The "False Memory" Defense:
Using Disinformation and Junk Science in and out of Court

Many who are accused and some who are convicted of child molestation, an especially harmful kind of criminal behavior, have made a number of claims. A principal claim is that dissociative (also called traumatic) amnesia and other detrimental effects resulting from child sexual abuse (CSA) do not exist (Brown, Scheflin, & Hammond, 1997; Brown, Scheflin, & Whitfield, 1999; Whitfield, 1995b, 1997b). Assisted by their attorneys, some family members, and other advocates in order to defend themselves, these "false memory" advocates have made many erroneous statements to discount the experience of survivors of child sexual assault and to attack helping professionals. They have blitzed the media and tried to influence the clinical, academic, and legal professions with what is mostly disinformation (J. Freyd, 1993; Freid, 1994; Brown, Scheflin & Whitfield, 1999; Hovdestad & Kristiansen, 1996; Loftus, 1993; Pope, Hudson, Bodkin, & Oliva, 1998; Pope, 1995, 1998; Pope & Brown, 1996; Whitfield, 1995a, 1995b,1998a).

They have claimed that their accusers' experience as a survivor of CSA was invalid, and that they, the accused, were the "real" victim (Roys, 1995; D.T. Roys, personal communication, November 1997). While there have been many factors to account for this defense (see Whitfield, Silberg, & Fink, this issue), since early 1992 perhaps the organized hub of this group has been the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF). The FMSF has claimed that persons accusing parents or other parent figures of having molested them as children had a "false memory syndrome" ("fms"). The FMSF further claims that the alleged "false" memories were "implanted" by outside sources, such as therapists, self-help groups or even books and other "suggestive" influences. They tried to make "fms" appear scientific in order to help it gain entrance into the courtroom and academia.