FMSF NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE - January/February 2006 - Vol. 15, No. 1, HTML version

Return to FMSF Home Page

F M S   F O U N D A T I O N   N E W S L E T T E R     (e-mail edition)
January/February 2006 Vol.15 No. 1
ISSN #1069-0484. Copyright (c) 2006 by the FMS Foundation
        The FMSF Newsletter is published 6 times a year by the
        False Memory Syndrome Foundation. The newsletter is
        mailed to anyone who contributes at least $30.00. Also
              available at no cost on
           1955 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-5766
                 Phone 215-940-1040, Fax 215-940-1042
In this issue...
      Legal Corner	
        From Our Readers	
          Bulletin Board	

Dear Friends, 

We plunge into 2006 with ever-expanding support for the positions of
the FMSF. On page 3 you will find Richard McNally, Ph.D.'s "Folklore
of Buried Memories," a succinct "op ed" piece summarizing the science
of recovered memories. It has appeared in numerous newspapers around
the world and would be excellent to give to people who are not
familiar with the subject.

Two longer articles in this Newsletter serve as examples of the mixed
scientific acceptance of recovered memories as we begin the 15th year
of the Foundation. The first is by FMSF advisor Harrison Pope, Jr.,
M.D., and the second is from a recent decision by Judge Sandra L.
Dougherty of Nebraska.

In the first piece, Dr. Pope critiques an article by New Zealand's
John Read, Ph.D., who with his colleagues (including Colin Ross, M.D.)
claimed that childhood trauma can cause schizophrenia. Read et al.
write: "Recent large-scale general population studies indicate the
relationship is a causal one, with a dose-effect."[1] Pope's critique
is an encore of the outstanding series of articles that he wrote for
this Newsletter in the mid-90s that eventually became the book
Psychology Astray: Fallacies in Studies of "Repressed Memory" and
Childhood Trauma, (Upton Books, 1997). Pope carefully explains the
problems of trying to show that one thing actually causes another, and
then he shows the weaknesses of the Read et al. arguments.

If the name John Read sounds familiar, perhaps it is because the last
time we wrote about him (in 2000) it was in the context of his leading
a futile movement to have the New Zealand Psychological Society
rescind its invitation to Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D., to be a featured
speaker at its conference. He complained of her work that: "No one
will disclose abuse for fear of being disbelieved."[2] Read has been
a strong supporter of the accuracy of recovered memories. In their
zealous belief that past trauma is the cause of so many of life's
current problems, Dr Read and colleagues were lured into making claims
that exceed the evidence. It is very difficult to assign past trauma
as a cause to current problems, whether schizophrenia or anything

The other longer piece illustrates well, on the one hand, that there
is abundant evidence for how people may come to believe in things that
have not happened, and, on the other hand, that there are still many
professionals who ignore the science and cling to the old beliefs
about trauma and recovered memories. It consists of excerpts from
Judge Sandra L. Dougherty's decision after a recent pre-trial
(Daubert) hearing in Nebraska to determine whether expert testimony
about recovered memories can be presented in evidence.

The experts who testified for the defense at this hearing in the
District Court of Douglas County were Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D.,
Harrison Pope, Jr., M.D., both FMSF advisors. Bessel van der Kolk,
M.D., testified for the plaintiff f, a man who claimed that he had only
recently recovered memories of being abused by a priest at Boys Town.
Judge Dougherty ruled that the plaintiff could not present expert
testimony that he suffered from repressed memories, noting that van
der Kolk had not proved that such a diagnosis is scientifically valid.
Although much of the information in Dougherty's decision is familiar
to Newsletter readers, we think that it is valuable to see how someone
new to the subject perceives the arguments and evidence.

Minnesota attorney Patrick Noaker represented the plaintiff in the
case. After the Dougherty decision, Noaker withdrew a claim of
repressed memories in a similar case against Boys Town, saying that he
expected the same result from another Daubert hearing that had been
scheduled to be held in federal court.[3] According to attorney James
Martin Davis, who represented Boys Town in the case, Noaker may have
dropped the repressed-memory claim because he did not want to lose
again. Davis noted that Noaker has repressed-memory cases around the
country, and if he were to have a ruling against him in federal court,
it would help establish a precedent against the claims in other cases.

The Dougherty Daubert decision is one of a series of pre-trial
hearings that we have reported in the Newsletter over the years.
Although the majority of opinions have supported the FMSF positions,
not all have. Following are some examples of other pre-trial Daubert
hearings on admissibility of experts to testify about recovered

Barrett vs. Hyldburg, North Carolina 1998; Carlson vs. Humenansky,
Minnesota, 1995; Doe vs Archdiocese, Louisiana, 2003; Doe vs. Maskell,
Maryland, 1995; Engstrom vs. Engstrom, California, 1995; Logerquist
vs. Danforth, Arizona, 1996; Mensch vs. Pollard, Washington, 1998; New
Hampshire v. Hungerford, New Hampshire, 1995; Rhode Island vs.
Quattrocchi, Rhode Island, 1999; Shahzade vs. Gregory, Massachusetts,

Because these are pre-trial hearings, they are not generally available
on the web. Within the next few months, we expect to have several
posted on the Foundation web site:

In this Newsletter issue, we give brief mention to several new papers
and books that may be of interest to readers. Space limitations
precluded greater description.

We are pleased to see the appearance of the first book to pull
together the disparate literature on false memories: The Science of
False Memory, by C.J. Brainerd and V.F. Reyna (Oxford University
Press). The Science of False Memory draws on the now-extensive
false-memory literature that is scattered in various journals and book
chapters in many different fields such as cognitive psychology,
developmental psychology, neuroscience, psychotherapy, sociology,
anthropology and criminology. It pulls them together in one place and
provides a much-needed authoritative overview of the subject. Brainerd
and Reyna, who are both members of the Psychology Department at
Cornell University, have made many significant contributions to the
false-memory research and have been involved in a number of
high-profile legal cases. The Science of False Memory is a scholarly
book, and although it is not as easy to read as is ABDUCTED: How
People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens by Susan A.
Clancy (Harvard University Press), it is extremely significant in
bringing clarity to the memory wars.

The letters from readers in this issue provide a snapshot of many
family situations. Sometimes your letters bring joy and sometimes
great sadness. Two letters this month ask for help, and we hope that
some readers will respond. The tragedy of the memory wars has been the
wanton and needless destruction of families. Sadly, even if the memory
wars were to be resolved tomorrow, families will still be trying to
pick up the pieces.

In the next issue we will write about the Gray vs. Dr. Powers case in
Pennsylvania in which another former patient struggles to reclaim her
life after bad therapy. In addition, we will tell the story of Kyle
Zirpolo who was one of the accusers in the McMartin Pre-School trial
and who now says that his allegations were lies. The next issue will
bring you up to date on the Outreau case in France in which wrongly
accused people received an apology not only from the Justice Minister
but also from President Jacques Chirac. There just was not enough
space to include all these stories this month.

We thank you for your generosity to our annual appeal and for your
kind words of support and encouragement. We have come a long way
together in 15 years.

[1] Read J., van Os, J., Morrison, A.P., Ross, C.A. (2005). Childhood
    trauma, psychosis and schizophrenia: a literature review with
    theoretical and clinical implications. Acta Psychiatrica
    Scandinavica,112, 330-350.
[2] Radio New Zealand. (Aug 7, 2000). Dr. John Read interviewed by Kim
[3] Ruggles, R. (2005, December 10). Suit drops repressed-memory
    claim. Omaha World-Herald, B1.

       |                    SPECIAL THANKS                    |
       |                                                      |
       |  We extend a very special `Thank you' to all of      |
       |  the people who help prepare the FMSF Newsletter.    |  
       |                                                      |
       |  EDITORIAL SUPPORT: Janet Fetkewicz, Howard          |
       |           Fishman, Peter Freyd                       |
       |  COLUMNISTS: Members of the FMSF Scientific advisory |
       |     Board and Members who wish to remain anonymous   |
       |  LETTERS and INFORMATION: Our Readers                |

			  Richard J. McNally

How victims remember trauma is the most controversial issue facing
psychology and psychiatry today. Many clinical trauma theorists
believe that combat, rape, and other terrifying experiences are
seemingly engraved on the mind, never to be forgotten.

Others disagree, arguing that the mind can protect itself by banishing
memories of trauma from awareness, making it difficult for victims to
remember their most horrific experiences until it is safe to do so
many years later. While acknowledging that trauma is often all too
memorable, these certain clinical trauma theorists assert that a
condition known as "traumatic dissociative amnesia" leaves a large
minority of victims unable to recall their trauma, precisely because
it was so overwhelmingly terrifying.

However, these clinical trauma theorists do not argue that "repressed"
or "dissociated" memories of horrific events are either inert or
benign. On the contrary, these buried memories silently poison the
lives of victims, giving rise to seemingly inexplicable psychiatric
symptoms, and therefore must be exhumed for healing to occur.

This is no ordinary academic debate. The controversy has spilled out
of the psychology laboratories and psychiatric clinics, capturing
headlines, motivating legislative changes, and affecting outcomes in
civil lawsuits and criminal trials.

Whether individuals can repress and recover memories of traumatic
sexual abuse has been especially contentious. During the 1990s, many
adult psychotherapy patients began to recall having been sexually
abused during childhood. Some took legal action against the alleged
perpetrators, often their elderly parents. While complaints against
parents, based on allegedly repressed and recovered memories of abuse,
have declined, those against large institutions, such as the Catholic
Church, have increased.

Strikingly, both advocates and skeptics of the concept of traumatic
dissociative amnesia adduce the same studies when defending their
diametrically opposed views. But it is the advocates who misinterpret
the data when attempting to show that victims are often unable to
recall their traumatic experiences.

Consider the following. After exposure to extreme stress, some victims
report difficulties remembering things in everyday life. Advocates of
traumatic amnesia misconstrue these reports as showing that victims
are unable to remember the horrific event itself. In reality, this
memory problem concerns ordinary absentmindedness that emerges in the
wake of trauma; it does not refer to an inability to remember the
trauma itself. Ordinary forgetfulness that emerges after a trauma must
not be confused with amnesia for the trauma.

Consider, too, that one symptom of posttraumatic stress disorder is an
"inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma." This symptom,
however, does not mean that victims are unaware of having been

Indeed, the mind does not operate like a video recorder, and thus not
every aspect of a traumatic experience gets encoded into memory in the
first place. High levels of emotional arousal often result in the
victim's attention being drawn to the central features of the event at
the expense of other features. Incomplete encoding of a trauma must
not be confused with amnesia -- an inability to recall something that
did get into memory.

Moreover, a rare syndrome called "psychogenic amnesia" is sometimes
confused with traumatic amnesia. Victims of psychogenic amnesia
suddenly lose all memory of their previous lives, including their
sense of personal identity. Occasionally, this sudden, complete memory
loss occurs after severe stress, but not invariably. After a few days
or weeks, memory abruptly returns. In contrast, the phenomenon of
dissociative amnesia supposedly entails victims' inability to remember
their traumatic experiences, not an inability to remember their entire
lives or who they are.

Several surveys show that adults reporting childhood sexual abuse
often say that there was a period of time when they "could not
remember" their abuse. Claims of prior inability to remember imply
that they had attempted unsuccessfully to recall their abuse, only to
remember it much later. Yet if these individuals were unable to
remember their abuse, on what basis would they attempt to recall it in
the first place?

Most likely, they meant that there was a period of time when they did
not think about their abuse. But not thinking about something is not
the same thing as being unable to remember it. It is inability to
remember that constitutes amnesia.

Research conducted in my laboratory on adults reporting histories of
childhood sexual abuse provides a solution to this bitter controversy.
Some of our participants reported having forgotten episodes of
nonviolent sexual abuse perpetrated by a trusted adult. They described
it as having been upsetting, confusing, and disturbing, but not
traumatic in the sense of being overwhelmingly terrifying. Failing to
understand what had happened to them, they simply did not think about
it for many years.

When reminders prompted recollection many years later, they
experienced intense distress, finally understanding their abuse from
the perspective of an adult. These cases count as recovered memories
of sexual abuse, but not as instances of traumatic dissociative
amnesia. That is, the events were not experienced as traumatic when
they occurred, and there is no evidence that they were inaccessible
during the years when they never came to mind.

Sexual abuse is not invariably traumatic in the sense of being
overwhelmingly terrifying. Of course, it is always morally
reprehensible, even when it fails to produce lasting psychiatric

  Richard J. McNally is a professor of psychology and director of
  clinical training in the department of psychology at Harvard
  University. He is the author of Memories of Trauma, Harvard
  University Press, 2003.

		 Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2005.

/                                                                    \
| "By the mid-1980s the idea was to sometimes liposuction people's   |
| memories out of their brains. It was a bad idea, bad therapy and I |
| don't recommend it. "It's not the therapist's job to help patients |
| remember anything -- and to do so invites the most traumatized     |
| among them to simply invent a memory to satisfy the therapist.     |
|                                                                    |
| "Treating a false memory as a true memory can be a very, very,     |
| very bad thing. Why? Because most of these recovered memories      |
| involve crimes such as a child saying they had been abused by      |
| Dad. Also, an individual then receives therapy for what did not    |
| occur."                                                            |
|                                                        John Briere |
|                                            Quoted in Du Chateau, C.| 
|                                                (1998, September 9) |
|                        Recovered memory or just a giant con trick? |
|                                            New Zealand Herald, A13 |

		 A critique of Read J. et al. (2005).
  Childhood trauma, psychosis and schizophrenia: a literature review
	     with theoretical and clinical implications.
	     Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica,112, 330-350.

		       Harrison Pope, Jr., M.D.

Read and colleagues have recently published a review article
suggesting that there is an association between psychotic disorders
(such as schizophrenia), or specific psychotic symptoms (such as
delusions and hallucinations), and a history of childhood trauma [1]
However, the fact that two conditions are associated does not permit
the conclusion that one condition has caused the other. For example,
the sunset is much more closely associated with having dinner than
with having lunch -- but it does not follow that eating dinner will
cause the sun to set. Therefore, even if we grant that there is an
association between psychosis and childhood trauma, we still have the
burden of demonstrating that it is a causal association.

If A is associated with B, how would we go about demonstrating that A
caused B? First, we must agree on some definition of what is meant by
"cause." When I use the word "cause" here, what I mean is that A falls
into the pathway of events that leads to the development of outcome B.
In other words, if A does not happen, then B will not occur -- or at
least the chances of B will be significantly reduced. Clearly, the
definitive way to test for such causality is to take two identical
groups of people and randomly subject half of them to A, while
ensuring that the other half is not subjected to A, and then to follow
them over a period of time to see how many members of each group
develop outcome B. If the individuals who were subjected to A display
a much higher incidence of B on follow up, then one can reasonably
conclude that A is a causal factor. This type of study is known as a
randomized controlled trial.

Now clearly, it would be completely unethical and unreasonable to
perform a study in which a scientific investigator deliberately
randomized one group of people to receive childhood trauma, while
another group did not. Therefore, in actual practice, the best that
one can do is to perform a prospective study in which one takes one
group of people who are documented to have been abused as children,
and another group of people who are otherwise identical -- coming from
equally dysfunctional families, having inherited equal genetic risks
for major psychiatric disorders, having been subjected equally to all
manner of other adverse life events -- but differing from the first
group only in that they were not victims of childhood abuse. One would
then follow these two closely matched groups to see if the group that
experienced abuse went on to develop more psychiatric disorders (for
example, more psychotic symptoms or a higher incidence of
schizophrenia) than the otherwise-similar group that was not abused.

But even this type of study would be very difficult to do, because
people who were abused in childhood are likely to have suffered a wide
range of other misfortunes. In other words, childhood abuse rarely
happens in isolation; people who have experienced it usually have had
numerous other bad things happen as well. They may have grown up in
dysfunctional families where they were subject to many other adverse
influences, over and above actual abuse per se. Also, parents or
relatives who abuse children are likely to have psychiatric disorders
themselves, and they may pass the genes for these psychiatric
disorders on to the child. Thus, children who have been abused may
also have inherited genes predisposing them to major depression,
bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, alcohol dependence, or other major
psychiatric disorders -- genes that might have caused them to develop
these disorders even if they had suffered no adverse childhood
experiences at all. Finally, these children may have suffered many
other adverse life events over the years -- again not representing
abuse events per se, but still negatively affecting their development.
So the challenge in a prospective study would be to somehow find a
matched group of individuals who had identical adverse experiences,
save for the one fact that they had not specifically been a victim of
childhood abuse. To perform a prospective study with such matching
would be extremely time-consuming and expensive.

In short, as the above discussion demonstrates, it is a very difficult
proposition to demonstrate that childhood trauma causes specific
disorders, because it is extremely difficult and expensive to do a
properly designed prospective study, particularly with the dicey
problem of trying to find non-abused comparison subjects who were
matched in every possible respect. It would be much easier, and much
less expensive, if you could test the role of causality using a
retrospective design, in which we took people suffering from various
psychiatric disorders and simply asked them about their past history
of childhood trauma, rather than laboriously seeking out matched
groups and following them over years of time. Is there a way to test
causality using retrospective methods?

There have indeed been many retrospective studies that attempted to
test for causality, including some that have been very careful to try
to eliminate confounding variables. For example, there have even been
some studies that have looked at twins who grew up in the same family,
and where one twin recalled being abused and the other did not.
Presumably, since these twins experience similar family backgrounds,
they would have been equally exposed to other adverse experiences --
which would help to "isolate" the effects of abuse as opposed to the
effects of other aspects of growing up. But such studies are still
vulnerable to confounding variables, because there may have been
differences in the adverse experiences of the two twins. Also, if the
twins are fraternal twins, rather than identical twins, the abused
twin may have inherited different genetics from the non-abused twin.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, retrospective studies are
relying upon the recall of the subjects as to whether they were abused
and in what way -- and recall, it turns out, can be very fallible.

Graphic evidence of the fallibility of recall comes from two recent
studies, one by Cathy Widom and her colleagues [2] and one by Raphael
and colleagues.[3] Both of these studies relied on a long-term
longitudinal database of more than a thousand individuals, about half
of whom were documented through court records to have been victims of
childhood abuse, and the other half of whom were deliberately chosen
as otherwise similar non-victims. The authors of both studies located
and interviewed these individuals some 20 years after the time of
their documented abuse. Raphael et al. interviewed the subjects about
their history of pain syndromes, and Widom et al. asked about alcohol
and substance abuse. In both studies, it turned out that the
individuals with documented abuse did not exhibit any higher
prevalence of pain syndromes or alcohol and substance abuse problems
than the comparison subjects who had been chosen because they had no
documented abuse. In other words, the prospective data showed no
evidence that childhood abuse played a causal role in causing pain
syndromes or alcohol and substance abuse later on in adulthood. But
then, the investigators in both studies performed an interesting
experiment: without revealing their knowledge of the subjects' prior
documented histories of abuse (or lack thereof), they simply asked
their adult subjects whether or not they had been abused. When they
then looked at subjects' retrospective self-reports of childhood
abuse, as opposed to relying on the prior records of the subjects'
documented childhood abuse, the numbers suggested that childhood abuse
was strongly and significantly associated with the development of pain
syndromes and alcohol and drug abuse in adulthood. In other words, if
one had done this study and relied simply on subjects' retrospective
self-reports, taking them at face value, one would have erroneously
concluded that childhood abuse had a very powerful association -- and
perhaps a causal association -- with these adult syndromes, even
though the prospective data showed no such association at all!

Now of course one might argue that there were many subjects in the
studies who had genuinely been abused, but that abuse had been secret
and never reached the court system where it became documented. One
might also argue that individuals with documented abuse, leading to a
court conviction of the abuser, would have been less traumatized than
individuals with undocumented abuse (and who therefore had no similar
"closure" on their trauma) -- and that therefore the prospective
comparison based on documented cases alone might underestimate the
association between abuse and adult pathology. However, if childhood
abuse really did play a causal role in adult pain syndromes or adult
alcohol or substance abuse -- even a slight causal role -- then it
would be very hard to believe that in a huge statistical sample like
this, with more than 500 abuse victims and more than 500 comparison
subjects, there would be no detectable association at all between
documented abuse (abuse so severe that it resulted in an actual court
conviction of the abuser) and subsequent adult psychopathology. At the
very least, these studies suggest that we should be extremely wary of
any studies relying on subjects' retrospective self-reports, because
this might lead to inflated estimates of the actual association
between childhood trauma and adult psychopathology.

Given all of the methodological hazards enumerated above, how can Read
and colleagues argue that childhood abuse plays a causal role in the
development of psychotic symptoms or psychotic disorders. Upon reading
their review, they appear to have advanced only two major arguments
that the association is a causal association. First, they point out
that several studies have shown a striking association between the
severity or extent of childhood abuse and the subsequent severity or
frequency of psychotic syndromes in adulthood; in other words, people
who reported more severe levels of childhood abuse also demonstrated
higher levels of hallucinations or other such psychotic symptoms in
adulthood. In short, there is a "dose-response relationship" between
trauma and psychosis. But does this observation allow us to infer that
A causes B? It does not. Suppose that we do a study in which we ask
people to estimate the total amount of time that they have spent
carrying a cigarette lighter in their pocket or their purse prior to
the age of 30, and we then assess these people for their incidence of
lung cancer by the time that they reach age 70. We find a dramatic
association: the more prolonged and more extensive that one's
"lighter-carrying history" becomes, the higher the odds that that
person will develop lung cancer later on. In other words, there is a
very striking dose-response relationship between lighter carrying and
cancer. Could we then conclude that carrying a cigarette lighter
causes lung cancer? Obviously not -- because carrying a lighter simply
is an indication that one is exposed to cigarettes, and it is the
cigarettes that cause lung cancer. By analogy, a more severe or
extensive history of childhood abuse may be simply an indication that
one is exposed to a higher level of bad things -- bad genetics, bad
biological influences, bad environments, or whatever -- it is these
that cause psychotic syndromes, not the abuse itself. In other words,
a strong dose-response relationship doesn't allow us to conclude
anything about causality, one way or the other.

The second argument of Read and colleagues appears to be that the
association between childhood trauma and psychotic syndromes seems to
persist even in some studies that have controlled for other potential
confounding variables, such as age, sex, ethnicity, presence of other
psychiatric disorders, and even family history of psychiatric
disorder. Therefore, these authors seem to imply, if one is to control
for all of these other possibilities, then childhood trauma must be a
causal factor. But once again this reasoning is hazardous and may be
false. To take our cigarette example above, suppose that we compared
carriers of cigarette lighters with non-carriers, and carefully
controlled for age, level of education, sex, ethnicity, family history
of lung cancer, family history of all other types of cancer, personal
history of cancer, personal history of other serious medical
conditions, urban versus rural residence, use of alcohol, use of other
drugs of abuse, and several other variables. Even with all these
adjustments, we would of course still find that carrying a cigarette
lighter is significantly associated with the later development of lung
cancer -- because we have still failed to control for the critical
confounding variable, namely smoking cigarettes. In short, since it is
very difficult to think of all the possible unmeasured confounding
variables that might exist, it is almost impossible to control for all
of them, and hence it is very difficult rule out the possibility that
other things are playing a causal role, rather than the variable that
we are measuring.

The example of carrying a cigarette lighter may seem artificial or
frivolous -- but mistakes like this happen in real scientific research
all the time, sometimes even in sophisticated studies in the most
respected journals. For example, in the early days of the AIDS
epidemic, before the HIV virus had been discovered, many studies were
conducted to try to find out the cause of this mysterious disease. It
was concluded that inhaled nitrites (so-called "poppers" -- a drug
popular with gay men during sexual activity) were almost certainly the
cause of AIDS, because users of "poppers" were much more likely to
develop AIDS than men who did not use them -- and this relationship
persisted even after adjusting for a wide range of potential
confounding variables. Of course, we now know that AIDS is caused by a
virus, and that "poppers" have no causal role at all. The reason for
the false conclusion of these early studies was that users of
"poppers" were much more likely to engage in receptive anal
intercourse than men who did not use "poppers" -- and this particular
sexual practice was by far the most efficient method for transmitting
the HIV virus. In fact, the erroneous conclusion that "poppers" caused
AIDS has now become a classic example, used in the teaching of
epidemiology students, to show that one can mistakenly infer
causality, because one thinks that one has adjusted for all the
important confounding variables in the association between A and B.
[4] So in short, it would hazardous to conclude, purely on the basis
of available studies at this time, that childhood trauma can somehow
cause psychotic disorders in adulthood. Such a conclusion might prove
to be just as erroneous as concluding that inhaling a "popper" could
cause you to get AIDS.

[1] Read, J. et al. (2005). Childhood trauma, psychosis and
    schizophrenia: a literature review with theoretical and clinical
    implications. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 112, 330-350.
[2] Widom, C. et al. (1999). Childhood victimization and drug abuse: A
    comparison of prospective and retrospective findings. J Consulting
    Clinical Psychology, 67, 867-880.
[3] Raphael, K.G. et al. (2001). Childhood victimization and pain in
    adulthood. Pain, 92, 283-293.
[4] See for example Vandenbroucke JP & Pardoel (1989). VPAM: An
    autopsy of epidemiologic methods: the case of "poppers" in the
    early epidemic of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
    (AIDS). Am J Epidemiol, 129, 457.

  Dr. Pope is a professor of psychiatry at Harvard University Medical
  School and directs a biological psychiatry laboratory at McLean
  Teaching Hospital. He is the author of Psychology Astray and he is a
  member of the FMSF Scientific Advisory Board.

/                                                                    \
| "It felt ridiculous to be digging around in my past when I knew    |
| there was no serious trauma there, and my gut feeling told me that |
| my depression was not related to anything that had ever happened   |
| to me.                                                             |
|                                                                    |
| "But try explaining this to a therapist and they assume that       |
| either you are in denial, or you have simply repressed the bad     |
| memories.                                                          |
|                                                                    |
| "This is impossible to refute because you cannot prove the         |
| contrary -- luckily for the therapist -- since trying to remember  |
} what you've repressed can keep you in therapy for years."          |
|                                                 Virginia Ironside  |
|                                               (2005, November 19)  |
|                        She's one of Britain's top agony aunts....  |
|                                        Daily Mail (London), p. 26  |


  Geraerts, E. Smeets, E., Jelicic, M. van Heerden, J., Merckelbach,
H. (2005). Fantasy proneness, but not self-reported trauma is related
to DRM performance of women reporting recovered memories of childhood
			    sexual abuse.
	     Consciousness and Cognition, 14(3), 602-612.

The authors found that individuals reporting recovered memories of CSA
are more prone than other participants to falsely recalling and
recognizing neutral words that were never presented. The finding held
even when trauma-related material was involved. Correlational analysis
revealed that fantasy proneness, but not self-reported traumatic
experiences and dissociative symptoms were related to false recall and
false recognition. This research expands the work of Clancy, Schacter,
McNally, and Pitman (2000).

		  Storbeck, J. & Clore, G. L. (2005)
      With sadness comes accuracy; With happiness, false memory.
	       Psychological Science, 16(10), 785-791.

Two experiments showed that affect (positive or negative mood) can
influence the encoding processes that are believed to lead to the
production of false memories. Negative affective cues reduced the
false memory effect.

The authors suggest that positive affect can be expected to benefit
performance on tasks requiring relational processing. In relational
processing people tend to see connections and focus on global rather
than local aspects of what they see, and they process incoming
information in relation to currently accessible concepts. On the other
hand, negative affective cues seem to result in predominantly
item-specific processing. The authors noted that individuals in
negative moods resist the influence of accessible scripts and focus on
local rather than global aspects of what they see and that they
process incoming information independently of currently accessible

	    Park, L., Shobe, K.K., Kihlstrom, J.F. (2005)
		 Associative and categorical relation
		 in the associative memory illusion.
		Psychological Science, 16(10, 792-797.

The authors purpose was to learn more about the kinds of associations
that underlie the associative memory illusion. A number of recent
memory studies have relied on a task that asks people to study a list
of words. The illusion takes place when subjects "remember" words that
were not actually in the list. The results showed that strongly
related items elicit false recollections at the same level of
categorization as the studied items. For example the words banana and
apple are related on a horizontal level because they are both examples
of fruit. But the words fruit and banana are related on a vertical
level because a banana is a kind of fruit. The results suggest that
associated links are related in a horizontal rather than vertical

/                                                                    \
| "I really regret losing my sanity for so many years, and if I had  |
| it to do all over again, I wouldn't do any of it."                 |
|                                                                    |
|     "Roseanne, actress, on her behavior in the early 1990s --      |
|     including her claims that she had been sexually abused by      |
|     family members."                                               |
|                                                          Notebook  |
|                                                  (2004, April 19)  |
|                                                       Time, p. 19  |


		     The Science of False Memory
		    Oxford Psychology Series # 38.
		     C.J. Brainerd and V.F. Reyna
		    Oxford University Press, 2005

The Science of False Memory draws on the now-extensive false memory
literature that is scattered in various journals and book chapters in
many different fields such as cognitive psychology, developmental
psychology, neuroscience, psychotherapy, sociology, anthropology and
criminology. It pulls them together in one place and provides a
much-needed authoritative overview of the subject.

Part I covers the history of the science of false memory, reviews the
different methods that have been used to study false memory and
discusses research regarding age changes in false memory and theories
that have been used to explain and make predictions about false
memory. Part II reviews the basic science of false memory, including
theoretical explanations of false memory and laboratory research with
adults, adolescents and children. Part III covers the applied science
of false memory, discussing false memory in criminal investigations,
both with children and adults, as well as in psychotherapy, including
recovered memories of previous lives. Part IV considers emerging areas
for experimentation.

This book should be on the desk of any person who may deal with
possible false memories: research and clinical psychologists, police
investigators, lawyers, judges, social workers and psychiatrists.


		 Destructive Trends in Mental Health:
		  The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm.
		R. H. Wright and N. A. Cummings (Eds.)
			   Routledge, 2005

The authors consider that special interest groups have used faulty
science to promote political agendas, and they cover a variety of
subjects including recovered memories. Accessible to the general

		Benchbook in the Behavioral Sciences:
		 Psychiatry, Psychology, Social Work.
		    D. Lorandos and T. W. Campbell
		    Carolina Academic Press, 2005

This book should be on the desk of any people in the legal professions
who must deal with the behavioral sciences.

/                                                                    \
| "The most painful thing anyone can do to her loved ones is to      |
| remove herself from their lives without giving them any say."      |
|                                                        Carolyn Hax |
|                                               Syndicated Columnist |
|                                                   Tell Me About It |
|                                                      July 13, 2001 |
|                                            Albuquerque Journal, D5 |

                       L E G A L   C O R N E R

			  Excerpts from the:
			  Doc. 1024 No. 743
      a married man, in his sole and separate right, Plaintiff,
	 FATHER FLANAGAN'S BOYS HOME. a Nebraska Corporation,
		   and JAMES E. KELLY, Defendants.

				* * *

(Todd Rivers claimed that he suffered from repressed memory and that
was the reason for his delay in filing a lawsuit alleging that he had
been sexually abused when he was a child at Boys Town. On August 18,
19 and September 30, 2005, a Daubert hearing was held to determine
whether Rivers would be allowed to present expert testimony concerning
the phenomenon of repressed memory and the symptoms of child sexual
abuse. On November 28, 2005, the court ruled that Rivers could not
present expert testimony that he had repressed memories of abuse.
Following are excerpts of Judge Dougherty' opinion. The complete
decision will be posted on the FMSF web site:

 Part 1: Judge Dougherty's summary of the expert testimony. Harrison
  Pope, M.D. and Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D. testified for the defense;
	Bessel van der Kolk, M.D. testified for the plaintiff.

				* * *

"At the hearings on the Motions in Limine, the parties presented
expert testimony regarding the concept of repressed memory."

				* * *

"Dr. Pope is a professor of psychiatry at Harvard University Medical
School and directs a biological psychiatry laboratory at McLean
Teaching Hospital, where he has an appointment as a psychiatrist. Dr.
Pope has an extensive curriculum vitae, has written approximately 250
peer-reviewed papers, seven books, and many other publications. His
scientific stature is significant, e.g. he is listed among the top 250
psychiatrists and psychologists in the world by the Institute of
Scientific Information and is listed among the top 250 or 260
neuroscientists in the world and one of only 37 scientists in the
world who is on both of those lists. One of Dr. Pope's specialties is
the study of the methodology of scientific research and the critique
of scientific studies and their findings.

"Dr. Pope stated that the studies and articles that purport to
establish the existence of repressed memory do not meet the
methodological standards for valid scientific research. According to
Dr. Pope, many of the studies confuse ordinary forgetting with

"Dr. Pope stated that in his opinion, the phenomenon of repression and
subsequent memory recovery does not exist. Dr. Pope defined a
repressed memory as follows: "that you could have some sort of
traumatic experience and then be literally unable to remember it" and
that the memory becomes unavailable to consciousness as opposed to
simply forgetting it. Dr. Pope stated that no scientific study has
ever established or proved the existence of repressed memory after
excluding known causes of amnesia. Dr. Pope stated that the
retrospective studies that purport to prove the existence of repressed
memory contain flaws such as: (a) erroneously assume forgetting a
traumatic event equals a repressed memory; (b) inadequate
corroboration of original traumatic events; (c) failure to exclude
biological causes of amnesia; (d) no validation of the method for
assessing amnesia; and (e) failure to exclude amnesia for secondary
gain. According to Dr. Pope, there is no known error rate on any of
the studies on repressed memory and that one needs an error rate to
establish the scientific validity of the study. Dr. Pope challenged
the majority of the studies relied upon by the Plaintiff because they
were based on retrospective reminiscences in which people were only
asked whether they remembered if they forgot.

"Dr. Pope opined that the concept of repressed memory is highly
controversial, that there is no agreement or consensus among
scientists, and therefore, no general acceptance for the theory of
repressed memory within the relevant psychiatric community. Dr. Pope
sent out a questionnaire to a random sample of board certified
American psychiatrists and received a response from 80% of them. Of
those responding, only 35% thought that repressed memory (dissociative
amnesia) should be included as an official diagnosis in the DSM-IV
without reservations and that an additional 40% thought that it could
be a "proposed" diagnosis."

				* * *

"Dr. Pope minimized the inclusion of dissociative amnesia in the
DSM-IV as a disorder. Dr. Pope stated that the DSM-IV is not a
scientific journal and is not peer-reviewed. Dr. Pope testified that
even if there really was such a thing as a repressed or recovered
memory, that to a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty, one
cannot evaluate the accuracy of retrieved memories without
corroborating evidence."

				* * *

"According to Dr. Pope, a 1994 paper published by the American Medical
Association stated "considerable controversy has arisen in the
therapeutic community over the issue of repressed memory and experts
from varied professional backgrounds can be found on all sides of the
issue." Dr. Pope also stated that a 2000 position paper from the
American Psychiatric Association stated, "some patients have later
recanted their claims of recovered memories of abuse" and that in 1994
the American Psychiatric Association stated, "it is also possible to
construct convincing pseudo memories for events that never occurred".
Dr. Pope also noted that the Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in
1997: "Memories of events that did not occur may develop and be said
with conviction." According to Dr. Pope, these statements from a
variety of professional organizations established that there is no
general acceptance within the scientific community concerning the
theory of repressed memory and the accuracy of recovered memories."

				* * *

"The Defendants also presented the expert testimony of Dr. Elizabeth
Loftus, Ph.D. Dr. Loftus is a distinguished Professor of Psychology at
the University of California-Irvine and a specialist in memory. She
has authored or co-authored twenty books and 400 articles. Dr. Loftus
was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2004 and the Royal
Society of Edinburgh in 2005 and received the Grawemeyer Award in
2005. She is the top ranked female on a list of 100 most influential
psychologists published by the Review of General Psychiatry. She has
been engaged in doing research on memory distortion since the 1970's.

"Dr. Loftus agreed that the concept of repressed memory is so
controversial that one could not possibly say it was generally
accepted within the scientific community of psychologists and
cognitive psychologists. Dr. Loftus stated that there is no good
scientific support for the notion today. Dr. Loftus co-authored an
article in 1994 which Plaintiff contends is one of the studies that
proves the existence of repressed memory. Loftus disagreed that the
article proved repressed memory exists. Dr. Loftus stated that it is
not known what the participants in the study meant when 19% of them
stated that for a period of time they forgot their childhood sexual
abuse and then the memory returned. Dr. Loftus stated that when the
study was done, she thought there might have been evidence for
repression but that in 15 years of efforts since then it still had not
been scientifically proven that repression exists. In 1996 Dr. Loftus
published her article "The Myth of Repressed Memory", which discussed
how false memories are created, planted, or suggested. Dr. Loftus also
studied cases where dreams and dream interpretation had the result of
changing people's memories and creating false memories."

				* * *

"Dr. Loftus, in her 30 years of research, had never found anything to
prove the existence of repressed memory. Dr. Loftus did not believe
there was any credible scientific support for the existence of
repressed memory. Dr. Loftus also opined that there was no evidence
that Rivers had a repressed memory. Dr. Loftus did acknowledge that
she did not treat patients and had no special expertise in childhood

				* * *

"Dr. Loftus stated that the DSM-IV is used for communication and
diagnosis and includes language that proved how controversial the
concept really was. Dr. Loftus testified that fewer people believe in
the concept today because of the research and studies and because of
the hundreds and hundreds of recanters and retractors. Dr. Loftus also
testified that many mental health professionals had been sued for
planting false memories of abuse, which led to some changes in how
therapists conducted their therapy."

				* * *

"Plaintiff presented the expert testimony of Dr. Bessel van der Kolk,
M.D. Dr. van der Kolk has an M.D. from Harvard, and is Board Certified
in Psychiatry. He is currently a Professor of Psychiatry at Boston
University and the Medical Director of the Trauma Center in Boston.
Dr. van der Kolk is involved in a major way with the National Child
Traumatic Stress Network, which is a network of universities and
clinics that concentrate on the treatment of traumatized children. The
Trauma Center in Boston specializes in the treatment of traumatized
children and adults. Dr. van der Kolk teaches neuroscience, about
trauma, and general clinical evaluation and treatment to residents in
the Boston University Medical School. Boston University is involved in
significant research involving trauma. Dr. van der Kolk is a treating
psychiatrist, seeing patients on a regular basis.

"Dr. van der Kolk is the author of 120 to 130 peer-reviewed articles,
mainly about trauma. Dr. van der Kolk stated that the issue of
memories that come up and disappear is well documented in the war
literature, starting with World War I. Dr. van der Kolk treated
Vietnam War veterans at the Veteran's Administration and got
interested in the memory processes of traumatized individuals. He also
stated that the article about Holocaust victims who were traumatized
also established that those victims had large gaps in their memories.
When Dr. van der Kolk left the Veteran's Administration and returned
to Harvard, he began to study the relationship between current
diagnoses and the histories of childhood trauma. In his opinion, every
study of sexually traumatized people found a certain number of people
forgot the memory of the abuse. Dr. van der Kolk believed that it is
such a "given" that there do not need to be any more studies done to
establish the existence of repressed memory. Dr. van der Kolk
co-authored "Traumatic Stress" and was involved with the publication
of "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder", a monograph published by the
American Psychiatric Press. Dr. van der Kolk is a distinguished life
fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

"Dr. van der Kolk testified that repressed memory is listed as a
diagnosis in the DSM-IV and that it was listed in the DSM-III. For Dr.
van der Kolk, the inclusion of repressed memory or dissociative
amnesia as a diagnosis within the DSM-IV meant that it was the
consensus of his professional organization that repressed memory
exists and is generally accepted within the psychiatric community.
According to Dr. van der Kolk, all studies of sexually abused people
found examples of repressed memory. Dr. van der Kolk testified that it
was no longer a valid question to ask whether repressed memory exists.

"Dr. van der Kolk summarized his opinion of the results of certain
studies Plaintiff claims prove the existence of repressed memory.

"According to Dr. van der Kolk, the studies done by Briere and Conte,
Williams, Burgess, Elliott and Briere, Dalenberg, Chu and Goodman all
found that a percentage of sexually abused people had forgot their
trauma or had no memory of their trauma for a period of time. On
cross-examination, Dr. van der Kolk acknowledged that the conclusion
of the Goodman article was that "these findings do not support the
existence of special memory mechanisms unique to traumatic events, but
instead imply that normal cognitive operations underlie long-term
memory for a child of sexual abuse." Dr. van der Kolk also
acknowledged on cross-examination that the American Medical
Association statement upon which he relied in part for his opinions,
also included the following statement: "The AMA considers recovered
memories of childhood sexual abuse to be of uncertain authenticity,
which should be subject to external verification." According to Dr.
van der Kolk, within the clinical psychiatric/psychology community
there is no controversy and that the concept of repressed memory is
generally accepted within that community. Dr. van der Kolk also stated
that the studies relied upon by the Defendants told us nothing about
repressed memory since, according to him, none of them was the study
of childhood sexual abuse and in one-half of them memory wasn't even

	Part 2: Judge Dougherty's discussion and conclusions.


"The testimony at the hearing established that there is no empirical
test that will demonstrate the existence of repressed memory and the
reliability of a recovered memory. However, it should be noted that it
would not be possible to ethically conduct a laboratory test on human
subjects that created a traumatic event for the purpose of testing the
subject's future memory or memory loss or memory recovery of the
traumatic event. Accordingly, based upon the testimony and evidence
presented at the hearing in this case, the Court finds that the
reliability of a repressed and then recovered memory has not been
tested adequately to establish the reliability and accuracy of such a

				* * *


"The evidence at the hearing before this Court established that the
studies were retrospective studies, and many were based on reports by
victims that were not corroborated. Many of the studies did not
distinguish ordinary forgetting from repression and only asked the
subjects if they remembered if they forgot the abuse. Many of the
studies failed to exclude alternative reasons for victims saying they
forgot the abuse, such as: lying about the traumatic event, lying
about forgetting about the traumatic event, having a false or pseudo
memory about the abuse possibly suggested or implanted by another. One
study done by Dr. Femina did a follow-up study on subjects who had
denied sexual abuse when they were initially interviewed. Dr. Femina
found eight of the eighteen subjects and all eight of them admitted
that they had always remembered the abuse and had simply not disclosed
it at the time of the original interview.

"The evidence presented in this case establishes that the case studies
relied upon by Rivers contain limitations and methodological flaws.

"The Williams study, for example, purports to prove that one-third of
the 129 women studied forgot their childhood molestation. However,
Williams failed to conduct follow-up interviews in order to determine,
why, in fact, the women did not report the previously documented
abuse. The lack of follow-up interview calls into question the study's
conclusions about repressed memory. Thus, the Williams study does not
conclusively validate the repressed memory theory but does, however,
provide some support for the theory that a number of individuals who
were exposed to documented childhood trauma were not able to recall
all memories of the abuse. But the Williams study presents no support
for the other aspect of the debate between the scientists, which is
whether repressed memories are susceptible to accurate and therefore,
reliable recall. Further, the studies relied upon by Dr. van der Kolk
do not provide a scientific basis for concluding that repressed
memories can be accurately and truthfully recovered.

"Dr. Loftus herself was involved in an early study that Plaintiff
claims supports their position. In that study, 19% of the subjects
answered that they forgot their abuse for a time and that later the
memory returned. However, in the article, the authors pointed out that
the responses were ambiguous and that they didn't know how to account
for the proportion of non-abused people who "remember" abuse. The
evidence presented demonstrates that there are numerous peer-reviewed
articles and publications on both sides of the debate within the
scientific community concerning the phenomenon of repressed and
recovered memory. Thus, this Court finds that while the theories of
repressed memory and recovered memory have been subjected to
peer-review and publication, the results of those scientific articles
are mixed and do not conclusively establish the existence of repressed
memory and the reliability of recovered memory."

				* * *


"Rivers did not present any evidence or testimony specifically on the
issue of an established error rate. For a scientific study to be
methodologically sound, it is important to have a small error rate or
at least to know the error rate so one can interpret the results.
Implicit in Dr. van der Kolk's testimony was the theme that known or
potential error rates cannot be applied to the behavioral sciences
such as psychology and psychiatry. During closing arguments, Rivers'
counsel referred to the inclusion of dissociative amnesia as a
diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV and the Dalenberg study when
discussing the error rate factor.

"Defendants, on the other hand, pointed to the results of the Femina
study, which did a follow-up interview with subjects who had
previously stated that they had forgotten their childhood abuse and
all those found admitted that they chose not to disclose the abuse and
had not really forgotten it. Defendants also presented evidence
showing that there have been a number of "false" or pseudo memories
and that numerous cases exist where people claim to have repressed and
recovered memories and later recanted or retracted those memories as
false or implanted during therapy or hypnosis. Based upon the evidence
presented at the hearings, the Court finds that there is no known
error rate regarding the reliability of repressed and recovered
memories or in the studies presented by Rivers."

				* * *


"At the hearing the Court was presented with Dr. van der Kolk's
testimony that the theory is generally accepted within the psychiatric
community and Dr. Pope's testimony that the theory is not generally
accepted within the psychiatric community and Dr. Loftus' testimony
that the theory is not generally accepted within the psychological
community. The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that a major
debate exists within the scientific community as to the theory of
repressed and recovered memory. Some scientists like Dr. van der Kolk,
worked with patients who experienced trauma and who had memory
problems or gaps when attempting to remember the trauma. For those
clinical psychiatrists, their clinical experiences provide all the
proof they need to establish the existence of repressed or recovered
memories. According to clinical psychiatrists, such as Dr. van der
Kolk, repressed memory is included in the DSM-IV and the World Health
Organization Category of Disorders because it is a clearly recognized
theory by the psychiatric community.

"However, there is another well-recognized group of scientists, such
as Dr. Pope, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Loftus, a psychologist, who
believe that the concept is so controversial that there is no
consensus of scientific professionals on the existence of repressed
memory and/or the reliability of recovered memory."

				* * *

"The fact that repressed memory or dissociative amnesia is listed as a
diagnosis in the DSM-IV does not alone establish that the reliability
of repressed memory and recovered memory is generally accepted by the
relevant scientific community. One only has to look at the cautionary
language contained within the DSM-IV, the APA Position Paper, and the
AMA Position Paper to see that considerable scientific controversy
exists concerning these issues. The DSM-IV states "there is currently
no method for establishing with certainty the accuracy of such
retrieved memories in the absence of corroborative memories." The APA
position paper (1993) appears to support the existence of repression
but does not seem to distinguish between lack of conscious awareness,
or choosing or trying not to remember, or ordinary forgetting. The APA
further acknowledged that it is not known how to distinguish memories
based on true events from those derived from other sources and that
there is no completely accurate way of determining the validity of
reports in the absence of corroborating evidence. In addition, the
American Medical Association stated that the existence of repression
is highly controversial and that recovered memory reports are
unreliable without corroboration.

"Based upon the evidence presented, the Court finds that the theory of
repressed memory and recovered memory has not gained general
acceptance in the psychological and psychiatric communities."

				* * *

"Further, even if repressed memory exists, scientists are in agreement
that the reliability of recovered repressed memories is unknown and
the accuracy of recovered memory testimony cannot be determined
without corroborating evidence."

				* * *

"Thus, this Court was presented with no evidence that there is any
medical or scientific proof to support a correlation between certain
symptoms and a diagnosis of sexual abuse. No evidence was offered by
Plaintiff that such an opinion is generally accepted within the
scientific community, that it has been peer-reviewed, and tested and
has a known error rate. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff
has not met its burden of proof under the Daubert/Schafersman test and
Plaintiff will be precluded from offering testimony that certain
symptoms, characteristics, or behaviors are consistent with a
diagnosis of sexual abuse, that Rivers possesses the symptoms,
characteristics, and behaviors of a person who was physically or
sexually abused as a child, or that Rivers was physically or sexually
abused as a child while at Boys Town."

				* * *

Motion in Limine No. 1 regarding repressed memory shall be sustained
and that Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2 shall be sustained."
                                                   Sandra L. Dougherty
                                                  District Court Judge

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

		       Another Daughter Returns

My husband died in July and was buried with full military honors. When
the ceremony was over, I saw that one of my two still-lost daughters
was there. I went over to her to thank her for coming, and I put my
hand on her shoulder. She suddenly went down to her knees and pleaded
for forgiveness for all the harm and pain she had caused. I took her
in my arms and we both just bawled.

She started to say something, but I stopped her and told her that she
did not have to say anything, that she was forgiven. I told her I had
been involved in all the research done on the subject and all that
mattered was to love each other. So the terrible grief of the loss of
my dear husband and the wonderful return of another daughter happened
at the same time. This was the first time I cried for a long time.

Our older daughter has been back with us for about seven years now and
still expresses her feelings of guilt. She is dealing with that guilt
by giving me lots of attention. For the past seven years, whatever I
have wanted, she will do. The other non-accusing siblings don't think
this is right because she has never explained her accusations.
Unfortunately, these are the siblings who never got involved with
learning about FMS. There is nothing I can do about that, but I think
that this daughter's close care of me is melting them gradually. I am
optimistic that they will accept her because she treats them the same
way. Another reason I think that the siblings will come to accept
their sister, even without a retraction, is because of the teenage
grandchildren from all the families who want to know each other.

The youngest daughter is now alone in her belief but still very
stubborn. She has learned to hypnotize herself. I believe that she was
actually abused by a neighbor when she was a child because when I
spoke to her about it she responded as I had myself when I had been
abused as a young person. But her accusations were not about that
likely real event. I know what real abuse is like and the results of
growing up with it. It was always in my thoughts with no chance of
forgetting. It invaded my marriage. Here I am 79 and it pervades me
still. I had at one time learned to live with it until my children
brought it all back.
                                                                 A mom
			Getting to Know Family

One of my grandsons is now 18 and he has contacted me and the rest of
the family. He says that he wants to get to know his family. I think
that he was about 1 year old the last time I saw him. He said that now
that he is 18, his mom can't stop him from getting to know us. He is
flying across the country to see us for Christmas and we are helping
him with the ticket. We will see what happens?
                                                  A happy grandmother.
			     Help Needed

Do you have any suggestions for me? My daughter detached herself from
me, her family and friends, going on 10 years now. I still have no
idea of what to do. I do send holiday cards as I was advised to do and
I periodically have a private detective check on her to see if she is
well. When something happens in the family, I send a short note,
hoping it will cause a spark of interest. But there is nothing.

Does anyone else still have this situation or has anyone solved this
stalemate? I would appreciate any advice that Newsletter readers have
to offer.
                                                                 A mom
		   How Can Our Situation Be Helped?

For some time my wife and friendly daughter have maintained polite
relations with my accusing daughter (my presence forbidden), and I
have even been in company with that daughter and her family at
birthday parties of my friendly daughter's children. The accusing
daughter decided a couple of years ago that she would no longer attend
the birthdays if I was present. I was and she didn't come.

My wife has been attending the birthday parties of the accusing
daughter's children. At the last, my wife mentioned me. Now, several
weeks later, she received a letter disinviting her from the next
child's party because she had mentioned "the perpetrator you live

I am pretty weary of all this and mostly feel sorry for her. It's
almost like believing in ghosts. Is there help for our family?
                                                                 A dad

*                           N O T I C E S                            *
*                                                                    *
*                      WEB  SITES  OF  INTEREST                      *
*                                                                    *
*                         *
*            The Lampinen Lab False Memory Reading Group             *
*                       University of Arkansas                       *
*                                                                    *
*                              *
*                  The Exploratorium Memory Exhibit                  *
*                                                                    *
*                                      *
*                   Hartford Courant memory series                   *
*                                                                    *
*                                       *
*                     The Memory Debate Archives                     *
*                                                                    *
*                                         *
*                      French language website                       *
*                                                                    *
*                                    *
*               Contains phone numbers of professional               *
*                 regulatory boards in all 50 states                 *
*                                                                    *
*                                       *
*                   Illinois-Wisconsin FMS Society                   *
*                                                                    *
*                                   *
*                             Ohio Group                             *
*                                                                    *
*                                           *
*                Australian False Memory Association.                *
*                                                                    *
*                                           *
*                    British False Memory Society                    *
*                                                                    *
*                               *
*            This site is run by Laura Pasley (retractor)            *
*                                                                    *
*                         *
*                            Upton Books                             *
*                                                                    *
*                   *
*                       Locate books about FMS                       *
*                     Recovered Memory Bookstore                     *
*                                                                    *
*                        *
*               Information about Satanic Ritual Abuse               *
*                                                                    *
*                                      *
*                   Parents Against Cruel Therapy                    *
*                                                                    *
*                               *
*                       New Zealand FMS Group                        *
*                                                                    *
*                                       *
*                       Netherlands FMS Group                        *
*                                                                    *
*                                   *
*           National Child Abuse Defense & Resource Center       *
*                                                                    *
*                                  *
*                  Excerpts from Victims of Memory.                  *
*                                                                    *
*                          *
*                         Ross Institute                             *
*                                                                    *
*         *
*             Perspectives for Psychiatry by Paul McHugh             *
*                                                                    *
*                                *
*                 FMS in Scandinavia - Janet Hagbom                  *
*                                                                    *
*                                              *
*                National Center for Reason & Justice            *
*                                                                    *
*                                      *
*          Skeptical Information on Theophostic Counseling           *
*                                                                    *
*                               *
*                Information about Attachment Therapy                *
*                                                                    *
*                                  *
*           English language web site of Dutch retractor.            *
*                                                                    *
*                                        *
*             This site is run by Stephen Barrett, M.D.              *
*                                                                    *
*                                    *
*            Contains information about filing complaints            *
*                                                                    *
*                                        *
*                  False Memory Syndrome Foundation                  *
*                                                                    *
*                     LEGAL WEBSITES OF INTEREST                     *
*                                        *
*                                           *
*                                       *
*                                           *
*                                      *
*                                                                    *
*                          ELIZABETH LOFTUS                          *
*                we                *
*                                                                    *
*            The Rutherford Family Speaks to FMS Families            *
*                                                                    *
* The video made by the Rutherford family is the most popular video  *
* of FMSF families. It covers the complete story from accusation, to *
* retraction and reconciliation. Family members describe the things  *
* they did to cope and to help reunite. Of particular interest are   *
* Beth Rutherford's comments about what her family did that helped   *
* her to retract and return.                                         *
*                   Available in DVD format only:                    *
*                      To order send request to                      *
*                    FMSF Video, 1955 Locust St.                     *
*                      Philadelphia, PA  19103                       *
*    $10.00 per DVD; Canada add $4.00; other countries add $10.00    *
*               Make checks payable to FMS Foundation                *
*                                                                    *
*                       RECOMMENDED  BOOKS                           *
*                                                                    *
*                       REMEMBERING TRAUMA                           *
*                       by Richard McNally                           *
*                    Harvard University Press                        *
*                                                                    *
*                                                                    *
*         S. O. Lilienfeld, S.J. Lynn and  J.M. Lohr (eds.)          *
*                  New York: Guilford Press (2003)                   *
*                                                                    *
*                         PSYCHOLOGY ASTRAY:                         *
*  Fallacies in Studies of "Repressed Memory" and Childhood Trauma   *
*                   by Harrison G. Pope, Jr., M.D.                   *
*                            Upton Books                             *
*                                                                    *
*                              ABDUCTED                              *
*      How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens      *
*                          Susan A. Clancy                           *
*                   Harvard University Press, 2005                   *
*                                                                    *
* A very readable book recommended to all FMSF Newsletter readers.   *
* Chapter 3, "Why do I have memories if it didn't happen?" will be   *
* of particular interest.                                            *
*                                                                    *
* In an article in the British press about her research, Clancy      *
* wrote:                                                             *
*                                                                    *
* "We've all been seeing aliens for more than 50 years....Preparing  *
* this article, I showed 25 people a picture of an alien and Tony    *
* Blair: all recognized an alien, fewer than half recognized Tony    *
* Blair."                                                            *
*                                                                    *
* "The trick to creating false memories is to get confused between   *
* things you imagined, or read, or saw, and things that actually     *
* happened."                                                         *
*                                                                    *
* "For almost all abductees, the seed of their belief is a           *
* question.... Why did I wake up in the middle of the night          *
* terrified and unable to move?' 'Why are these odd moles on my      *
* back?' 'Why do I feel so alone?' 'Why am I different from everyone *
* else?' 'Why are my relationships so bad?' Questions generally lead *
* to a search for answers...and our search is limited to the set of  *
* explanations we have actually heard of."                           *
*                                                                    *
* "For better or worse, being abducted by aliens has become a        *
* culturally available explanation for distress-whether that         *
* distress comes from work, relationships or insecurity."            *
*                                                                    *
* "Many of us have strong emotional needs that have little to do     *
* with science-the need to feel less alone in the world, the desire  *
* to be special, the longing to know that there is something out     *
* there, something bigger and more important than you watching over  *
* you."                                                              *
*                               October 22, 2005, The Express, p. 45 *

                F M S    B U L L E T I N    B O A R D

Contacts & Meetings:

  See Georgia
  Kathleen 907-333-5248
        Pat 480-396-9420
  Little Rock
        Al & Lela 870-363-4368
        Jocelyn 530-570-1862
  San Francisco & North Bay 
        Charles 415-984-6626 (am); 415-435-9618 (pm)
  San Francisco & South Bay
        Eric 408-738-0469
  East Bay Area
        Judy 925-952-4853
  Central Coast
        Carole 805-967-8058
  Palm Desert
        Eileen and Jerry 909-659-9636
  Central Orange County - 1st Fri. (MO) @ 7pm
        Chris & Alan 949-733-2925
  Covina Area 
        Floyd & Libby 626-357-2750
  San Diego Area 
        Dee 760-439-4630
  Colorado Springs
        Doris 719-488-9738
  S. New England
        Earl 203-329-8365 or
        Paul 203-458-9173
        Madeline 954-966-4FMS
  Central Florida - Please call for mtg. time
        John & Nancy 352-750-5446
        Francis & Sally 941-342-8310
  Tampa Bay Area
        Bob & Janet 727-856-7091
        Wallie & Jill 770-971-8917
  Chicago & Suburbs - 1st Sun. (MO)
        Eileen 847-985-7693 or
        Liz & Roger 847-827-1056
        Bryant & Lynn 309-674-2767
  Indiana Assn. for Responsible Mental Health Practices
        Pat 260-489-9987
        Helen 574-753-2779
  Wichita - Meeting as called
        Pat 785-738-4840
  Louisville- Last Sun. (MO) @ 2pm
        Bob 502-367-1838
        Sarah 337-235-7656
        Carolyn 207-364-8891
        Wally & Boby 207-878-9812
   Andover - 2nd Sun. (MO) @ 1pm
        Frank 978-263-9795
  Greater Detroit Area
        Nancy 248-642-8077
  Ann Arbor
        Martha 734-439-4055
        Terry & Collette 507-642-3630
        Dan & Joan 651-631-2247
  Kansas City  -  Meeting as called
        Pat 785-738-4840
  St. Louis Area  -  call for meeting time
        Karen 314-432-8789
  Springfield - Quarterly, 4th Sat. of 
        Jan., Apr., Jul., Oct. @12:30pm
        Tom 417-753-4878
        Roxie 417-781-2058
  Lee & Avone 406-443-3189
  Jean 603-772-2269
  Mark 802-872-0847
        Sally 609-927-5343
        Nancy 973-729-1433 
  Albuquerque  -2nd Sat. (bi-MO) @1 pm
  Southwest Room - Presbyterian Hospital
        Maggie 505-662-7521 (after 6:30 pm)
        Sy 505-758-0726
  Westchester, Rockland, etc.
        Barbara 914-761-3627
  Upstate/Albany Area
        Elaine 518-399-5749
  Susan 704-538-7202
        Bob & Carole 440-356-4544
  Oklahoma City
        Dee 405-942-0531
        Jim 918-582-7363
  Portland area
        Kathy 503-655-1587
        Paul & Betty 717-691-7660
        Rick & Renee 412-563-5509
        John 717-278-2040
  Wayne (includes S. NJ) - 2nd Sat. (MO)
        Jim & Jo 610-783-0396
  Nashville - Wed. (MO) @1pm
        Kate 615-665-1160
        Jo or Beverly 713-464-8970
   El Paso
        Mary Lou 915-595-3945
        Keith 801-467-0669
        Mark 802-872-0847
        Sue 703-273-2343
        Kathy 503-557-7118
        Katie & Leo 414-476-0285 or
        Susanne & John 608-427-3686
        Alan & Lorinda 307-322-4170

  Vancouver & Mainland 
        Lloyd 250-741-8941
  Victoria & Vancouver Island
        John 250-721-3219
        Roma 204-275-5723
        Adriaan 519-471-6338
        Eileen 613-836-3294
        Ken & Marina 905-637-6030
        Paula 705-543-0318
        Mavis 450-882-1480
  FMS ASSOCIATION fax 972-2-625-9282 
        Colleen 09-416-7443
        Ake Moller FAX 48-431-217-90
  The British False Memory Society
        Madeline 44-1225 868-682

	Deadline for the March/April Newsletter is February 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,       January 1, 2006

AARON T. BECK, M.D., D.M.S., U of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA;
TERENCE W. CAMPBELL, Ph.D., Clinical and Forensic Psychology, 
    Sterling Heights, MI;
ROSALIND CARTWRIGHT, Ph.D., Rush Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical
    Center, Chicago, IL;
JEAN CHAPMAN, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI;
LOREN CHAPMAN, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI;
FREDERICK C. CREWS, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, CA;
ROBYN M. DAWES, Ph.D., Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA;
DAVID F. DINGES, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA;
HENRY C. ELLIS, Ph.D., University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM;
FRED H. FRANKEL, MBChB, DPM, Harvard University Medical School;
GEORGE K. GANAWAY, M.D., Emory University of Medicine, Atlanta, GA;
MARTIN GARDNER, Author, Hendersonville, NC;
ROCHEL GELMAN, Ph.D., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ;
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., (deceased) Mount Sinai School of Medicine, 
    New York, NY;
ERNEST HILGARD, Ph.D., (deceased) 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., (deceased) Harvard University, Cambridge, MA;
ROBERT A. KARLIN, Ph.D. , Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ;
HAROLD LIEF, M.D., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA;
ELIZABETH LOFTUS, Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, CA;
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;
ULRIC NEISSER, Ph.D., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY;
RICHARD OFSHE, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, CA;
EMILY CAROTA ORNE, B.A., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA;
MARTIN ORNE, M.D., Ph.D., (deceased) U of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
LOREN PANKRATZ, Ph.D., Oregon Health Sciences Univ., Portland, OR;
CAMPBELL PERRY, Ph.D., (deceased) 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., (deceased) University of California, Santa
    Cruz, CA;
THOMAS A. SEBEOK, Ph.D., (deceased) U of Indiana, 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., {deceased) University of California, Berkeley,
RALPH SLOVENKO, J.D., Ph.D., Wayne State University Law School,
    Detroit, MI;
DONALD SPENCE, Ph.D., Robert Wood Johnson Medical Ctr, Piscataway, NJ;
JEFFREY VICTOR, Ph.D., Jamestown Community College, Jamestown, NY;
HOLLIDA WAKEFIELD, M.A., Institute of Psychological Therapies, 
    Northfield, MN;
CHARLES A. WEAVER, III, Ph.D. Baylor University, Waco, TX

                     YOUR CONTRIBUTION WILL HELP
                   Please Fill Out All Information
                             Please Print

       __Visa: Card # & exp. date:_____________________________

       __Discover: Card # &  exp. date:________________________

       __Mastercard: # & exp. date:____________________________

       __Check or Money Order:_________________________________

      Signature: ______________________________________________

      Name: ___________________________________________________


      State, ZIP (+4) _________________________________________

      Country: ________________________________________________

      Phone: (________)________________________________________

      Fax:  (________)_________________________________________

                    THANK YOU FOR YOUR GENEROSITY.