False Memory Syndrome

Integral Eye Movement Therapy (IEMT) is a somatic therapy that works primarily by resolving memories of traumatic experiences by de-potentiating the emotional component of the experience. It is vital that IEMT practitioners understand the implications of working with memory.

Memory is neither constant nor fixed; it is malleable, idiosyncratic, susceptible to influence, and complex. Although a memory may seem black and white, memories are changeable and frequently unreliable. Because memory is readily affected by direct or indirect suggestion, a single statement can alter our recollection. While you sleep, events are transferred from your brain's temporary memory to permanent storage. However, the transformation isn't absolute. Memory fragments may be lost. This is the point at which false memories might emerge.

False memory is not the same as basic memory failures. While we are all susceptible to memory fallibility, false memory is more than a simple error; it entails a level of certainty in the memory's reality. We may face memory errors from time to time, but false memories are unusual in that they constitute a specific remembrance of something that did not actually occur. It's not about forgetting or mixing up specifics of things we've done; it's about recalling things we've never done in the first place.

One way that false memories can form is via questions that are loaded with implicit suggestions or presuppositions that suggest certain events may have happened. Although such a question may appear to be “just a question” seeking information, the effect of “leading questions” is well established in both law and psychology.¹⁾

A question asked of a witness in a manner that suggests the answer sought by the questioner (e.g., “You threw the brick through the window, didn't you?”) or that assumes the existence of disputed facts to which the witness is to testify. Leading questions may not be asked during examination-in-chief (except relating to formal matters, such as the witness's name and address) but may normally be asked in cross-examination.²⁾

Further examples of leading questions:

1. “Don't you agree that this new policy is a good idea?”
2. “Isn't it true that you were feeling really stressed out that day?”
3. “Didn't you say that you were at home all night?”
4. “Did you really mean to break that vase?”
5. “You don't have any plans for the weekend, do you?”

Leading questions are those that suggest a particular answer or contain a biased or loaded phrase. They can be used to influence or manipulate the person being questioned, and they can make it difficult for the person to give a genuine or unbiased response.

In British law, the use of leading questions in law courts is generally not allowed during direct examination, which is the questioning of a witness by the party who called them to give evidence. Leading questions are considered to be those that suggest an answer or that contain biased or loaded language, and they are thought to be more likely to influence the witness's testimony.

During direct examination, the goal is to allow the witness to give their evidence in their own words and to test their memory and recollection of events. Allowing the witness to answer questions in their own words and without being influenced by leading questions is thought to help ensure that the witness's testimony is genuine and unbiased.

However, during cross-examination, which is the questioning of a witness by the opposing party, leading questions may be allowed. The purpose of cross-examination is to challenge and test the witness's evidence and to try to expose any contradictions or inconsistencies. Leading questions may be used as a means of doing this.

It is up to the judge to decide whether a particular question is a leading question and whether it is appropriate to allow it in court. The judge has the discretion to disallow any questions that they feel are inappropriate or that could unduly influence the witness's testimony.

One of the best-known cases involving false memories concerns Paul Ingram, chairman of the Thurston County Republican Party in Washington, USA, and chief civil deputy of the Sheriff's Department, who was accused of sexually abusing his daughters.³⁾

After extensive “therapy”, Ingram's daughters and mother reported the abuse and details about the event kept emerging. These details became more thorough and vivid over time until Ingram himself confessed. The daughters at some point even reported satanic rituals, during which one daughter was made pregnant and contracted a sexually transmitted disease.

Ingram, a deeply religious man, could not believe that his daughters might lie and concluded that he must himself be repressing memories of the abuse; thus, he confessed. As repeated questioning continued, he began to “remember”.

“The memories of sexual depravity were “recovered” with the help of a stand-up comic/sitcom actress-turned-charismatic Christian healer, and those memories made it all the way to the Sally Jessy Raphael show.” LA Times

In court, he was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

However, after a meticulous investigation, it was revealed that none of the events could have taken place and that Ingram, the father, was wrongfully accused. It has been reported that at some point, the daughter had heard a story of sexual abuse during a seminar and was later told by a priest that she appeared to be a victim of abuse as well, simply because Erica was crying over the stories she had heard. The account reported by the daughters seemed to have been implanted by therapists who had discussed sexual abuse.

Ingram also contends that his plea was the result of improper pressure from his family and his pastor, but complains principally about the tactics of his wife's divorce attorney, who told Ingram that only by pleading guilty could he hope for any reconciliation with the family. A defendant who had weeks to retract his admission of voluntariness by putting on evidence of coercion has a heavy burden, and that task will be especially difficult “where there are other apparent reasons for pleading guilty, such as a generous plea bargain or virtually incontestable evidence of guilt.” IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, NO. 13613-9-II Respondent, Division Two V. Unpublished Opinion PAUL ROSS INGRAM, Appellant. Filed January 22, 1992⁴⁾

Ingram served his sentence despite court appeals and maintains to this day that his confession was extracted under coercion.

The overwhelming majority of the population—probably more than ever before—now believes in the myth of “repressed” traumatic memories that are blocked from consciousness and can be recovered in therapy. Among the most pervasive beliefs [about memory] is that traumatic experiences can be repressed and later recovered, an idea first proposed by Freud. Despite decades of research demonstrating that traumatic events are typically well remembered and that reports of repression are better explained by processes such as avoidance, suggestion, or source misattribution, endorsement of repressed memory remains strikingly high in the general public. ⁵⁾

It’s been said that when someone is lying, they tend to narrate specific details to make you believe them. The brain functions similarly to a computer, storing anything we feed it. If we provide it with incorrect information, it will store incorrect information. It can convince us that a memory reflects something that truly took place. Memories tend to occur in fragments as we recall them, and we may begin to fill the gaps ourselves with whichever pieces of the puzzle seem to fit.⁶⁾

Sometimes we may mix components of many experiences in our memory to form a single one. When we recollect a memory, we are recalling past experiences. However, the chronology has become jumbled or muddled as a result of the collection of events that have now formed a single recollection in our minds.

In other instances, people may feed us false information about something that happened and convince us that it did. We may believe them if we consider them to be a reputable and reliable source. We listen to authority figures that we consider more knowledgeable than ourselves. Consequently, the brain can form a new memory or blend actual and fake memories.

The emotions of the moment may have a substantial influence on how and what is remembered. Positive or neutral emotions produce fewer false memories than negative emotions.

Repression⁷⁾ is considered to be the transfer of a severely traumatic memory into the back of your mind in order to remove it from consciousness. Most people who report childhood traumas 20 or 30 years later suddenly unlock their memories when doing something completely mundane and unrelated. They are regulated healthy adults who have simply dissociated from the memory.

The primary idea underlying repressed memories is that they serve as a defence mechanism when people are subjected to a stressful incident. The premise here is that when traumatic events are distressing, the mind automatically and instinctively removes them from conscious awareness. The alleged result is that people can no longer recall the event that prompted it, and are frequently unaware that they have been assaulted or traumatised.

People who have been victimised, for example, may not want to talk about or may even forget the painful event, but this does not imply unconscious suppression of trauma. Second, a well-known phenomenon known as the forget-it-all-along effect may explain why people claim to have forgotten traumatic situations. According to this phenomenon, some people who claim to have forgotten sexual abuse may not have done so, because additional research indicates that they had previously communicated their recollection to others but later forgotten that disclosure. Third, people may not have seen the incident as traumatic at the time it occurred and later construed the event as abusive in retrospect. Finally, a substantial body of research has demonstrated that, contrary to the fundamental assumption of the concept of repressed memories, traumatic experiences are generally well recalled.

Unlike repressed memories, false memories⁸⁾ develop over time and are revealed sequentially. Although not essential, another feature often observed in people with false memories is that they recount them with a great deal of emotion, while repressed memories of traumatic events are often told conversationally and casually. People with repressed memories give an account as though they are discussing events unrelated to themselves. This is due to their dissociation from the trauma and is also the reason they seem to be so well-adjusted in their lives. In summary, the most basic distinction between repressed and false memories is that repressed memories are ultimately completely true, whereas false memories are fabrications of the mind.

The problem is that in an attempt to recover clients' repressed memories, therapists end up creating false memories by implanting events and details that may have never taken place.

This therapeutic technique⁹⁾ lacks a properly researched scientific basis. Recovered “memories” typically begin as visions that arise during rigorous treatment, often months after the client has been searching for their past. Suggestive treatments such as hypnosis, guided imagery, or just visualising abuse situations are frequently employed. These images frequently combine into what appear to be memories later on. They appear to be accurate recollections of childhood sexual abuse to both the client and the therapist. Regrettably, they are usually unrelated to genuine occurrences in the individual's history. Their true origins are said to be in dreams, horror movies, literature, one's imagination, and so on.

The majority of recovered memories occur after months or years of therapy. The emergence of apparent recollections during self-hypnosis or self-help or mutual support groups focusing on memory recovery is an uncommon phenomenon. Once these images are produced and merge into what appears to be true memories of real occurrences, they are extremely convincing to both the client and the therapist.

“The truth about our childhood is stored up in our body, and although we can repress it, we can never alter it. Our intellect can be deceived, our feelings manipulated, our perceptions confused, and our body tricked with medication. But someday the body will present its bill, for it is as incorruptible as a child who, still whole in spirit, will accept no compromises or excuses, and it will not stop tormenting us until we stop evading the truth.” Ellen Bass, The Courage to Heal (Ellen Bass, Laura Davis, 1988)

“Not all cases of false memory arise from therapeutic practice. Increasingly, the request for 'memory recovery therapy' is initiated by a client who has read one of a number of self-help books. The Courage to Heal (Bass & Davis, 1988) promulgates the view that forgotten sexual abuse lies at the root of almost all adult psychiatric problems and that unless it is brought fully into consciousness, treatment will prove ineffective. The very inability to recall abuse is taken as a sign that abuse has occurred but is being 'denied' through the process of repression. The therapist and patient embark together upon the process of recovering hidden memories. This approach is supported by the existence of check-lists of symptoms that these therapists believe to be indicative of represses sexual abuse.” “Recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse: Implications for clinical practice”, p. 298 (Sydney Brandon, Janet Boakes, Danya Glaser and Richard Green, 1998)

While there is still a way to access repressed memories by simply conversing and poking around the past experiences in a lifetime, there is no exact method to find and comb through false and authentic memories. Human memory is volatile and vulnerable. The distinction between false and authentic memories can be narrow and may require corroborating accounts from others. For now, the only solution might be to ask other people that might have been a witness to the incident. Whether their recollections are accurate is a separate question.

Dr Hammond is a psychologist with specialities in neurofeedback (EEG biofeedback), quantitative EEG brain mapping, clinical hypnosis, and marital and sex therapy. He has been president of the International Society for Neurofeedback & Research and of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis. Couples therapy work includes inhibited sexual desire and sexual arousal problems, and marital communication and conflict resolution training.

He is the editor of “the big red book” which is very popular with hypnotherapists.

In the 1990s, Hammond publicised his theory of ritual abuse that he developed from his hypnotherapy sessions with patients. He alleged that they were victims of a worldwide conspiracy of organised satanic groups using torture, mind control, and ritual abuse to create alternate personalities in the victims (i.e., Hammond's hypnosis subjects) that could be “activated” with specific code words. As in a common Hollywood film motif, these victims (Hammond's hypnosis subjects) were trained as assassins, prostitutes, drug traffickers, and child sex workers.¹⁰⁾

He also claimed that he managed to uncover additional details from his hypnosis subjects alleging that a Jewish doctor had originally developed the satanic cabal in Nazi Germany, but this doctor was now commissioned by the CIA to further that global satanic agenda.

Some readers will note themes common to current internet conspiracy theories: a satanic cabal, a “deep state” government with a satanic agenda, and child abuse by ruling elites, all of which feature in QAnon conspiracy theories. Some threads of Hammond's “Jewish doctor” claim may be traceable to the anti-Semitic forgery, “The Protocols of The Elders of Zion.”

Hypnosis in MPD: Ritual Abuse “The Greenbaum Speech” (Greenbaum=Green Tree in Hebrew=Kabbalistic Sephiroth Satanic Tree) by D. Corydon Hammond was delivered at the Fourth Annual Eastern Regional Conference on Abuse and Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) on Thursday, June 25, 1992, at the Radisson Plaza Hotel, Mark Center, Alexandria, Virginia.

It was sponsored by the Center for Abuse Recovery & Empowerment, The Psychiatric Institute of Washington, D.C.

Valerie Sinason¹¹⁾ is a British psychotherapist who is best known for her influential claims that satanic ritual abuse is widely practised in the UK. She was founding director of the Clinic for Dissociative Studies until her retirement from long-term clinical work in December 2016. Sinason is registered with the BPC, ACP, and UKCP. Dr Sinason specialises in working with abused, abusing, and dissociative patients and has appeared as an expert witness in court cases.

In 1994, Sinason edited a collection of essays entitled Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse (Sinason, V, 1994) that claimed satanic ritual abuse existed in the United Kingdom and that she had treated victims.

The substance of the attacks on the reality of organized abuse and torture of children always reduce to that old chestnut—it is unscientific. “Give us proof,” say the naysayers. “How is this different from reports of alien abduction?” say the clever-clever wags of Private Eye. Indeed. How is it different? In the case of alien abduction, we are asked to believe that visitors to this planet from outer space have kidnapped someone, taken them away, and brought them back. It is not believable.

In the case of ritual abuse, we are asked to believe that people can organize themselves into groups for the purpose of torturing children. There would seem to be a significant difference here in what we are asked to believe.” Valerie Sinason, Ritual Abuse and Mind Control: The Manipulation of Attachment Needs (Orit Badouk-Epstein, Joseph Schwartz, Rachel Wingfield Schwartz, 2011)

Despite Sinason's claims in 2001 and 2002 that she had clinical evidence for the widespread practice of satanic ritual abuse in the United Kingdom, a three-year Department of Health (UK) inquiry by the anthropologist Jean La Fontaine into 84 alleged cases of ritual abuse found no evidence to support them.

Jean La Fontaine commented on the story, saying: “It is not surprising to me that patients who are having treatment by Valerie Sinason would produce stories that echo such topical issues as the recent trial for receiving internet pornography and the publicity for the film Hannibal. There is good research that shows the “memories” of abuse are produced in and by the therapy.”

“I have stated elsewhere (Sinason 1994) that the number of children and adults tortured in the name of mainstream religious and racial orthodoxy outweighs any others. Wiccans, witches, warlocks, pagans, and satanists who are not abusive and practice a legally accepted belief system are increasingly concerned at the way criminal groups closely related to the drug and pornographic industries abuse their rituals.” Valerie Sinason, Attachment, Trauma, and Multiplicity: Working with Dissociative Identity Disorder (Valerie Sinason, 2002)

In April 2016, Dr. Sinason was awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award by the ISSTD¹²⁾ (International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation). In 2017, she was made a Fellow of the ISSTD, and in January 2019, she was elected to their Board of Directors.

Jean La Fontaine¹³⁾ (born 1931) is a British anthropologist and emeritus professor of the London School of Economics. She has done research in Africa and the UK, on topics including ritual, gender, child abuse, witchcraft, and satanism. In 1994 she wrote a government report: The Extent and Nature of Organised and Ritual Abuse.

She was born in France and received her undergraduate degree from the University of Oxford before completing a PhD in social anthropology at the University of Cambridge.

Throughout her career, La Fontaine has conducted extensive research on the social and cultural aspects of child abuse and child protection, with a particular focus on the role of cultural and religious beliefs in shaping attitudes towards abuse. She has also conducted research on a wide range of other topics, including gender and sexuality, violence, and the anthropology of law.

In addition to her research, La Fontaine has held a number of influential academic positions. She has served as Professor of Anthropology at the University of Sussex, the University of Durham, and the London School of Economics, and has held visiting professorships at universities around the world. She has also served as President of the Royal Anthropological Institute and as a member of various government committees and panels on child protection and other social issues.

La Fontaine's work has been widely recognised and respected within the field of anthropology, and she has received numerous awards and honours for her contributions. In addition to her academic work, she has also written and spoken extensively for a general audience on a range of topics related to anthropology and social issues.

It is over 20 years since the rash of allegations that rituals of devil worship, including the sexual abuse of children, the sacrifice, and (sometimes) eating, of animals, children, and even babies, as well as other extreme acts of depravity, were being conducted across the U.K.

In 1994 I reported to the Department of Health that in the 84 cases in England and Wales that were the basis of my research, I could find no supporting evidence for the existence of such a satanic cult.

The allegations have not stopped, however, although they no longer get the publicity they used to have as, officially, satanic or ritual abuse no longer exists. It is not mentioned in guidance to social workers on the subject of abuse of children. Jean La Fontaine. ¹⁴⁾

Elizabeth Loftus¹⁵⁾ (born 1944) is an American cognitive psychologist best known for her research on the misinformation effect, eyewitness memory, and the formation of false memories, including recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Loftus’s experimental and research findings are frequently used in legal settings, where she also serves as an expert witness on the subject of memory.

Through her work, Dr. Loftus has illuminated the malleability of memory and its tendency for distortion over time and through experience. Dr. Loftus has conducted experiments that created false memories through hypnotism, leading witnesses to falsely identify perpetrators in mock trials, and other methods that challenge our understanding of the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Her groundbreaking research findings have shed light on numerous legal cases involving witness testimony, demonstrating that our memories can be manipulated by outside influences. As such, her work continues to have an impact far beyond the realms of academia—affecting social sciences and public policy—and has led to her recognition as one of the most highly cited psychological scientists in history.

She recently made news for her involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein trial, having been hired as an expert witness by Epstein’s defense team. In her testimony, Loftus argued that circumstances of a person’s life can influence their memories, and that details of highly emotional events can easily be muddled and misinterpreted as time passes. While several attorneys attempted to challenge this notion, ultimately the jury rejected Loftus’s claims and found Epstein guilty on all counts.

“When we remember something, we're taking bits and pieces of experience - sometimes from different times and places - and bringing it all together to construct what might feel like a recollection but is actually a construction. The process of calling it into conscious awareness can change it, and now you're storing something that's different. We all do this, for example, by inadvertently adopting a story we've heard.” Elizabeth Loftus

Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria^{16) 17)} (Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters, 1994) is a 1994 book by Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters. Richard Ofshe is an American social psychologist known for his work on false confessions and coercive persuasion/mind control. He has testified as an expert witness in numerous trials. Ethan Watters is an American journalist and author who has written about psychiatry, culture, and beliefs. His other books include Crazy Like Us and The Invisible Bridge.

Making Monsters explores how certain interrogation tactics, belief systems, and societal influences can shape people's behaviours and lead to false accusations or even push vulnerable individuals over the edge into committing horrific acts. It is critical of recovered memory movements, allegations of abuse by Satanic cults, and multiple personality disorder diagnoses.

Victims of Memory: Sex Abuse Accusations and Shattered Lives(Pendergrast, Mark, 1996) is a non-fiction book written by Mark Pendergrast, published in 1995. The book delves into the controversial and complex topic of repressed and recovered memories of sexual abuse, primarily focusing on cases that emerged during the 1980s and 1990s.

In Victims of Memory, Pendergrast explores the phenomenon of individuals recalling traumatic memories of childhood sexual abuse that had supposedly been repressed or forgotten. He examines various cases where people suddenly remembered these incidents during therapy sessions or other interventions. The book raises questions about the reliability of these memories, the influence of therapy techniques on their formation, and the potential for false memories to be implanted or distorted.

Pendergrast discusses how these accusations of sexual abuse led to legal and personal consequences for both the accused and the accusers. The book also delves into the broader societal and psychological factors that played a role in the widespread belief in repressed memories during that era.

Mark Pendergrast, the author, is known for his works in various subjects, including psychology, history, and cultural studies. He's recognised for his in-depth research and investigative approach to complex topics. Victims of Memory is one of his notable works that critically examines the repressed memory phenomenon and its implications.

Suggestions of Abuse: True and False Memories of Childhood Sexual Trauma¹⁸⁾ (Yapko, Michael D, 1994) is a book by Michael Yapko, a clinical psychologist and expert in hypnosis. The book explores the phenomenon of recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse, and argues that many of these memories are false. Yapko contends that false memories can be created through a variety of factors, including suggestive questioning by therapists, exposure to media reports of abuse, and the desire to believe that one has been abused.

The book was published in 1994, at a time when there was a growing public awareness of the issue of childhood sexual abuse. However, there was also a great deal of controversy surrounding the issue, with some people believing that recovered memories were always accurate and others believing that they were often false. Yapko's book was one of the first to offer a comprehensive and critical examination of the recovered memory phenomenon.

The book has been praised by some for its balanced and objective approach and for its contribution to the debate on recovered memories. However, it has also been criticised by some for its scepticism of recovered memories.

Here are some of the key points that Yapko makes in the book:

• Recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse are often unreliable.
• There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that repressed memories can be recovered.
• False memories can be created through a variety of factors, including suggestive questioning, exposure to media reports of abuse, and the desire to believe that one has been abused.
• Therapists should be cautious about accepting recovered memories as accurate.
• People who believe that they may have been abused as children should seek professional help to evaluate their memories.

Suggestions of Abuse is a controversial book, but it is an important contribution to the debate on recovered memories. The book provides a balanced and objective overview of the issue, and it raises important questions about the reliability of recovered memories.

Michael Yapko is a clinical psychologist and expert in hypnosis and is a past president of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis. He has written ten books as sole author, including Breaking the Patterns of Depression and Hand-Me-Down Blues. Michael Yapko is a recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Society of Hypnosis.

The British False Memory Society¹⁹⁾ (BFMS) is a registered UK charity formed in 1993 to deal with issues relating to false memory.

• The BFMS aims to raise public awareness of the inherent dangers of false memory by disseminating relevant information through newsletters and articles in learned journals; organising seminars and conferences; and, when appropriate, assisting the media to produce suitable articles and programmes.
• The BFMS collaborates with professional organisations, for example, to encourage the highest standards in the training and practice of psychotherapy and counselling.
• The BFMS incorporates a telephone helpline to support families affected by the phenomenon of false memory. The Society also offers advice and access to legal assistance.
• The BFMS aims to improve the understanding of false memory by encouraging, sponsoring, conducting and publishing academic and professional research.

The British False Memory Society (BFMS) closed its operations in 2022 due to changing membership and lack of resources. Founded in 1993, the society endeavoured to provide help, advice and support to anyone who felt they had been impacted by False Memory Syndrome or a related issue circulating in media and scientific discussion at the time. The organisation brought together a great deal of research on false memory impacts, with information emanating from victims and carers, legal professionals, academics and clinicians. Despite remaining active online via social media since its closure, the BFMS could no longer provide the same level of assistance it once did due to diminishing resources.