Consider the Evidence for Elizabeth Loftus'
Scholarship and Accuracy.


"Remembering Dangerously" & Hoult v. Hoult:
The Myth of Repressed Memory that Elizabeth Loftus Created
by Jennifer Hoult, Esq.

How to cite this webpage: Jennifer Hoult, "Remembering Dangerously" & Hoult v. Hoult: The Myth of Repressed Memory that Elizabeth Loftus Created (2005), available at http://www.rememberingdangerously.com.

In 1995, one year after publishing a study reporting that 19% of child sexual abuse victims studied had repressed memories of their childhood abuse,[1] research psychologist Elizabeth Loftus[2] published an article entitled "Remembering Dangerously"[3] arguing that repressed memories of child sexual abuse are often the unreliable and implausible products of "invasive therapeutic techniques" rather than memories of genuine sexual abuse.[4]

Several pages of "Remembering Dangerously" responded to a 1994 article by Nobel-Prize-winning neurobiologist Eric Kandel and Minouche Kandel. The Kandels' article discussed the neurological mechanisms that cause repression and recovered memory, citing the landmark child sexual abuse case of Hoult v. Hoult as an example of genuine traumatic amnesia and recovered memory.[5] Hoult v. Hoult involved allegations by an adult woman, Jennifer Hoult, who claimed that her father, former Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT") professor David Hoult, had repeatedly sexually abused and raped her during her childhood. Hoult alleged she recovered her memory of the abuse when she was an adult. After hearing six days of testimony during the 1993 trial, the jury unanimously found David liable for abusing his daughter. Their decision was upheld in every appeal David pursued.

Loftus, who was not involved in Hoult v. Hoult, later wrote that she was "appalled when [she] read [this] incomplete and misleading summary" of the case.[6] In contrast with the Kandels, Loftus cited the case as an example of unreliable and implausible recovered memories.[7] Loftus characterized "Remembering Dangerously" as "scholarly" and "strictly accurate,"[8] and claimed that she had simply published facts about the case that the Kandels had omitted in order to provide readers with a complete understanding of the facts.[9]

Since Loftus' article continues to be widely disseminated and cited in support of the idea that recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse are highly suspect, her scholarship bears examination.

Consider the evidence for Loftus' scholarship and accuracy:
  1. Evaluate Loftus' sources for her article.
  2. Examine the alleged facts that Loftus claimed cast doubt about whether sexual abuse occurred in this case.
  3. Compare Loftus' claims with the evidence in the Hoult v. Hoult trial transcript:
    1. Evaluate the evidence for suggestion.
    2. Evaluate the evidence for implausibility.
  4. Consider Loftus' and defendant David Hoult's affiliation with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.
  5. Consider contact between Loftus and David Hoult and the consequences of professional ethics complaints against Loftus.
  6. Consider the subsequent history of defendant David Hoult.
  7. Assess Loftus' claims of professional and personal victimization.
  8. Conclusion.
top of page

Sources for Loftus' Commentary on Hoult v. Hoult

Loftus was not an expert witness in Hoult v. Hoult. In 1998, she testified in another case that she did not believe she needed to have a "full and accurate understanding of the facts" of the case to write about it.[10]

While Loftus cited the entire Hoult v. Hoult trial transcript as her primary source,[11] she subsequently testified under oath that she neither obtained nor read the entire trial transcript. Instead, she relied on an excerpted document of unverified authenticity that was purported to be a portion of the trial transcript; a document that she received from an undisclosed source.[12]

Loftus' only other cited source was correspondence with and an article by New York Newsday reporter Glenn Kessler.[13] Mr. Kessler did not attend the Hoult v. Hoult trial. He also did not obtain or read the complete trial transcript.[13a]

Loftus did not cite any personal correspondence with the defendant, formerly tenured MIT professor David Hoult, his attorneys, or his second wife, Zene Athens Hoult, as sources for her article. Loftus did not contact or interview the plaintiff's attorneys or any of her witnesses: Hoult, her former boyfriend, her therapist, her mother, her paternal aunt, or expert witness Dr. Renee Brant. She did not contact or interview any of the other individuals who alleged sexual abuse by David Hoult. Finally, she did not contact or interview any of Hoult's three siblings.


top of page

Compare Loftus' Alleged Facts with the Trial Transcript Evidence.

Although Loftus was not involved in the case, after writing "Remembering Dangerously," she wrote that she had been "appalled" by the Kandels' description of the case. Loftus claimed the Kandels' article was "incomplete and misleading," and explained that she wrote about the case because she felt "readers were entitled to know" "critical information" [14] that the Kandels had not disclosed.

Compare the alleged facts Loftus believed cast doubt on the veracity of the child sexual abuse reported in the case with the Hoult v. Hoult trial testimony evidence:
  1. Loftus alleged "Jennifer had 'experts' to say they believed her memories were real."[15] In fact, only one expert testified on Hoult's behalf: Dr. Renee Brant. The First Circuit appellate court recognized and accepted Dr. Brant's extensive training and experience in clinical diagnosis and treatment of child sexual abuse.[16] Dr. Brant did not testify that Hoult's memories were real. In fact, the First Circuit appellate court noted that while defendant David Hoult's attorney "repeatedly attempted to elicit opinion testimony from Dr. Brant that she believed the plaintiff's allegations," Dr. Brant "steadfastly refused" to provide such an opinion, "explicitly testifying, 'I had no way of ultimately determining whether [the memories] were true or not.'"[17] Dr. Brant evaluated Hoult for hours, meeting with her four times over a period of six years. She also spoke to Hoult's therapist about her methods.[18] Dr. Brant found no evidence of suggestion, motivation to fabricate abuse allegations, or other psychological factors that could otherwise explain Hoult's longstanding symptoms and memories.[19] Instead, she found a high correlation between Hoult's clinical presentation and the clinical sequelae of child sexual abuse and repression.[20]

  2. Loftus alleged "Jennifer was on the stand for nearly three days...Jennifer's father testified for about a half-hour. How long does it take to say 'I didn't do it'?"[21] Loftus' source for the duration of David's testimony is reporter Glenn Kessler. Kessler did not attend the trial. The trial transcript does not indicate the duration of David's testimony.[22] During six days of testimony, the jury heard Hoult's evidence over three days, and David's defense over four days. David's defense strategy focused on lengthy cross-examination of Hoult's witnesses.[23] He cross-examined Hoult for one day,[24] Dr. Brant for two days,[25] and the other four witnesses for approximately one day. Thus, David's legal defense constituted the majority of the six days of testimony.

  3. Loftus alleged "Oddly, [David's] attorneys put on no character witnesses or expert testimony of their own, apparently believing -wrongly- that the implausibility of the "memories" would be enough."[26] Character evidence is generally legally irrelevant and inadmissible since it does not illuminate whether a defendant committed the alleged illegal act(s). However, the jury did hear evidence shedding light on David's character. David testified that he used a prostitute[27] and molested a ten year old babysitter. He described the therapy he received following that molestation, which taught him that he "couldn't ever allow [himself] to be out of control."[28] David testified about his relationships with his four children[29] and admitted that he did not remember any of their birthdates.[30] Hoult testified about David telling her mother he was having a sexual affair outside their marriage.[31] Hoult, her mother,[32] and David's sister[33] all described David's heavy drinking, contradicting his testimony that he drank only in moderation.[34] Additionally, the history of the legal case likely explained David's strategic choice not to present expert testimony.[35]

  4. Loftus alleged "A Massachusetts jury awarded Jennifer $500,000."[36] True. The Kandels reported this on the first page of their article.[37] After hearing six days of the testimony, including the cross-examination of seven witnesses, the ten person jury deliberated for four hours before unanimously holding David liable. Their decision was upheld in all subsequent appeals pursued by David.

  5. Loftus published one other fact that did not appear in the Kandels' article: the plaintiff's full name. In 1997, Loftus testified under oath that she did not publish Hoult's name in this article.[38] In 1998, she testified under oath that she had provided plaintiff Hoult's full name, but only in a footnote.[39] In fact, the second paragraph of her discussion of the case clearly identified Jennifer Hoult as the Hoult v. Hoult plaintiff.[40]
top of page

Loftus' Creation of a Myth of Repressed Memory

Consider how Loftus' alteration, misrepresentation, and omission of the facts of Hoult v. Hoult created the appearance of suggestion and implausibility.

Suggestion

Altering the Historical Sequence of Trauma and Symptoms:
  1. Loftus claimed that Hoult developed nightmares and waking terrors in the year or two after she began therapy.[41] In fact, Hoult's symptoms began long before she entered therapy. Hoult testified that fear, nightmares, panic attacks, hypervigilance, and insomnia were a part of her life since childhood. Fear was a regular part of her life: She testified, "...being scared, being terrified had always been a part of my life."[42] Hoult's symptoms abated after she remembered the abuse.[43]

  2. Loftus stated, "Bibliotherapeutic and group therapy should not be encouraged until the patient has reasonable certainty that the sex abuse really happened." She claimed Hoult "developed" her memories of sexual abuse by joining support groups, reading about child abuse, writing columns and letters to members of support groups, and contacting legislators before she had "reasonable certainty that the sex abuse really happened."[44] In fact, Hoult joined support groups and read books on sex abuse only after she had remembered the abuse and after she learned about other allegations of child sex abuse against her father.[45] Struggling with feelings of isolation and degradation from the abuse, Hoult found support in support groups. Working to overcome her lifelong terror, she read books about sexual violence focusing on suggestions for creating a sense of personal safety.[46] The only portion of The Courage to Heal that Hoult read was a short section with suggestions for self-protection in case of suicidal depression. The book suggested keeping a list of names and phone numbers of people to call posted by one's telephone.[47] Having remembered the abuse and learned that others alleged David abused them, Hoult was concerned that her father might harm more children. She thus contacted experts who treated sex offenders to assess whether he posed a danger to other children. These experts told her that her father would likely abuse other children unless someone took legal action against him. Fearing he would harm other children, she filed the civil suit against him after learning that the criminal statutes of limitations had elapsed. She later lobbied successfully to extend those criminal statutes of limitations. Learning that child sex abuse was epidemic, she wrote a column about legal changes to hold offenders legally accountable and contacted legislators to encourage them to enact legislation to hold offenders accountable and provide treatment for victims. Wanting to help other victims recover as she had, Hoult became a certified rape crisis counselor, volunteering her time to help other victims in the local emergency room, work for which she later received an award from Chemical Bank. Hoult engaged in these activities only after she remembered the abuse and learned of other allegations against David. She engaged in the activities, not to "develop" her memories, but to help herself recover, to help other victims recover, and to protect other children from similar harm.
Altering the Evidence about Hoult's Therapy:
  1. Loftus claimed many people would have "serious reservations" about the "therapy activities engaged in" by Hoult,[48] claiming "'clients and therapists appear driven to expose and confront every possible traumatic memory'" and "[excavate] the 'repressed' memories through invasive therapeutic techniques."[49] In fact, Hoult's therapy never involved any diagnosis or suggestion of sexual abuse, hypnosis or any encouragement to remember childhood abuse.[50] Instead, it focused on the very "enhancement of functioning" that Loftus extolled as appropriate therapy.[51]

  2. Loftus claimed Hoult paid her therapist to "acquire" memories of abuse.[52] Hoult paid her therapist for therapy that focused on enhancing her functioning in her relationships, careers, and family life. Her therapist never suggested she had been abused, encouraged her to remember abuse, or diagnosed her as having been abused. Hoult never asked her therapist to provide her with memories of abuse, and her therapist never provided her with memories of abuse. Loftus omitted testimony by Hoult's therapist, and Hoult's testimony that most of her flashbacks occurred outside of therapy sessions. Hoult's former boyfriend also testified about witnessing Hoult during flashbacks she had at home.[53]
top of page

Implausibility
Altering Hoult's Memories:
  1. Loftus stated that Hoult testifying to going to her mother "wrapped in a towel with blood dripping" following an assault in the bath.[54] Hoult never reported a "towel with blood dripping." She testified, "Well, I had been in the children's bathroom, and I don't remember having a bath but my hair was still all wet, and my father had been there. I don't remember exactly, and I remember pulling a towel around me, and running down the stairs to the sort of archway doorway that went into the kitchen. And mom was making dinner, cooking something, and I think [my sister] was at the kitchen table or doing something, playing with something. And the water was running off me onto the floor, and I could feel blood sort of between my legs, not running exactly, but like sticky. And my mom said something about, you know, you are dripping on the floor, you know - you know, why aren't you - something to the effect of, you know, why are you dripping on the floor, and then I didn't say anything. The towel fell off, and she yelled for my dad, and he came down, and she said something like, "What happened" and he mumbled something, like I cut myself in the bath, and then I took the towel, and went upstairs to get cleaned up and dressed, and that's all I remember."[55]

  2. Loftus stated that Hoult remembered "a couple of incidents involving her mother," citing part of Hoult's testimony about a memory of an assault that her mother interrupted.[56] Loftus omitted Hoult's testimony that she did not know whether her mother could have seen the assault given her physical position relative to the assault.[57]

  3. Loftus cited a letter in which Hoult alleged physical abuse by her mother.[58] Loftus omitted the trial testimony about this letter.[59] At trial, when David's attorney asked Hoult about the physical abuse she mentioned in this letter, she did not remember what she had been referring to. During the court's lunch break, Hoult's mother, who had been present in the courtroom during her testimony, reminded Hoult that, at about the time Hoult wrote the letter, her mother had told Hoult about an incident when she had spanked Hoult with a hairbrush, and that her mother had told Hoult that, with time, she had grown to consider this to be physically abusive. After lunch Hoult testified to this information. When asked if she remembered her mother spanking her with a hairbrush, Hoult indicated that she had never had a memory of the incident, but had simply trusted her mother's description of the event.[60]
Omitting relevant evidence:
  1. Quoting Hoult's description of her first flashback,[61] Loftus used an unmarked elision to remove Hoult's description of the intense fear that triggered the flashback. Elisions can be used to create the appearance that a person said one thing, when they in fact said something quite different. Because elisions can easily lead to misrepresentations, scholars indicate them with "..." to alert readers that relevant information may have been elided from the quote. In some instances, Loftus did not indicate material she elided.

    Loftus claimed Hoult testified: "...I was feeling really afraid, and so I started the same thing of shutting my eyes and just trying to feel the feelings and not let them go away really fast. And [my therapist] said "Can you see anything?" ... I couldn't see anything ... And then I saw my father, and I could feel him sitting on the bed next to me, and he was pushing me down, and I was saying, "No." And he started pushing up my night gown and - and he was touching me with his hands on my breast, and then between my legs, and then he was touching me with his mouth, ... and then - then it just all like went away. It was like - ... on TV if there is all static ... It was all of a sudden it was plussssh, all stopped. And then I - I slowly opened my eyes in the session, and I said, "I never knew that happened to me."[62]


    Loftus' quotation elided all reference to the fear that Hoult reported as the trigger for the memory. Hoult reported fear as a pervasive part of both her waking and sleeping life, something she was working hard to overcome in her therapy, and the trigger of her flashbacks.[63] Hoult's testimony reads, "...I was feeling really afraid, and so I started the same thing of shutting my eyes and just trying to feel the feelings and not let them go away really fast. And it was the same thing, I - at the time like I just felt really, really scared, and I felt like someone was coming to get me, like with a knife. And [my therapist] said "Can you see anything?" And at first it was the same thing, I couldn't see anything just sort of a shadowy cut-out thing, figure, and then, all of a sudden, I saw this carved bed post from my room when I was a child. Q: What happened next? A: Well, I could see - I could see the two bed posts from the end of my bed. And then I was like, back there in that room. And I could feel myself against the head board, pushed way back, being all kind of pulling away. And then I saw my father, and I could feel him sitting on the bed next to me, and he was pushing me down, and I was saying, "No." And he started pushing up my night gown and - and he was touching me with his hands on my breast, and then between my legs, and then he was touching me with his mouth, like with his lips on down my body, and then - then it just all like went away. It was like - it was like, like on TV if there is all static or if you shut your eyes in the dark sort of white static. It was all of a sudden it was plussssh, all stopped. And then I - I slowly opened my eyes in the session, and I said, "I never knew that happened to me."[64]

  2. Loftus omitted similarly relevant material in a quotation from one of Hoult's letters. Loftus quoted Hoult's letter as follows: "In Gestalt therapy, the sub personalities are allowed to take over and converse with one another and hopefully resolve their conflicts. Each personality gets a different chair, and when one new one starts to speak, the individual change[sic] into that personality seat. It sounds weird, and it is. But it is also an amazing journey into one's self. I've come to recognize untold universes within myself. It feels often very much like a cosmic battle when they are all waring [sic] with one another. In any case -".[65]

    The transcript provides Hoult's reading of the relevant portion of the quoted letter to the jury: "In the last two months, the focus seems to have shift [sic] into a very Gestalt reality in the present." The focus I am referring to is the memories I've been having in the last paragraph [of the letter]. "I don't know if or how much you know about Gestalt therapy or theory - excuse me. Gestalt theory. It is fascinating and the actual experiences are incredibly powerful, and enlightening. The basic idea is that the personality is really a collection of sub personalities. They are accumulated throughout childhood and modeled after important people in the child's life. For example, the child incorporates a parent's teaching them to take a bath and brush their teeth, et cetera. Thus the child does not need the parent there to remain [sic] him or her to do these things for the rest of his or her life. They've been incorporated into the child's personality, and the new parent sub personality functions just as the parent did. If the parents and the interactions between them and the child are healthy, then everything is fine. However, when the situation is unhealthy, the child incorporates the negative influences, and the struggles of childhood are captured in the child's mind. Thus, the emotional battles of the abused child do not simply stop when the external abuse ends. They continue internally until they have been resolved. And then there is" - should I read the next paragraph? Q. Is that the paragraph? A. That's the paragraph I read before. Q. You can read it just for completeness? A: "In Gestalt therapy, the sub personalities are allowed to take over and converse with one another and hopefully resolve their conflicts. Each personality gets a different chair, and when one new one starts to speak, the individual change[sic] into that personality seat. It sounds weird, and it is. But it is also an amazing journey into one's self. I've come to recognize untold universes within myself. It feels often very much like a cosmic battle when they are all waring [sic] with one another. In any case -".[65a]

  3. Loftus reported that Hoult's mother and David's sister claimed he had molested and made sexual passes at other children,[66] and asked, "How long does it take to say 'I didn't do it'?"[67] Loftus omitted David's testimony that he molested a ten year old babysitter, and received psychotherapy following that incident.[68] Loftus also omitted Hoult's continuous memories of her father commenting on her breasts when she was a teenager, saying "Well, that really gets the seamen running," her contemporaneous confusion about why he was talking about sailors, and her later realization that he was making a lewd comment referring to semen.[69] Loftus also omitted Hoult's testimony that she continuously remembered David leaving pornography and sex manuals in the living room and den of the family home.[70]

  4. Loftus noted the lack of eyewitnesses to David's sexual abuse of Hoult, stating, "No one saw."[71] She omitted David's testimony that he molested a ten year old babysitter in his home while his wife was present in the house and his lack of concern about his wife's presence during that molestation.[72] Because his wife was upstairs while he molested that child, she did not witness the abuse. Loftus omitted both Hoult's and David's testimony about the floor plans of the houses where assaults on Hoult took place. During the trial, Hoult presented floor plans of the home where she lived from ages 5 to 9 that she had drawn from memory. She had not visited this house since age 9, some 15 years earlier. David testified that shortly before the trial, he gained entry into one of the houses and drew a floor plan. The only errors he claimed in Hoult's memory of this two-floor multi-bedroom dwelling were a misplaced study and bathroom.[73]

  5. Loftus omitted Hoult's testimony about the locations of family members during the assaults. Hoult testified that sometimes family members were not home when David abused her, and other times, they were present in the home, but not in the room where the abuse took place:
    Loftus cited Hoult's memory of David raping her at her grandparent's home,[74] but omitted the fact that the rape occurred in a guest room that was down the hall of the house from the kitchen, dining, and living rooms, where the rest of the family were preparing for dinner.[75]

    Loftus cited Hoult's memory of David threatening to her beat her head in with the handle of his fly-fishing pole and then rape her with it,[76] but omitted Hoult's testimony that her mother was out shopping and arrived home only after that assault.[77]

    Loftus cited Hoult's memory of her father raping her in his bedroom,[78] but omitted her testimony that the rest of the family was away on a weekend skiing trip.[79]

    Loftus cited Hoult's testimony of David chasing her through the house with a carving knife and threatening to kill her,[80] but omitted her testimony that her mother and siblings were out at soccer and after school activities that afternoon.[81]
    Most incestuous sexual abuse occurs in family residences, often with family members present in the house during the assaults. Children who have been threatened with further violence rarely cry out during sexual abuse. Thus, unless witnesses are present in the room during an assault, they may be unaware that violence is occurring nearby.

  6. Loftus described Hoult's memory of her father choking her and threatening to mutilate or murder her with a letter opener and a carving knife.[82] Hoult testified that David once held her to the floor holding what felt like a letter opener on the inside of her thigh, saying he would cut her up as he would "carve a turkey" starting between her legs[83] and saying, "You like this. Like a dog, you like this."[84] She testified that, during a different assault, David held a kitchen knife to her throat, moved it down the front of her body between her legs, and said he would kill her, that no one could help her, that he had complete power over her, and that there was nothing she could do.[85] Hoult further testified that on yet another occasion David became angry when Hoult said, "No," to his indication he was going to do something sexual to her, and that he took a kitchen carving knife, said he would kill her, and chased her up the stairs into her room.[86] Loftus omitted Hoult's testimony that her memory of David choking her with his hands while he orally raped her explained the origin of her extreme aversive responses whenever anyone touched her neck, however gently.[87] Remembering this incident led to the abatement of that symptom. She also omitted Hoult's continuous memory of lying awake in her bed during childhood, fearful that a man was going to come and murder her with a knife, and wondering which way she ought to face to be best prepared to defend herself.[88]

  7. Loftus reported Hoult's estimations of the number of times she was assaulted,[89] but omitted Hoult's testimony of her process of arriving at those estimates, her realization that the assaults were a normal part of her week, less frequent than going to school every day or brushing her teeth, but more frequent than going to the beach.[90]

Implication by association:

Associating Hoult v. Hoult with sixteenth and seventeenth century witch trials,[91] allegations satanic abuse,[92] and one unverifiable story of an allegedly suggestive therapist,[93] Loftus implied an underlying contextual similarity between these subjects.

Like most child sexual abuse, Hoult's abuse did not involve eyewitnesses or medical documentation of venereal disease or scarring. The corroboration for Hoult's memories came from a complex set of "compelling behavioral clues," common in cases of child abuse involving secrecy and threats,[94] including her credibility, the details of her memories, the historical sequence of the trauma and her symptoms, material she always remembered, her spontaneous flashbacks of abuse, and the resolution of her symptoms following her recovery of memory of the abuse.

The only people for whom Hoult's memory was "dangerous" were her father, who was held accountable for his repeated rape and sexual abuse of his child, and other child sex offenders who may face legal accountability based on the legal precedents set by this case.


top of page

False Memory Syndrome Foundation Affiliations

Loftus was and remains a Scientific Advisory Board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation ("FMSF"), a small organization founded in 1992 by an accused incest offender and his wife.[95] The organization advocates for accused and proven child sex offenders and their supporters.[96] In 1992, the FMSF coined and promoted the term "false memory syndrome" to describe false recovered memories of child sexual abuse implanted by psychotherapists. Over a decade later, there is no evidence that "false memory syndrome" exists, and it is not recognized as an existing medical syndrome by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, or the American Psychiatric Association. Many studies now demonstrate the existence of repression and recovered memory, the biological mechanisms that explain their occurrence, and the fact that recovered memories are no more or less reliable than continuous memory.[98] Loftus' only research in this field found a 19% rate of repression among victims of child sexual abuse.

Defendant David Hoult and his second wife, Zene Athens Hoult, have reported membership in the FMSF, and David's lawyer Ed Collins has voiced his longtime support for FMSF views through his supportive published comments on the "Witchhunt" listserv.[100]

Loftus did not cite connections to or interviews with David, his second wife Zene Athens Hoult, or David's attorneys as sources for "Remembering Dangerously."


top of page

Contact Between Loftus & David Hoult:
Professional Ethics Complaints Against Loftus

Learning of Loftus' article, in 1995, Hoult filed a professional ethics complaint against Loftus with the American Psychological Association ("APA") alleging that Loftus misrepresented the facts of Hoult v. Hoult in "Remembering Dangerously." Within a month of the filing of that complaint, and before the APA began its investigation, Loftus resigned from the APA by email. Her resignation revoked the organization's jurisdiction over the matter, thereby barring any investigation.

In 1996, Hoult filed a similar ethics complaint against Loftus with the British Psychological Association ("BPS"). The BPS ultimately concluded that Loftus' conduct in writing the article "was not such as to amount to professional misconduct." The BPS sent a copy of Hoult's complaint to Loftus on April 30, 1996. According to the BPS, Loftus was the only person to whom they sent the complaint.

Nine days after the BPS sent a copy of her ethics complaint to Loftus, David filed a libel suit against Hoult based entirely on, and citing from, Hoult's ethics complaints against Loftus. Since the BPS sent the complaint to no one other than Loftus, it appears that Loftus provided David and/or Ed Collins with the ethics complaint.

David filed the libel suit in both Massachusetts and in Florida.[101] Both cases were ultimately dismissed.[102] On appeal, the First Circuit held that the jury in the original case had necessarily found that David "repeatedly raped" Hoult.[103] In 1999, David's Florida attorney, Camille Iurillo, was sanctioned under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for filing the Florida libel suit after the Massachusetts libel suit had been dismissed. Ed Collins provided legal counsel for Hoult in both cases.

Concurrent with the libel suits, FMSF members and their supporters began publishing and widely disseminating false statements about Hoult. They internationally circulated unfounded claims that Hoult was unemployed, suicidal, friendless, and without contact with her family.[104] Email records indicate that William Hagerbaumer disseminated materials Loftus circulated on the internet regarding the ethics complaints.[105] Material contained in those emails and emails by other FMSF members then appeared the media. For example, newspapers around the U.S. published Associated Press reporter Tim Klass' claim that the APA had found Hoult's ethics complaint to be "baseless."[106] Klass claimed his sources were Loftus' University of Washington Department Chairman, Michael Beecher, APA President Raymond Fowler, and "anonymous email."[106a] Both Fowler and Beecher denied being sources for this information. The Associated Press later issued a correction. Psychology Today reporter Jill Niemark, who never read Hoult's complaint[106a], reported that the APA complaint, "when studied, [was] baseless."[107] In response, some individuals began to defend Hoult on the internet. At a NATO conference in June 1996, Loftus told psychologist Constance Dalenberg to stop defending Hoult on the internet, informing her that David had filed a libel suit against Hoult. Dalenberg understood Loftus to mean that those who flaunt "false memory syndrome" could expect the same treatment Hoult was receiving.[108] The FMSF's publishing arm, Social Issues Resource Series, Inc. ("SIRS"), created posters to promote sales of books on "false memory," illegally using Hoult's photo on the posters without her permission. These posters were disseminated internationally to "libraries, book stores, churches and other public places."[109] After Hoult's attorneys protested, SIRS agreed to cease distribution of the posters.[110]

Despite these published claims, Hoult was invited to speak at a 1997 Harvard Medical School conference on Psychological Trauma and at the 1997 national conference of the American Psychological Association, and to publish her experience in a journal on psychology and ethics.[111]

On April 16, 1999, Loftus publicly apologized to the Hoult at a meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association in Providence, Rhode Island.[112] Nonetheless, Loftus continues to disseminate "Remembering Dangerously." The article is posted on numerous websites and has been republished by Prometheus Books.[113]


top of page

Subsequent Case History: Defendant David Hoult

David retired from MIT in 1996. Following a 1996 bench trial, in 2003 a judge held both David and Zene Athens Hoult liable for multiples counts of fraud ("fraudulent conveyance") for their illegal efforts to prevent Hoult's collection of the jury's damage award.[114] In 2004, Zene paid Hoult over $200,000 to settle her portion of the fraudulent conveyance case. In 2004, David was held in contempt for violating a court order. Rather than appear in court, he became a federal fugitive for several months. After federal marshals arrested him, he pled guilty to criminal contempt, a Class C federal felony, and served a ten month sentence. At his criminal sentencing he again described molesting the ten year old babysitter.

top of page

Is Loftus a Victim?

Loftus is frequently employed to testify for violent criminals like the Hillside Strangler and Ted Bundy. She once claimed that she "usually" only worked for individuals she believed were innocent[115], but since making that statement she has worked for the legal defenses of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and child rapist Father Paul Shanley. When criticized, she casts herself as a victim of zealots who oppose science. "'I am used to fighting clean, academic fights, duking it out in the pages of a scientific journal,' Loftus said. 'But when you get into those real-life cases with some of those people who harbor beliefs that, I think, are unsupported by science and they are so wrapped up in their belief of every accusation no matter how dubious it is, they fight dirty.'"[116] As the Kandels' article described, current scientific research clearly demonstrates that traumatic amnesia and recovered memories are well documented phenomena among victims of severe trauma like combat veterans and victims of domestic violence and child abuse. Research also indicates that recovered memories are no more or less accurate than continuous memories.[118]

Loftus claims she was herself a victim of child sexual abuse.[120] Describing her abuser, she wrote, "I hate your guts," saying he "betrayed [her] trust, stole [her] innocence, and put an indelible impression, a bad, black memory into the place where only good, warm, happy memories should be."[121] Alternately she has said her molestation was, "...not that big a deal."[122] Loftus is critical of the memories of victims who have proven their claims in courts of law, but she protects her own memory from investigation or critique by withholding the name of her alleged abuser. While she claims continuous memory of the molestation she alleges, Loftus' description that her memory of the incident "flew out at [her], out of the darkness of the past, hitting [her] with full force,"[123] bears striking similarity to descriptions of flashbacks by Hoult and others who report traumatic amnesia. Furthermore, like Hoult and many other victims of sexual abuse, Loftus reports no eyewitnesses or medical records of abuse, and a twenty year lag in her reporting of the abuse.[124]

While Loftus passionately supports defendants' claims of innocence and attacks victims' memories, she expects the public and press to believe her claim without the investigation and kinds of corroboration she expects of other victims. Without providing her alleged abuser the chance to deny her claim, she denies him a chance to exonerate himself, shields herself from any possible claim that hers is a "false memory," and prevents other potential victims from being warned that he may be a threat. Loftus denigrates "uncritical acceptance" of other victims' claims,[125] but expects uncritical acceptance in her own case. Since she has "no proof or evidence of guilt other than the word of the accuser,"[126] it appears Loftus cannot satisfy the standard she applies to others.[127] Under her standard, if her alleged offender denied the molestation, as most sex offenders do, he ought to be believed and her memory deemed "false." "Interview the [accused]," she says about other cases, but not her own.[128]

top of page

Conclusion

Scholarship is based on complete and accurate facts. In court, witnesses are sworn to "tell the whole truth" because justice, like scholarship, is based on the complete truth. Omission, alteration, and misrepresentation of facts are the machinations of propaganda, not of science or scholarship.

There is now ample evidence that some victims of serious trauma experience amnesia and subsequent recall of memories of violence.[129] Accused sex offenders and their supporters disseminate "Remembering Dangerously" to encourage the public to disbelieve victims of sexual violence and thereby protect sex offenders from the danger that their victims' memories may result in their being held legally accountable.

Loftus is correct that each case must be closely examined on its own merits. Victims and defendants should reasonably expect a thorough and fair analysis of all the relevant facts of their cases. Thus, as an alleged victim who creates and disseminates material designed to "...trivialize the genuine memories of abuse and increase the suffering of real victims who wish and deserve, more than anything else, just to be believed,"[130] Loftus should subject her personal allegation of sexual abuse to the same standard she applies to others.

Copyright © 2005 Jennifer Hoult, Esq. All Rights Reserved.
top of page

_______________________________

[1] Elizabeth Loftus, Sara Polonsky, & Mindy Thompson Fullilove, "Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Remembering and Repressing," 18 Psychol. of Women Quarterly, 67-84 (1994). This is the only study Loftus has published on victims of child sexual abuse.

[2] Loftus is currently a professor of social ecology at University of California at Irvine.

[3] Elizabeth Loftus, "Remembering Dangerously," The Skeptical Inquirer, 20-29 (March/April 1995). (available at http://www.faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/witchhunt.html (last visited May 1, 2005) and at http://www.fsmfonline.org (last visited May 1, 2005) [Hereinafter "RD"]. The Skeptical Inquirer is a non-peer-reviewed magazine affiliated with CSICOP.

[4] RD at 20.

[5] Minouche Kandel & Eric Kandel, "Flights of Memory," Discover, 32-38 (1994). The Kandels pointed out that child abuse cases often lack "independent evidence" due to the secretive nature of the abuse and perpetrators' common threats to dissuade children from reporting. Thus such cases often rely primarily on victims' memories. However, the Kandels noted that "compelling behavioral clues" may also provide evidentiary support for allegations. Id. at 38. Like other victims of serious trauma, abused children often develop particular patterns of symptomatic sequelae in response to psychological trauma. Thorough investigations evaluate not only the victim's memory, but also the evolution of any symptoms that may reflect psychological trauma dating back to childhood. For example, an abused child might exhibit otherwise unexplained signs of psychological distress after the onset of abuse. Such symptoms would likely abate following treatment for the effects of the abuse. In contrast, a child who reported abuse that had never happened would be unlikely to have a history of trauma sequelae dating back to childhood. Instead they might develop signs of distress following the genesis of their false report.

[6] Describing professional ethics complaints filed against her, and discussed infra, Loftus wrote, "...The second complaint, according to the malicious column mentioned above, apparently came from a woman who also 'recovered' memories of being violently abused for more than a decade. According to a 1993 report by an investigative journalist for New York Newsday, her memories 'led her to believe he raped her as many as 3,000 times between the ages of 6 and 16.' I have never met this woman, and had no involvement in her court case, but I was appalled when I read an incomplete and misleading summary of this case in a science magazine. Based upon material from actual court transcripts, I tried to correct these misimpressions in a subsequent scholarly article. Because I have not seen this woman's complaint, I do not know which statements caused offense, but, once again, I can say emphatically that so far as I am aware, all of my statements [in "Remembering Dangerously"] were strictly accurate..." Written correspondence, Elizabeth Loftus to Raymond Fowler (Feb. 22, 1996)(emailed from Loftus distributed by Hagerbaumer to the ABUSE-L@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU listserv on Mar. 16, 1996)(emphasis added). Hagerbaumer published the fact that his daughter accused him of sodomizing her, and admitted to sodomizing his wife while she was asleep. Email published on WITCHNT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU, William Hagerbaumer (Jan. 22, 1996)( stating "...The only times I had anal sex with my first wife were while she was asleep (or pretending to be asleep)...my middle daughter [has] falsely [accused] me of having anal sex with her when she was 10. I never did that or anything else sexual to any of my daughters..."). In most states, vaginal or anal intercourse with a sleeping or unconscious person constitutes a crime of sexual assault. WITCHHNT is a pro-FMSF listserve that was begun in the year after the jury verdict in Hoult v. Hoult, and maintained on the educational computer facilities of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT") Chemical Engineering Department by Jonathan Harris. The engineering liquid-2-sun.mit.edu pages, where WITCHHNT was posted, deals with materials and liquids research. David Hoult retired from MIT in 1996. Jonathan Harris also left MIT in 1996. Harris listserve was maintained at MIT until Dec. 1997, when it was moved to another internet location.

[7] RD at 26 (claiming Hoult v. Hoult "might not be proof" of a "corroborated de-repressed memory").

[8] See infra fn 6.

[9] Seignious v. Fair, I Deposition of Elizabeth Loftus, 163-164 (Jan. 22, 1998)("...all I was doing was adding the facts that I found that were left out by [the Kandels]").

[10] Seignious v. Fair, I Deposition of Elizabeth Loftus, 163-164 (Jan. 22, 1998).

[11] RD at 29.

[12] Seignious v. Fair, I Deposition of Elizabeth Loftus, 158-159 (Jan. 22, 1998).

[13] Loftus' citation to Kessler's article is incorrect. Elizabeth Loftus, "Remembering Dangerously," The Skeptical Inquirer, 29 (March/April 1995)(citing Glenn Kessler, "Memories of Abuse," Newsday, 1, 5, 51-55 (Nov. 28 1993)(the correct citation is Glen Kessler, "Hidden Horrors: Courts Wrestle Over Abuse Cases," NY Newsday, Nov. 28, 7, 46-47 (Nov. 28 1993)). It is possible that Loftus' source of this inaccurate citation was the SIRS poster promoting the commercial sales of books on "false memory syndrome." The poster displayed superimposed newspaper clippings, including a portion of the Kessler article, illegally using Hoult's photo without her permission. However, the Kessler article was displayed without its title, and superimposed on an article that appeared to be entitled, "Memories of Abuse." It is unclear whether Loftus ever obtained or read Kessler's cited article. Skeptical Inquirer editor Kendrick Frazier stated that the Skeptical Inquirer provided no editorial fact-checking for "Remembering Dangerously," relying solely on Loftus for its factual veracity. Phone conversation, Kendrick Frazier, editor, Skeptical Inquirer (Albuquerque, NM 1996).

[13a] Mr. Kessler told Hoult that he did not attend the trial, and had not obtained or read the entire trial transcript. Phone conversation, Glenn Kessler (Sept. 1996).

[14] RD at 26.

[15] Id. at 27.

[16] Hoult v. Hoult, Judgment, 5 (Case No. 94-2034, 1st Cir. May 22, 1995)("With respect to her qualifications as an expert in the areas of general psychiatry, child psychiatry, and childhood sexual abuse, Dr. Brant testified that she: is a graduate of the Harvard Medical School; has a private psychiatric practice; was a founder of the sexual abuse unit at Children's Hospital; holds a joint appointment as an instructor of medical students at Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School; serves as a consultant on the treatment of children who have been sexually abused; has lectured widely on the issue of the treatment and diagnosis of children who have suffered sexual abuse; and has served as an expert witness in several other actions.")

[17] Id. at 15.

[18] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Renee Brant, 12-13 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 24, 1993).

[19] Id. at 111-126.

[20] Id. at 13.

[21] RD at 27.

[22] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of David Hoult, 59-100 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 29, 1993).

[23] Since the burden of proof in a civil case is on the plaintiff, the legal goal of the defense is to discredit or disprove the plaintiff's evidence through rigorous cross-examination. It is thus a common defense strategy to focus on cross-examination instead of presentation of witnesses.

[24] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Cross-Examination of Jennifer Hoult, 162-285 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 24, 1993).

[25] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Cross-Examination of Renee Brant (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 25 & 28 1993).

[26] RD at 27.

[27] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of David Hoult, 90 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 29, 1993).

[28] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of David Hoult, 59-100 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 29, 1993).

[29] Id. at 78-82.

[30] Id. at 88. In David's subsequent defamation suit against Hoult, he incorrectly identified Hoult's date of birth. Hoult v. Hoult, Complaint, 4, CA 96-10970 RCL (May 9, 1996).

[31] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 78-79 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 23, 1993).

[32] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Hoult's mother, 94-97 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 29, 1993).

[33] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of David's sister, 25-26 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 29, 1993).

[34] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of David Hoult, 82-83 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 29, 1993).

[35] In a court-ordered settlement effort known as a summary trial, David prevailed without any witnesses. A summary trial is a non-binding exercise that allows the attorneys from each side to describe to a mock jury the evidence they will present at trial. The summary trial jury does not hear any actual witnesses, so they cannot judge credibility. After each side summarizes their evidence, the mock jury makes a non-binding determination about the case.

[36] RD at 27.

[37] Minouche Kandel & Eric Kandel, "Flights of Memory," Discover, 32 (1994).

[38] Nadean Cool et al v. Legion Insurance Co., Trial Testimony of Elizabeth Loftus, 192-194 (. (Wisc. Cir. Court Outagamie County, Case No. 94CV0707, Feb. 20, 1997).

[39] Seignious v. Fair, I Deposition of Elizabeth Loftus, 157-158 (Jan. 22, 1998).

[40] RD at 26.

[41] Id.

[42] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 47-54 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 22, 1993).

[43] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 137-147 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 24, 1993). Victims of child abuse often develop psychological symptoms following the abuse. These symptoms may abate once the abuse has stopped, and following psychological treatment. Thus, the likely order of events in cases of recovered memory involving real abuse is: abuse, symptoms, end of abuse, memory of abuse, treatment, resolution of symptoms. In cases where individuals report abuse that never happened, stimulated by a therapist's suggestion, the likely order of events would be: treatment, memory of abuse, symptoms. Just as a foot pierced by a shard of glass heals only once the shard is removed, Hoult's longstanding symptoms of trauma, including nightmares, insomnia, panic attacks, low self esteem, and terror, began during her childhood following the beginning of David's abuse. Her symptoms abated only after the abuse had ended and Hoult remembered and dealt with the abuse. Although the evidence at trial showed that the sequence of events followed the pattern of cases of real abuse, Loftus altered the sequence of historical facts creating the appearance of the pattern expected from cases involving unfounded, therapeutically suggested memories of abuse.

[44] RD at 27-28.

[45] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 128-135 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 23, 1993).

[46] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Cross-Examination of Jennifer Hoult, 261-262 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 24, 1993).

[47] Id.

[48] RD at 28.

[49] Id. at 20.

[50] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 66 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 23, 1993).

[51] RD at 28. Loftus noted that Hoult was "involved in years of therapy." It is hardly surprising that a woman whose father raped her repeatedly for over a decade might need substantial therapy to overcome the resulting trauma.

[52] Id. at 27.

[53] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, passim (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 22-24, 1993); Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Hoult's former boyfriend, passim (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 29, 1993); Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Hoult's therapist, passim (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 28, 1993).

[54] RD at 27.

[55] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 150-151 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 24, 1993).

[56] RD at 27.

[57] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 148-149 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 23, 1993).

[58] RD at 27.

[59] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Cross-Examination of Jennifer Hoult, 176-177 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 24, 1993).

[60] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Redirect of Jennifer Hoult, 289-290 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 24, 1993).

[61] RD at 26-27.

[62] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 58-59 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 22, 1993).

[63] RD at 27; Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 55-58, 49 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 22, 1993); see also Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, passim (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 22-24, 1993); Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Renee Brant, passim (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 24-28, 1993); Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Hoult's former boyfriend, passim (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 29, 1993); Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Hoult's therapist, passim (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 28, 1993).

[64] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 58-59 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 22, 1993).

[65] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Redirect of Jennifer Hoult, 286-288 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 24, 1993).

[65a] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Redirect of Jennifer Hoult, 286-288 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 24, 1993).

[66] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of David's sister (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 29, 1993); Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Hoult's mother (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 28-29, 1993).

[67] RD at 27.

[68] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of David Hoult, 88-89 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 29, 1993).

[69] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 39-40 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 22, 1993).

[70] Id. at 42-43.

[71] RD at 27.

[72] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of David Hoult, 88-90 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 29, 1993)(Asked if he was concerned that his wife was in the house at the time he molested the ten- year-old babysitter, David testified, "I don't think I was thinking about that.").

[73] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of David Hoult, 62-64 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 29, 1993).

[74] RD at 27.

[75] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 125-127 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 23, 1993).

[76] RD at 27.

[77] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 107-110 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 23, 1993).

[78] RD at 27.

[79] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 91-92 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 23, 1993).

[80] RD at 27.

[81] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 114 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 23, 1993).

[82] RD at 27.

[83] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 113 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 23, 1993).

[84] Id. at 115.

[85] Id. at 113.

[86] Id. at 114.

[87] Id. at 93.

[88] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 50 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 22, 1993).

[89] RD at 27.

[90] Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 122-124 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 23, 1993). Loftus also omitted Hoult's testimony about the expansive definition of "rape" Hoult used when making her earlier estimates, and the reason she later used a more restrictive definition. Id. at 135-136; Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Cross-Examination of Jennifer Hoult, 217-219, 227-247, 260-261 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 24, 1993).

[91] RD at 20, 24-26.

[92] Id. at 21-22.

[93] Id. at 22-24. This story is uncited, and thus unverifiable.

[94] Minouche Kandel & Eric Kandel, "Flights of Memory," Discover, 38 (1994).

[95] Mike Stanton, "U-Turn on Memory Lane," Columbia Journalism Review, 44-49, 45 (July/Aug. 1997) available at http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/4/memory.asp.

[96] The FMSF has identified its primary goal as influencing the media. Id. at 47 (quoting Katherine Beckett). FMSF members and leaders have attempted to discourage and discredit victims of childhood sexual abuse and legal and psychological professionals who support them through various means including stalking, personal threats, and legal harassment. See e.g. "The Science and Politics of Recovered Memory," Ethics & Behavior 8(2) (1998) (detailing some of the national efforts of FMSF leaders and members to discredit scientific and psychological professionals, and victims of childhood sexual violence). The FMSF Scientific Advisory board has included Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield, who published their supportive views of pedophilic sex in a journal which has the editorial goal of demonstrating that pedophilia is a "legitimate and productive part of the totality of the human experience." Interview: Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager, Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, Vol. 3, No. 1, Issue 9, 12 (Winter 1993). After psychologist Anna Salter described Underwager as "a hired gun who makes a living by deceiving judges about the state of medical knowledge and thus assisting child molesters to evade punishment," he sued her for defamation. He lost the case on a summary judgment. In 1994, the Seventh Circuit upheld the grant of summary judgment, finding no evidence of actual malice by Salter. Underwager v. Salter, 22 F.3d 730 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 351 (1994)(cited in Cynthia Bowman & Elizabeth Mertz, A Dangerous Direction: Legal Intervention in Sexual Abuse Survivor Litigation, 109 Harv. L. Rev. 551, 622 n 392 (1996).

[98] To read about 96 well-corroborated cases involving traumatic amnesia and recovered memory, visit http://www.RecoveredMemory.org. For the scientific studies documenting traumatic amnesia, repression, recovered memory, and the reliability of recovered memory, see Daniel Brown, Alan Scheflin, & Corydon Hammond, Memory, Trauma, Treatment, and the Law (1998) & Traumatic Stress: The Effects of Overwhelming Experience on Mind, Body, and Society (Bessel van der Kolk, Alexander McFarlane, and Lars Weisaeth, eds. 1996).

[99] See infra fn 1.

[100] See infra fn 6.

[101] Hoult v. Hoult, Complaint, (U.S.D.C. Mass. CA 96-10970 RCL, May 9, 1996). David filed the Florida libel suit in an unsuccessful bankruptcy suit he filed in an attempt to avoid paying the judgment. Ultimately, the Florida bankruptcy court held that the judgment, being based on acts involving intentional harm, was not dischargeable.

[102] Hoult v. Hoult, Order on Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (U.S.D.C. Mass. CA 96-10970 RCL, June 30, 1997); The final judgment of the Florida Bankruptcy Court was entered on Oct. 29, 1999.

[103] Hoult v. Hoult, Order on Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, 6 (U.S.D.C. Mass. June 30, 1997).

[104] Jennifer Hoult, "Silencing the Victim: The Politics of Discrediting Child Abuse Survivors," Ethics & Behavior 8(2), 125-140 (1998). See also Hoult v. Hoult, Trial Transcript, Testimony of Jennifer Hoult, 159 (U.S.D.C. Mass., CA No. 88-1738-M June 24, 1993)(describing her close relationship with her mother and siblings).

[105] Email from William Hagerbaumer published on WITCHNT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Jan. 22, 1996)(stating "...The only times I had anal sex with my first wife were while she was asleep (or pretending to be asleep)...my middle daughter [has] falsely [accused] me of having anal sex with her when she was 10. I never did that or anything else sexual to any of my daughters..."). See infra fn 6.

[106] See e.g. Tim Klass, "Memory Wars," published in The Peoria Journal Star (Sept. 1, 1996); The Lancaster Sunday News (Aug. 18, 1996); The Albuquerque Journal (Aug. 18, 1996); The Daily Reflector, Greenville, NC; The Raleigh News and Observer; The Danbury News Times (Aug. 18, 1996).

[106a]Phone conversation, Tim Klass (1996).

[106a] Ms. Niemark told Hoult that she had not read the ethics complaint or the trial transcripts, and was not interested in receiving or reading these documents. Phone conversation, Jill Niemark (March 1996).

[107] Jill Niemark, "Dispatch From the Memory War," Psychology Today, 6-8 (March/April 1996).

[108] Email correspondence, Constance Dalenberg (June 30, 1996).

[109] SIRS Press Release signed by Eleanor Goldstein.

[110] Written correspondence, Michelle Burke-Shoeppl, Esq., legal counsel for SIRS (Sept. 24, 1996).

[111] Jennifer Hoult, "Silencing the Victim: The Politics of Discrediting Child Abuse Survivors," Ethics & Behavior 8(2), 125-140 (1998).

[112] "Recovered Memories: True and False," Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychol. Ass'n, Providence, Rhode Island (April 16, 1999)(Loftus stated: "I can say that I am very sorry if you feel that I misrepresented the case in the three short paragraphs that I took to write about this case in an otherwise much longer article. I'm, although I know that you have been publicly talking about your case, I'm sorry that this has created any additional pain for you."). Loftus' coverage of Hoult v. Hoult spans three pages of her nine page article.

[113] While Loftus described her article as commentary on the Kandel's article, their article rarely appears on websites citing "Remembering Dangerously." Child Sexual Abuse and False Memory Syndrome (Robert A. Baker, ed. 1998). Baker is retired from the University of Kentucky, and lives in Lexington, KY.

[114] Hoult v Hoult, Final Judgment Regarding Fraudulent Conveyances and Contempt (Mar. 24, 2003).

[115] Kathryn Robinson, "Memories of Abuse," Seattle Weekly, 22 (Aug. 11, 1993).

[116] Erica Shen, "Loftus Testifies in High-Profile Lawsuits," The New University Newspaper, UC Irvine (Feb. 21, 2005).

[118] See e.g. Daniel Brown, Alan Scheflin, & Corydon Hammond, Memory, Trauma, Treatment, and the Law (1998).

[120] Elizabeth Loftus, The Myth of Repressed Memory, 226 (1994).

[121] Elizabeth Loftus, Witness for the Defense: The Accused, The Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial, 152 (1991).

[122] Psychology Today, 73 (Jan./Feb. 1996).

[123] Elizabeth Loftus, Witness for the Defense: The Accused, The Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial, 149-152(1991).

[124] Seignious v. Fair, I Deposition of Elizabeth Loftus, 105-106 (Jan. 22, 1998). [125] RD at 29.

[126] Id. at 20.

[127] Elizabeth Loftus, The Myth of Repressed Memory, 214 (1994)(describing "cogent corroboration" as "medical records indicating venereal disease or obvious scarring of delicate tissues").

[128] Psychology Today, 80 (Jan./Feb. 1996).

[129] See infra fn 82.

[130] RD at 29.

top of page