False Memory Defense: Using Disinformation and Junk Science In and Out of Court

• NCJ Number: 194442
• Journal: Journal of Child Sexual Abuse Volume: 9 Issue: 3/4 Dated: 2001 Pages: 53-78
• Author(s): Charles L. Whitfield
• Date Published: 2001
• Length: 26 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Research Paper
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

An overview of the variety of elements that may be included in the presentation of a "false memory" defense to sexual abuse allegations is presented in this article.

Abstract

The article provides a description of the make-up and use of the "false memory defense" to child sexual abuse allegations and provides a comparison of the characteristics and assumptions represented in the defense to scientific information concerning the nature and function of human memory as affected by trauma. An overview of 22 commonly used components of the false memory defense is provided. In order for the defense to be employed, not all 22 tactics have to be used. The components of the defense include: the "looking good" defense (the accused is an upstanding member of society and therefore cannot be guilty of the abuse), the presentation of the accused as the real victim of the defense, placing blame for the abuse on third parties, blaming the victim, using the testimony of a false memory expert witness, the inappropriate introduction of satanic ritual abuse, taking quotes and citations out of context, relying on biased articles or opinions as a source of evidence, intentionally misinterpreting the effects of trauma on memory and psychopathology, negating the existence of dissociative amnesia, claiming "childhood amnesia" to refute early childhood memories of abuse, presenting ulterior motives as the reason for the child sexual abuse allegations, proposing other explanations for the accuser’s mental and physical symptoms of abuse, combining "common sense" with the "law of probability" in making defense arguments, use of pseudo-scientific jargon, use of special categories and syndromes to describe the accuser or their mental state in the absence of objective scientific support for the existence of those categories or syndromes, attempting to discredit every corroborating witness, erroneously equating retraction with proof that the accusations are false, trying to impeach other witnesses, trying to intimidate or impeach the plaintiff’s expert witness, and finally, playing on society’s individual and collective wishes and doubts regarding child sexual abuse. 2 tables, 2 figures, 92 references