will show how many of Braun's
patients have grossly exaggerated claims and developed an unexplained
need for retribution. He moved that the case should be dismissed
because the state had failed to move in a timely manner. On October 7,
Administrative Law Judge Philip Howe denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against Dr. Braun. Braun now has 30 days to respond to the
judge's finding. Arguments in the case will be heard on Nov. 9. "This
is not a vendetta," Burgus said later. "This is strictly holding
someone accountable for what he has done."

[1] This report is taken from a series of articles by Mark Smith which
    appeared in the Houston Chronicle. See also FMSF Brief Bank #176
    and FMSF Newsletter December 1997, October 1998. Or, for the
    latest trial developments, check the website:
[2] Some of Shanley's Illinois therapists have been named as
    unindicted co-conspirators. Psychiatrist Bennett Braun and
    psychologist Roberta Sachs are among the co-conspirators.
   Man Falsely Accused of Molestation Wins $1.5 Million Settlement
              Whiting, B. (10/2/98) The Arizona Republic
The state of Arizona has agreed to pay a $1.5 million settlement to a
man once accused of sex crimes with his foster children. Ed Compton
and his wife sued the state of Arizona, claiming that the Arizona
Department of Economic Security failed to investigate allegations
properly and failed to adequately train its employees to recognize
false accusations. They accused workers of Child Protective Services,
a DES division, of conducting a slipshod investigation involving three
young girls who had been placed as foster children in their home six
years earlier.
   Mr. Compton's troubles began in September 1992 when a foster
daughter, then 6, told a CPS worker that Compton had molested her
older sister, then 8. CPS removed the two sisters as well as a third
foster daughter, then 8, from Compton's home. Following a CPS
investigation, criminal charges were filed. If convicted, Compton
could have been sent to prison for more than 100 years. However, he
was released from jail early in 1995 and the case was dropped. This
was after the Arizona Attorney General's Office, which defended DES in
a lawsuit against it by three of the foster children, filed court
papers arguing that the alleged sexual abuse never happened. The state
attorney general's office submitted papers which stated that doctors
could not substantiate any sexual abuse of the three girls. It also
offered documents that one of the girls had been in counseling for
being a habitual liar and that another had been described by a state
worker as "highly sexualized" before her placement with Compton. Mr.
Compton was represented by Mark Kennedy of Phoenix.
   Mary Ault, a DES administrator, declined to comment about the
settlement, but said the agency is aware of troubling issues that were
raised by Compton in his lawsuit. Ault said that during the past six
years, the DES has initiated administrative changes and has rewritten
rules, policies and procedures to prevent a repeat of the wrongs that
were claimed by Compton.

Expert testimony about repressed memories may be presented at several
levels of the legal process.[1] The majority of "repressed memory"
cases involve claims of decades-past sexual abuse which the claimant
alleges were unknown until formerly "repressed" memories were
   Expert opinion is often submitted to bolster the claim that the
statute of limitations should be tolled (extended) until the time the
memory is recovered. However, most courts have held that an expert
opinion does not automatically create a question of fact for a jury to
hear.[2] Expert opinion may attempt to assist the court in determining
what the complainant knew and when.[3]
   Controversy has frequently arisen in this context. The reasons
courts have rejected such expert opinion include the fact that the
opinion may be based solely on conjecture;4 may be given as a
conclusion without supporting facts and is thus unverifiable;[5] or
may have been tailored to meet statutory requirements.[6] The
Wisconsin Supreme Court noted that the danger of fraud is great if
courts were to rely on such subjective opinion.[7] After considering
this problem, the Texas Supreme Court held that expert testimony does
not meet the objective requirement for applying the discovery rule in
   Several appellate courts have held that the plaintiff must show
that the phenomenon of memory repression and testimony based on that
theory are reliable enough to be admitted at trial.[9] Other courts
have anticipated that the reliability and admissibility of the
testimony of the expert will be an issue.[10] In many jurisdictions,
the trial judge, serving as gatekeeper, is instructed to determine
whether the testimony and evidence is relevant, whether the expert is
qualified to testify, and whether the proffered expert opinion is of
probative value to the factfinder.[11] A North Carolina appellate
court held that a plaintiff's testimony regarding recovered memories
may not be heard at trial unless accompanied by expert testimony.[12]
When the trial court subsequently found the expert testimony about
memory repression and retrieval to be unreliable and inadmissible, the
court ruled the complainant's testimony could not be heard either.
   While expert testimony may permit judges to evaluate the competency
of the complaining witness, we have found few appellate decisions
which addressed that issue. Most, like the New Hampshire Supreme
Court, focused on the problematic reliability of the repressed memory
testimony.[13] In a number of cases, expert testimony served to shift
the burden of producing evidence.[14]
              Repressed Memory Testimony in Murder Cases
In some cases, a witness' repressed memory testimony has led to murder
charges. The FMS Foundation Legal Survey contains 9 cases in which
charges were brought only after an individual came forward saying he
or she had witnessed the murder, but had subsequently repressed all
memory of the event until much later. It appears, however, in several
of these cases that the reasons for a witness' delay in coming forward
may involve more mundane, common sense concerns.
   For example, the sole witness in the Crawford murder trial
(discussed below), suggested that the reason for his 20-year delay in
coming forward was due to repressed memory. He also suggested other
reasons when he testified that he did not tell the police earlier
because he was afraid that no one would believe him or that the police
might blame him for the murder because he was often in trouble with
the law. He had stolen cars, drank and got involved in fights. Just
before coming forward, Reed testified, he began to see misty
apparitions of the murdered woman who urged him to tell.
   Similarly, in a California case, the girlfriend of a murder suspect
initially provided the suspect with an alibi for the night of the
murder. Years later, she came forward saying he had confessed to the
crime at the time, but that she did not come forward earlier because
she had repressed memory of his confession. Observers of the case note
that she changed her story after the suspect raped her, was convicted,
and sentenced to 13 years for that crime.[15]
   In other cases, it is not at all clear what the witness meant by
the term "repression" -- especially when hypnosis was used. In a case
which has received much press attention recently, a 1976 murder
conviction [16] was questioned after the sole witness announced that
his "recovered" memories of the crime scene were actually false and
that he had been manipulated by investigators at the time. Most of the
witness' memories came after he was hypnotized.[17] The witness' had
steadfastly maintained that he had no memories of the events to which
he eventually testified. The witness' testimony had come into question
many times during the past 20 years, during six appeals. According to
the witness' own lawyer, he was an impressionable young man in a
juvenile detention center at the time of his original testimony. In an
added twist to this case, the young man reportedly now says that he
didn't come forward with the changed version of events because he had
"repressed" the fact that he had been hypnotized and had testified at
the murder trial.
   In 1995, the State of Illinois relied on recovered "repressed
memories" to charge Larry Stegman and another man with the murder of a
young woman 29 years earlier.[18] Stegman's daughter, 32, claimed
memories of the incident were recovered while in therapy. The state at
first denied that its witness had ever been under hypnosis. Medical
records, however, verified that she had been hypnotized. The trial
judge prohibited the hypnotic testimony at trial and on October 1995,
the state withdrew the murder charges.
   George Franklin spent almost 7 years in prison for the murder of
his daughter's childhood friend before his conviction was overturned
in 1995.[19] His daughter, Eileen Franklin-Lipsker, drawing on
supposedly repressed memories of the day of the killing 20 years
earlier, testified against Franklin. Her testimony led to Franklin's
conviction. Questions were first raised about Eileen's testimony
because many of the details she described had been published in the
media years earlier. A year later, as prosecutors planned to retry
Franklin, it was disclosed that Eileen had been hypnotized by a
therapist before the first trial. Such testimony is barred in
California as unreliable. In 1990, Eileen told investigators that she
remembered her father committing three more murders. Two of those
"memories" could not be linked to any unsolved crime. DNA tests in the
other cleared Franklin absolutely.
    Two State Appellate Courts Hold that Trial Courts Did Not Err
       in Excluding Expert Testimony for Purpose of Explaining
             Why an Individual Delayed in Coming Forward
Editor's Note: In both cases reported below, murder charges were
brought only after an individual came forward saying he had witnessed
the murder scene, but had subsequently repressed all memory of the
event until much later. In both cases, the defense sought to challenge
the witnesses by questioning their delay in coming forward with
information. Under the circumstances of these cases, the courts held
that the issue was the credibility of the witness rather than the
reliability of the witness' "repressed memory" testimony. The courts'
recitation of the facts showed that, in both cases, there was ample
testimony available, other than the expert testimony, from which the
jury could assess the credibility of the witness.
                     State of Wisconsin v. Kutska
         1998 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1089, released Sept. 22, 1998.
A Wisconsin Appellate Court recently considered an appeal of a murder
conviction which raised 13 different arguments. One of those arguments
stated that the defendant's right to present a defense was unfairly
restricted when the trial court excluded certain expert testimony
regarding repressed memory and suggestive interrogation. At trial, the
defendants offered the expert testimony to attack a witness' account
of his sudden and unexplained recollection of his observations six
months after they occurred.
   The trial court allowed the expert to testify about matters
affecting eyewitness identification and factors affecting memory, but
not about repressed memory or the application of those principles to
the witness' claim. The trial court was concerned with two potential
problems with the expert's testimony. First, the expert could become a
sort of "super juror" in the courtroom. For example, if the expert
testified that under certain circumstances, the witness should not be
considered reliable, this would amount to a kind of credibility
"review-board" of witnesses and would invade the province of the
jury. Second, the trial judge felt that most jurors' common sense
would lead them to have some opinion on repressed memory and
suggestive interrogation techniques. Therefore, the trial court
concluded that the proposed testimony would not assist the jurors.
   The Wisconsin appellate court ruled that the trial court had aptly
exercised its discretion when it decided to exclude certain portions
of the proposed expert testimony.
               Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Crawford
           1998 Pa. LEXIS 2150, decided September 30, 1998.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
agreed that expert testimony that a witness' "repressed memory" could
not be trusted should not be admitted because the testimony would
attack the credibility of the prosecution's witness. The court found
that the trial judge did not err in excluding expert testimony
regarding revived repressed memories in this case and that the
admissibility of evidence is a matter left to the discretion of the
trial judge. Trial rulings are not to be disturbed on appeal unless an
abuse of discretion is shown.
   In so ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appeared to draw a
distinction between the use of the repressed memory testimony in this
case and other potential uses: For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court had recently ruled that repressed memory claims do not toll the
statute of limitations under the discovery rule.[20] The question of
whether repressed memory testimony is admissible at trial under Frye
has not yet been decided by this court.[21]
   No arrest was made in connection with the 1971 drowning of a woman
until John Reed contacted the police more than 20 years later to
report that he had witnessed events leading to the drowning and to
identify Franklin Crawford as responsible for the woman's death. At
the trial, Reed described a number of dream-like phenomena occurring
over a three-year period in which the murdered woman urged him to tell
the truth and reveal his long suppressed knowledge and thereby obtain
justice. Crawford was subsequently convicted by a jury of second
degree murder.
   Reed's explanation for his inordinate delay in reporting his
observations suggested he had experienced the return of repressed
memories of seeing the woman in the process of being murdered by a
river. He said he did not talk to anyone about that night and claimed
never to have thought about what happened, "I didn't even know it
existed." But, the court noted, Reed also testified that he did not
tell the police earlier because he was afraid that no one would
believe him or that the police might blame him for the murder because
he was often in trouble with the law. In the supreme court's view,
Reed's testimony allowed the jury to determine for itself whether his
testimony was credible, i.e., truthful or worthy of belief. The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that in this case, the reliability of
Reed's revived repressed memory was never an issue that needed to be
resolved by the jury.[22] At issue, the court decided, was an assessment
of Reed's credibility and that question was properly left to the jury.
   The court's conclusion that the jury was capable of assessing
Reed's credibility without expert testimony regarding revived
repressed memory should be considered in light of the specific expert
testimony offered. The court quoted extensively from an affidavit
prepared by the defense witness. The Supreme court agreed with the
trial judge that the expert's adamant assertion that Reed's memories
of the events leading to the woman's death could not be considered
accurate was inadmissible because it was an assessment of Reed's
credibility. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reinstated the judgment
of sentence.

[1] For a review, see Faigman, David, L., et al, (1997), Chapter 13:
    Repressed memories, Modern Scientific Evidence; The Law and
    Science of Expert Testimony, Vol. 1, St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
[2] Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I., 1996) (The trial
    justice, after hearing and considering expert medical and
    scientific evidence and opinion will be in the best position to
    decide as a matter of law whether the alleged repressed
    recollection in a particular case is sufficiently relevant,
    reliable, and scientifically and/or medically established so as to
    constitute "unsound mind," thereby tolling the action limitation
    period. J.M. v. Merkl, No. C5-97-973, Minn. Ct. App., unpublished,
    filed March 10, 1998. (affirmed directed verdict. While the
    question of the admissibility of the expert testimony was not
    raised on appeal, the appellate court wrote, "We conclude that, on
    this record, which lacked any admissible expert testimony on the
    theory of revitalized repressed memory, the district court did not
    err in determining there was no fact issue for the jury and in
    directing a verdict for respondent based on the statute of
[3] Anonymous v. Anonymous, 154 Misc.2d 46 (N.Y. Supr. Ct., Suffolk
    Co., 1992) (ordered a fact finding hearing to determine
    plaintiff's mental capacity due to her PTSD condition to
    "establish that the mental affliction either existed at the time
    of the accrual of the cause of action or that it was caused by the
    event upon which the lawsuit was predicated." The court noted
    several inadequacies with the expert affidavit, i.e., it did not
    describe the nature of the exam performed or the factual basis for
    the expert's conclusions and findings.)
[4] Moore v. Schiano, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 5836 (affirmed summary
    judgment) Because the expert met plaintiff years after the alleged
    events and did not specify what information the expert's opinion
    was based on it "is based upon mere conjecture and is beyond the
    personal knowledge of the affiant. Hence, it is insufficient to
    create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of the
    statute of limitations.")
[5] Florez v. Sargeant, 1996 Ariz. LEXIS 59 (granted summary judgment;
    "Affidavits that only set forth ultimate facts or conclusions of
    law can neither support nor defeat a motion for summary judgment.
    An expert affidavit opposing a motion for summary judgment must
    set forth "specific facts" to support an opinion...The affidavits
    here are not objectionable because they embrace an ultimate issue,
    but because they are without relevant foundation." and are
    therefore insufficient to support a legal finding of 'unsound
    mind.'"); State of Rhode Island v. Quattrocchi, 681 A.2d 879
    (R.I., 1996), citing State v. Cressey, 628 A.2d 696 (N.H., 1993)
    ("Finally, we are not convinced that a thorough cross-examination
    can effectively expose any unreliable elements or assumptions...In
    such a case, the expert's conclusions are as impenetrable as they
    are unverifiable."); See also, Nolde v. Frankie, 1998 Ariz. LEXIS
[6] Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 780 (Wisc.,
    1995). "This court has frequently been dismayed by the examination
    of trial court records which showed a marked propensity of those
    who purport to have psychiatric expertise to tailor their
    testimony to the particular client whom they represent, fraud
    becomes a distinct possibility."
[7] Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 780 (Wisc.,
    1995). (affirmed trial court's dismissal. "Here the alleged
    damages are all 'emotional' and 'psychological,' with the
    plaintiffs experts claiming that damage exists and was caused by
    the defendant...While some courts may have blind faith in all
    phases of psychiatry, this court does not...Nor are we convinced
    that even careful cross-examination in this esoteric and largely
    unproved field is likely to reveal the truth. Such circumstances
    are ripe for fraudulent claims.")
[8] S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (For purposes of applying the discovery
    rule, expert testimony on subjects about which there is no settled
    scientific view -- indeed, not even a majority scientific view --
    cannot provide objective verification of abuse.)
[9] McCollum v. D'Arcy, 638 A.2d 797, (N.H., 1994) (affirmed and
    remanded; although the discovery rule applies to toll statute of
    limitations, the proponent of recovered memory still bore "the validate the phenomenon of memory repression itself
    and the admissibility of evidence flowing therefrom."); State of
    New Hampshire v. Hungerford, 697 A.2d 916 (expert testimony must
    rise to a threshold level of reliability to be admissible. "We
    apply these principles in the repressed memory context -- both to
    the witness claiming to have recovered memory and to the expert
    explaining the phenomenon."); State of New Hampshire v. Walters,
    698 A.2d 1244 (N.H., 1997) (reversed the trial court's ruling that
    repressed memory testimony is admissible. "Upon the objection of
    the opposing party, the proponent of testimony comprised of
    recovered memories must demonstrate that the testimony is
    reliable."); Olsen v. Hooley, 865 P.2d 1345 (Utah, 1993) (remanded
    this repressed memory claim holding that the discovery rule
    applied but that plaintiff "still bears the burden of proving at
    trial that she did in fact repress a memory of actual facts.")
[10] Olsen v. Hooley, supra. ("Because of the dearth of empirical
    scientific evidence regarding the authenticity and reliability of
    revived memories, the inherent reliability and admissibility of
    expert witness testimony regarding memory repression and revival
    may be an issue that will have to be reached at trial. We cannot
    resolve this issue now because it is not before us."); K.B. v.
    Evangelical Lutheran Church, 538 N.W.2d 152, (Minn. App. 1995).
    (affirmed dismissal of this Type 1 claim; noted that the emerging
    conflict within the psychiatric community over the validity of
    discovered memories of sexual abuse impacts on the admissibility
    of expert opinions under the standard set forth in Frye.)
[11] See, e.g., Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I., 1996). See
    also, State of Rhode Island v. Quattrocchi, 681 A.2d 879 (R.I.,
    1996). (conviction overturned; "When such testimony is offered,
    particularly expert testimony relating to the basis for such
    repression of recollection... the trial justice should exercise a
    gatekeeping function and hold a preliminary evidentiary hearing
    outside the presence of the jury in order to determine whether
    such evidence is reliable and whether the situation is one on
    which expert testimony is appropriate.")
[12] Barrett v. Hyldburg, 487 S.E.2d 803 (N.C. App., 1997). The trial
    court had held that "The alleged repressed memory evidence to be
    offered by plaintiff is beyond the life experience of the average
    juror, and therefore, a juror would have no basis on which to
    determine the credibility or reliability of the alleged victim's
    testimony." The New Hampshire Supreme Court held similarly, State
    of New Hampshire v. Hungerford, supra. ("A review of the
    scientific literature on the subject reveals, however, that
    ordinary jurors cannot be expected to analyze such claims without
    the assistance of experts.")
[13] State of New Hampshire v. Hungerford, 697 A.2d 916. "Just as our
    inquiry is not purely one of competence, it is not purely a
    question of the admissibility of scientific or expert evidence...
    Our case law is clear that if the subject matter in dispute is
    beyond the general understanding of a jury, the party bearing the
    burden of proof must adduce expert testimony to explain such
    evidence. Further, expert testimony is required when the issues in
    a case are particularly esoteric or when the matter to be
    determined by the trier of fact is so distinctly related to a
    particular science, occupation, business, or profession that it is
    beyond the ability of the average layperson to understand."
[14] Ramona v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. App. 4th 107 (Cal. App. 1997)
    The court held that defense witness Dr. Martin Orne's expert
    opinion was sufficient to shift the burden of producing evidence
    to the plaintiff, who was then required to produce specific facts
    showing a triable issue exists as to whether her post-sodium-
    amytal memories are reliable. However, the court noted that Colin
    Ross, plaintiff's sole expert on sodium amytal, did not state her
    memories, recalled two years after the sodium amytal interview,
    were not affected by the drug. Therefore, the court determined
    that plaintiff's testimony must be excluded under Kelly/Frye.
[15] State of California v. Bouck, Los Angeles Superior Ct., Calif.
    In Nov. 1997, after his girlfriend withdrew the alibi she had
    provided, Guy Dean Bouck pled guilty to shooting his wife in order
    to avoid the death penalty.
[16] State of Florida v. Joseph Spaziano, Ninth Judicial Circuit Ct.,
    Orange Co., Florida, No. ___. In 1996 the Florida Supreme Court
    upheld a circuit court decision to overturn the conviction. In
    June 1997, prosecutors said they would retry Spaziano.
[17] At the time of the trial, hypnosis was assumed to enhance memory.
    The Florida Supreme Court ruled that hypnosis-induced testimony is
    unreliable. That ruling was not retroactive, however, which means
    it does not affect the Spaziano case.
[18] State of Illinois v. Stegman, Circuit Ct., Massac Co., Illinois,
[19] Franklin v. Duncan, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4955.
[20] Dalrymple v. Brown, 1997 WL 499945 (Penn, 1997). The court
    emphasized that a claimant's incapacity, her inability to
    remember, did not extend the statute of limitations. The court was
    loath to apply the discovery rule where the injury is subjective
    and proof is likely to be dependent on the claimant's
    testimony. In addition, according to a concurring opinion, the
    majority's ruling was really motivated by its distrust of the
    entire theory behind repressed memories.
[21] In the Crawford decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    specifically stated that it declined to address the question of
    whether or not expert testimony regarding revived repressed memory
    would be admissible into evidence under the standard articulated
    in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
[22] According to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, at trial the state
    did not seek to establish that Reed's explanation for his delay in
    coming forward was scientifically supported by the phenomenon of
    revived repressed memory. In fact, the prosecutor's closing
    argument conceded that Reed's explanation strained credulity.


HYPNOTHERAPIST ASKS FOR PAROLE [1]: A hypnotherapist who had been
criminally charged with implanting false memories during therapy she
provided, has sought early release, just three months after she began
her 2 1/2 year prison sentence. Geraldine A. Lamb pled guilty in April
to insurance fraud and practicing psychology without a license. In
return, the remaining counts, including those alleging she implanted
false memories, were dropped.
   The Missouri attorney general's office has opposed Lamb's early
release. Several victims of Lamb's therapy spoke at the parole board
hearing. The board's decision on whether Lamb is eligible for parole
is expected within 4 to 6 weeks of the September 30 hearing.

than 80 people are now involved in examining court, police, and CPS
records and preparing legal briefs to appeal for new trials of
Wenatchee convictions. The volunteers are national experts in police
misconduct, mental health abuse, civil rights and DNA evidence. Some
are law professors at the University of Washington and Seattle
University. Others are practicing attorneys, most with 15 to 20 years
of experience. They have fought and won some of the state's hottest
legal battles and have now come together in what may be the nation's
largest collection of free legal talent ever assembled. Called the
Innocence Project Northwest, the attorneys intend to work to win new
trials for 16 people still in prison from the Wenatchee child
sex-abuse cases.
   Seattle lawyer Fred Leatherman and University of Washington law
lecturer Jackie McMurtie are co-founders of the project. The National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has offered to cover some
costs of the project.

[1] See also FMSF Newsletter July 1998. Report taken from Carlton,
    J.G. (9/30/98) "Hypnotherapist is set to make plea for parole
    today," St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
[2] For more information, see Schneider, Andrew (7/10/98) "Expert
    legal team takes up Wenatchee cause," Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

/                                                                    \
| Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick     |
| themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.                |
|                                                  Winston Churchill |


                         N E W S   F L A S H
                      By August Piper, Jr., M.D.

    Uncultivated minds are not full of wild flowers, like uncultivated
    fields. Villainous weeds grow in them, and they are full of toads.
                                            Logan Pearsall Smith, 1931

Opening the "News of the Day" file, we discover -- remember you heard
it first right here! -- that multiple personality disorder has now
been discovered in a chimpanzee.
   That's right, folks: according to a newspaper, a French animal
psychologist "confirms" that the chimp, named Kiki, exhibits "all the
disorder's classic signs." The expert says Kiki is sometimes "gentle
and passive, but at other times is vicious and selfish, stealing food
from other animals."
   There's more. The psychologist says Kiki responds only to commands
if, at the time, she is in the same mode she was in when she learned
the commands. And he also claims that Kiki has two distinct "memory
banks:" when one personality is "out," the chimp recognizes only those
people she met at the time she was previously in that personality.

                               *  *  *

One could simply laugh at this story, dismissing it as the product of
a fevered or uncultivated mind. For example, one could reasonably ask
why stealing food is elevated to the level of "personality" -- why
couldn't Kiki have just been hungry? Or, given that animals typically
require a long time to learn commands, one might also wonder how the
psychologist could know what "mode" Kiki was in when she learned the
commands. Or one could ask how the expert determines that when the
chimpanzee fails to "recognize" or obey certain people, she is not,
for her own reasons, merely ignoring them? And one could even ask how
anyone -- even an animal psychologist -- can be certain that a
chimpanzee truly does or does not recognize a person.
   Yes, one could indeed consider this story a laughable excess -- or
the hoax it very well may be -- if it were not for the disquieting
fact that some therapists who treat Kiki's human cousins behave
exactly like the French psychologist.
   First, many of these practitioners deliver themselves of
pronouncements about mental processes -- such as "dissociation" or
"repression" -- that are completely invisible. Because of this
invisibility, and because the practitioners have no instruments to
reliably detect these processes, such pronouncements represent nothing
more than rank speculation.
   Second, many practitioners diagnose MPD on the very flimsiest
evidence. That is, transient mood changes, wearing different clothes,
having bodily symptoms (such as headache or an upset stomach), or
memory lapses (such as the perfectly normal inability to remember
trivial events from one's very distant past), are all seen as evidence
of "alters" at work; that a person has MPD. In other words, the term
"personality" is so vague that therapists have a huge latitude to
define the word however they want.
   That the notion of MPD has been widely disseminated through, and
often uncritically accepted by, the therapy community are further
reasons for disquiet. The damage this dissemination can do was
recently brought home to me by the experiences of two patients, Ms. A
and Ms. B. The first was a 43-year-old woman who, for several years,
had received counseling from a local agency providing services for the
blind. For years, Ms. A had had a very pleasant relationship with a
female therapist at this agency. One day, she went to see an outside
psychologist to evaluate her eligibility for state disability
assistance. Ms. A told me that this therapist, after spending only a
few minutes with her, announced that she suffered from MPD.
   When her agency therapist heard about this diagnosis, she told
Ms. A she could no longer treat her, because she was not qualified to
treat patients with such a serious disorder. Ms. A protested. "I
never had any personalities, and I definitely don't think I have
MPD. Look -- I'm doing well in life, working every day."
   "You just don't realize how serious MPD is," the therapist replied.
"It means something bad happened to you when you were a child.
Besides, lots of people have MPD and don't know it. This condition is
out of my league...I just can't treat you any more."
   The upshot of all this was that Ms. A. lost her therapist, with
whom she had enjoyed a long relationship. When she protested the
diagnosis, the agency told her she could get a second opinion -- but
only from a practitioner approved by the agency. Ms. A felt aggrieved
about all this and, after getting my name from a friend, posed that
question to me: what should she do?
   Ms. B's case was even more disquieting. I received a call last year
from a mother. She and her husband were concerned about Ms. B their
14-year-old daughter, who, because of problems with bulimia, had
started therapy with a licensed counselor about eighteen months
previously. The counselor had told her she suffered from MPD, that MPD
and bulimia were sure signs of childhood sexual mistreatment, and that
healing required unearthing and discussing this mistreatment.
   Neither parent knew anything about their daughter being maltreated
as a child, and neither had ever seen Ms. B display any "alter
personalities." Ms. B's physician, who had known her for years, had
never seen any, either; he thought the MPD diagnosis was preposterous,
and told her that. Also, Ms. B had never once mentioned being sexually
or otherwise mistreated as a child. And even after being in treatment
for several months with her present counselor, she still did not
recall any childhood maltreatment -- although she was desperately
trying to do so. The parents were worried because their daughter was
clearly deteriorating, despite expensive twice-weekly sessions with
the counselor: more difficulty with the eating disorder, more anxiety,
more suicidal ideation. Most ominously, Ms. B had started cutting on
herself -- something she had never done before.
   The parents were quite disturbed by what happened when they tried
convincing their daughter that the treatment was inappropriate and
manifestly unhelpful. She told them, "You think you know everything";
"Stop trying to run my life -- I like this therapist"; "You don't know
what's happening, because you're not at our sessions"; "You just don't
understand the treatment"; etc., etc.
   Ms. B's mother met with the counselor. To her horror, she
discovered the therapist was unshakable in her convictions that her
diagnosis was correct, and that Ms. B had been mistreated during
   The parents naturally felt a moral duty to protect their child from
harm. It also troubled them to be paying for a treatment they
considered hurtful and wrong-headed. On the other hand, they
recognized the importance of confidentiality in psychotherapy, of not
meddling in someone's counseling relationship. They wished to avoid
igniting the firestorm of adolescent rebellion that would probably
flare if they simply forbade Ms. B to see the counselor. And finally,
they wanted to support their daughter's nascent efforts to find, as a
young adult, her own way in life.
   What should they do? That was the  question posed to me.
   And that, dear reader, is the question I leave with you. Do you
have advice for Ms. A. and for Ms. B's family? Send your thoughts; in
the next column, I'll tell you what happened to the patients.

  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
/                                                                    \
| "Those who grovel around in the past in the pursuit of so-called   |
| 'recovered memory' may be doing more harm than good. It is not     |
| necessarily the case that those who forget the past are doomed to  |
| repeat its mistakes, and one might well argue that a little bit of |
| forgetting of history would often help."                           |
|                                                        Steven Rose |
|                                         The Guardian, May 23, 1998 |

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

Dear FMSF Newsletter Reader,
   Many of you were a great support to me in the early days of my
accident, and you continue to be important to Toby and me as I work to
return to a more complete use of my body. Thank you for your letters,
cards and prayers -- they touched us. My physical improvement no doubt
was aided by my mental outlook, and your caring and interest were
important in helping me maintain a positive outlook.
   I'm back at the office one day a week and hopefully, by time you
read this, it will be twice a week. It is great (a big understatement)
to be back. Toby and Pam kept me informed about what was going on and
Toby would read or summarize important articles for me. I even had the
opportunity to make some small contributions, but not nearly as much
as was needed, nor as much as I would have liked.
   I continue with my physical therapy and hope to regain greater use
of my left arm to the point where I can type with two hands. My work,
just like the Foundation's, isn't over and again like FMSF, I'm going
to give it my best shot.
   Thank you for your many kindnesses.
                                                            Allen Feld
                             Get Involved
Those falsely accused of child sexual abuse years after the alleged
event appear generally to have two primary goals: (1) The return of
the accuser and the accuser's supporters to a loving relationship with
the accused and other affected members of the family, and (2) Relief
from the fear and isolation that such accusations can engender. There
is a third and very valid goal that many overlook, but which can, in a
larger sense, positively affect both goals. That is to work diligently
to inform the public about the false memory syndrome problem and to
work to see that it is put to an end.
   Some folks who get involved in FMS activities (primarily attending
meetings of FMS groups) get discouraged when information alone doesn't
help their own individual cases. So they return to isolation, hoping
that by "ignoring" the subject their pain will be diminished.
   Returning to isolation does not work. Information is power, but it
must be disseminated. "But if I do that, folks will begin to guess
that I am one of those accused, and everyone knows that you are guilty
without a trial or a chance to explain," they think. Sorry, the
experience of those who have carefully but courageously spread the
word is just the opposite.
   I will concede that the probabilities are that "spreading the word"
will have little to do with reconciliation, but it can have a great
deal to do with overcoming the fear and isolation of being falsely
accused. I can only cite my own experience and anecdotal experiences
of others.
   I happen to make my retirement living as an entertainer, primarily
of children. I would have much to lose if the idea got out that I was
an "abuser." Nevertheless, as a New England area FMS group leader, I
have repeatedly encouraged others to make a carefully planned effort
to inform trusted family members and friends of the accusations and of
the latest research on the matter. It is essential to be well-informed
and the FMSF
   Newsletter is an excellent source of solid information.
   Often, a good place to start telling your story is to your
clergyman, who, of course, is pledged to confidentiality. Ask him or
her to join in the effort to inform the public about FMS. Sit down
with trusted family members and friends, perhaps one couple or
individual at a time and tell them the whole story. Remind them of the
many TV programs and news articles that have acknowledged the
misconceptions of recent years. (The prestigious PBS Frontline
documentaries by Ofra Bikel and the Recommendations on Recovered
Memories by the British Royal College of Psychiatrists are excellent
sources. Contact FMSF for details.) Your honesty, openness and solid
knowledge of the facts can only impress those whom you would trust
with confidences.
   In my own case, I have shared the matter with clergy, a men's group
I facilitate at church and others whose integrity and good sense I
trust. These include a state legislator who found my willingness to
share my story and my rich source of evidentiary material more than
sufficient to overcome what this legislator admitted would otherwise
have been a real skepticism. Further, as an occasional lay preacher
in my church I spoke on two successive Sundays, first on the subject
of rampant public gullibility that includes all of us to some extent,
and then on the specific subject of the FMS problem. All of our
services are broadcast on four local public access television
stations. Many times, someone has told me of a friend or relative who
they had just learned was suffering from the same problem. I suggest
they contact the FMSF and I give them materials.
   Sharing facts confidently can be freeing; it overcomes fear and
isolation. It may or may not have a direct effect on your
relationship with the accused. In my case it has resulted in
reestablishing a solid relationship with a member of my family who
felt, at the time of the accusations, that they had to be true. A
heavy flow of literature and invitations, as my guest, to national
FMSF conferences (even though refused) clearly had an effect.
   Do we talk about the accusations? No. We don't need to. Let the
other party pick the time and place. If it never happens, that's
OK. Those who have been the accusers or their supporters suffer great
pain. We don't need to add to their misery.
   Am I still careful with whom I share my story? Of course. But I
have been willing to take risks when my instincts suggested. And I am
100% stronger for it. Think about it.
(Paul will send a copy of his sermon. Call 203-458-9173.)
                      Response to Piper's Column
Please count me among those who must have a recantation before any
reconciliation can begin. Some expression of remorse would be
appropriate, as well.
   Ten years ago my daughter accused her deceased father. About one
year later, I was accused. With me, she had a live target and never
mentioned her father again.
   Three years ago my daughter suggested we meet. Her desire to
reconcile was based on, "a mutual willingness to forget the past."
Forgetting is an "impossible-bility" for me. So I declined. I'm not a
good enough actress to pull it off. My daughter is, having acted on
stage in three world capitals. So, right there, I was outclassed.
   It took years to come to terms with the loss of my daughter,
despite the fact that our best years were marred by her hostile
nature. No united family remains for her to return to. At 78 I'm wise
enough to appreciate what I have and selfish enough to guard my peace
and happiness. My companion of 14 years is a man my daughter openly
disliked. He's not wild about her either.
   Am I hard-hearted and cold? I think not
      But you can bet -
      Were she to have a change of heart,
      No longer wish to play that part,
      I might drop dead, but I'd recover,
      Cuz, after all, I am her mother.
                                                                 A Mom
                           Personal Choices
I've been thinking about the differences between Alzheimer's and FMS.
Alzheimer's is not something a person embraces voluntarily. My lovely
Mother suffered from it; she died twice -- once in mind and then in
body. But a person enters into the false memory belief patterns
because of personal unhappiness, looking for someone to blame. The
easiest people to blame are parents. This has been an issue for
decades, ever since therapists first hung out shingles. When I was
young, the blame was on mothers: if a child was a misfit, it was
because mom toilet trained him or her too early. That seems ridiculous
now, but it was believed then just as strongly as the accusations
against parents are now believed.
   Taking the therapist's word, entering into a concerted effort to
divorce oneself from the family, drawing in siblings, filing lawsuits,
and seeking vengeance and money are all volunteer activities. Eleanor
Roosevelt once said, "In the long run, we shape our lives and we shape
ourselves. The process never ends...and the choices we make are
ultimately our own responsibility."
   If some parents want to accept their children back into the family,
so be it; I am happy for them and rejoice. For me, there are just too
many unanswered questions that could hang in the family for
generations. "I want my inheritance now," still rings in my ears. If
twenty-five thousand dollars constitutes an inheritance with five
thousand more to recant, the bond of my family is shattered. Is that
the price for a family? I find I agree with Rhett Butler who so aptly
responded to Scarlett when she wanted to know what would become of
her, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
                                       A Mother who agrees with Rhett.
                        In a Word: No Apology
Reading the last two issues of the Newsletter was a rewarding
experience for me. I get the feeling that good minds are zeroing in on
the full nature of the problem that Recovered Memory Therapy presents
to the consuming public, and that this long tragedy will yet reach
resolution for everyone. I'd like to reply to August Piper's query as
to whether or not the "accused" should adopt a hard-line response to
those retractor/returnees who made wrongful (i.e. mistaken) and unjust
assumptions and accusations of parents, family members and childhood
   In a word: no apology. Both the accused and their accusers have
suffered harm, either in pursuit of RMT or in response (or lack
thereof) to its claims of us. How can either faction be blamed (or be
more responsible than the other) for being caught up in the lure of
those who would profess to help give direction for our lives. Tens,
perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people worldwide have sought to
purchase from "experts" a way to "make a life" for themselves. In this
instance, the shaky logic and unsubstantiated theories and procedures
of the therapist investigators have failed utterly to determine a
cause -- or cure -- for troubled people's emotional distress and
   Buyer beware. Perhaps its time for a consumers' boycott to put an
end to the however-well-intentioned game-playing with our mental
health and life purpose.
   In truth,
                                                        Barbara, A Mom
                            This Helped Me
"Why must this happen to us?" was my inner lament, followed by: "I do
not understand!" and "How can I cope?"  Through prayerful thought, an
answer came that comforted me each time I read it. I titled it:

        For Now: I Understand

   I do understand:
    I never felt like just-a-mom or just-a-wife.
    I loved both roles -- they were my life.
    This brought me challenge, joy, and sorrow;
    I claim that joy to take me through tomorrow.

   I do understand:
    She was our perky, happy child;
    Sure of being loved, she often smiled.
    As she grew up, she never lacked for care;
    She looked to me, and found me always there.

   I do understand:
    My little girl became a lovely woman
    Who brought to us a child to love
    For seven years, we loved and watched her grow.
    No one can steal those memories we know.

   I do understand:
    Right at this time, there is no choice;
    They cut us off -- we have no voice.

   I do understand:
    She knows it's her loss too -- and grieves;
    Sis and Mom and Dad; gone, like autumn leaves.

   I do understand:
    Even tho' our grandchild is kept away from us,
    For her dear sake, we must not make a fuss.

   I do understand:
    I should not waste one day of living;
    I'll keep my faith and try forgiving.
    Life has new dimensions to explore.
    I will do that -- and hope for more.

   I do understand:
    With God's help, Reunion day will come.
    For now..I'm still-a-wife,
    I'm still-a-mom...I'm glad.

Finally, the realization came that damaging emotions must be allowed
to fizzle and die -- it was them or me! That's when the following
resolve popped to life. I keep it on my desk for re-enforcement when
self pity and other harmful, useless feelings lurk...Does it always
help?...No, but it gives me a jump start in the right direction.

    No more hugging close the hurt.
    I have to let it go.
    To cherish pain is to prolong discordant parts of life's sweet song.
    There is some joy in every day
    I will reach out for it, and pray.

   Four years have passed. I will never totally give up hope, nor can
I (we) ever feel complete happiness. However, the above "formula"
encourages me to embrace life as a gift not to be wasted.
   Perhaps sharing these words will help someone else. I'll add that
to my hopes.
                                       A Wife, Mother, and Grandmother

/                               ______                               \
|                               Before                               |
|                      A Mother's Day 1992 note                      |
| In spite of my harsh words at times, I'm not forgetting who went   |
| to all those PTA meetings, who led all those Girl Scout troops,    |
| sewed all those costumes, drove to all those lessons and           |
| appointments, nursed us when we were sick, put tape over her mouth |
| in sympathy for orthodontic or oral surgery stress, kissed her     |
| rings for us, got sore shoulders trying to make Christmas perfect, |
| got tears in her eyes for "Every time I hear a newborn baby cry,"  |
| and on and on and on... I'm sorry I've ever hurt you but I do love |
| you very much.                _____                                |
|                               After                                |
|                          January 4, 1993                           |
| I did appreciate the Christmas fruit, the National Geographic, the |
| years of cards on birthdays and holidays, but now I want to make a |
| clean break of it. I don't want you to call me, write to me or try |
| to contact me in any way ever again unless you've had 2 years of   |
| weekly therapy sessions with a qualified therapist. If only one of |
| you goes, that one can contact me after that condition has been    |
| met.                                                               |

*                           N O T I C E S                            *
*                                                                    *
*                        SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA                         *
*                                                                    *
*                 "RECONNECTION:  BUILDING A BRIDGE"                 *
*            Saturday, November 7, 1998  9 a.m. - 4 p.m.             *
*                    The CENTRE at Sycamore Plaza                    *
*         5000 Clark Ave. Lakewood, CA (North of Long Beach)         *
*                             Speakers:                              *
*     Pamela Freyd, Ph.D. Eleanor Goldstein, Paul Simpson, Ed.D.     *
*                     For more information call                      *
*        Cecilia:  (310) 545-6064    Carole:  (805) 967-8058         *
*                                                                    *
*                      SKEPTIC SOCIETY MEETING:                      *
*                      Sunday, November 8, 1988                      *
*      Baxter Lecture Hall, California Institute of Technology       *
*                            PASADENA, CA                            *
*                             Speakers:                              *
*             Pamela Freyd, Ph.D. and Eleanor Goldstein              *
*             For more information call: (626) 794-3119              *
                F M S    B U L L E T I N    B O A R D
     Key: (MO)-monthly; (bi-MO)-bi-monthly; (*)-see Notices above

Contacts & Meetings:

  Kathleen (907) 337-7821
  Barbara (602) 924-0975; 854-0404(fax)
  Little Rock
        Al & Lela (870) 363-4368
  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 (925) 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
  Covina Area - 1st Mon. (MO) @7:30pm
        Floyd & Libby (626) 330-2321
  San Diego Area 
        Dee (619) 941-4816
  Colorado Springs
        Doris (719) 488-9738
  S. New England  - (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
  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 (785) 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 (978) 263-9795
  Grand Rapids Area-Jenison - 1st Mon. (MO)
        Bill & Marge (616) 383-0382
  Greater Detroit Area - 3rd Sun. (MO)
        Nancy (248) 642-8077
  Ann Arbor
        Martha (734) 439-8119
        Terry & Collette (507) 642-3630
        Dan & Joan (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
  Susan (704) 481-0456
        Bob & Carole (440) 888-7963
  Oklahoma City
        Dee (405) 942-0531
        HJ (405) 755-3816
        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
        Pat (304) 291-6448
        Katie & Leo (414) 476-0285
        Susanne & John (608) 427-3686

  Vancouver & Mainland - Last Sat. (MO) @ 1- 4pm
        Ruth (604) 925-1539
  Victoria & Vancouver Island - 3rd Tues. (MO) @7:30pm
        John (250) 721-3219
        Joan (204) 284-0118
  London -2nd Sun (bi-MO)
        Adriaan (519) 471-6338
        Eileen (613) 836-3294
  Toronto /N. York
        Pat (416) 444-9078
        Ethel (705) 924-2546
        Ken & Marina (905) 637-6030
        Paula (705) 692-0600
        Alain (514) 335-0863
  St. Andre Est.
        Mavis (450) 537-8187
        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 December Newsletter is November 15
                  Meeting notices MUST be in writing 
    and should be sent no later than TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO MEETING.

|          Do you have access to e-mail?  Send a message to          |
|                                         |
| if  you wish to receive electronic versions of this newsletter and |
| notices of radio and television  broadcasts  about  FMS.  All  the |
| message need say is "add to the FMS-News". It would be useful, but |
| not necessary,  if you add your full name (all addresses and names |
| will remain strictly confidential).                                |
  The False Memory Syndrome Foundation is a qualified 501(c)3 corpora-
tion  with  its  principal offices in Philadelphia and governed by its 
Board of Directors.  While it encourages participation by its  members
in  its  activities,  it must be understood that the Foundation has no 
affiliates and that no other organization or person is  authorized  to
speak for the Foundation without the prior written approval of the Ex-
ecutive Director. All membership dues and contributions to the Founda-
tion must be forwarded to the Foundation for its disposition.

Pamela Freyd, Ph.D.,  Executive Director

FMSF Scientific and Professional  Advisory Board,     November 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.