Professional Documents
Culture Documents
” … Jennifer Hoult (a concert harpist living in New York) and Lynn Crook
(a Washington State consultant) each filed separate complaints with the
APA, alleging that Loftus mischaracterized the facts of their legal cases in
published articles. Both women brought successful civil suits because of
the sexual abuse that the fathers (and the mother, in Crook’s case)
perpetrated against them during their childhoods. … In her complaint,
Hoult alleges that Loftus used distortion and misstatement of fact to
seriously misrepresent Hoult’s legal case. … Hoult argues that Loftus used
her scientific credentials in an unscientific effort to trivialize her memories
of violent abuse. ‘I’ve proven the charges against my father in a court of
law,’ … “
In December 1995, two women filed ethics complaints with the American Psychological
Association (APA) against Elizabeth Loftus, PhD, regarding her published statements about
two legal cases involving delayed memories of sexual abuse. Citing procedural
considerations, however, the APA has declined to investigate the women’s ethics
complaints.
Jennifer Hoult (a concert harpist living in New York) and Lynn Crook (a Washington State
consultant) each filed separate complaints with the APA, alleging that Loftus
mischaracterized the facts of their legal cases in published articles. Both women brought
successful civil suits because of the sexual abuse that the fathers (and the mother, in Crook’s
case) perpetrated against them during their childhoods. At their trials, they presented
corroborative evidence that met the requirements for judicial proof of their allegations.
Loftus serves on the Scientific and Professional Advisory Board of the False Memory
Syndrome Foundation, Inc (FMSF). She also had been an active member of the APA since
1973, but she resigned in January 1996, shortly after the filing of the complaints. In a brief
telephone interview with TREATING ABUSE TODAY, Loftus confirmed her resignation
from the APA, but she denied any knowledge of the ethics complaints. She also cautioned that
TREATING ABUSE TODAY should not state or imply that she resigned from the APA to
avoid investigation of the ethics complaints.
When the ethic complaints were filed against Loftus, Jeffrey N. Younggren, PhD chaired
the APA Ethics Committee. During his tenure in this position, Younggren appeared as
an expert witness in many trials involving so-called “false memory syndrome,” generally
as a witness for accused perpetrators or against therapists accused of implanting “false
memories.” At the time Hoult and Crook filed their complaints, Younggren and Loftus
were both working as expert witnesses on the same side of the same case. When asked
about this coincidence, however, Loftus stated that she had no knowledge of the fact, because
she worked on many cases simultaneously and didn’t always know which expert witnesses
were scheduled to testify in any particular case.
Responding to a query from Crook regarding the relations between Loftus and Younggren,
Marguerite Schroeder, a senior investigator in the APA Ethics Office, stated that, if
Younggren had faced such a conflict of interest, he would have recused himself from the
matter. She further stated that Younggren hadn’t been made aware of the ethics complaints
against Loftus, and so had played no role in the decisions regarding them. According,
however, to the Rules and Procedures of the APA Ethics Office, “complaints are evaluated
initially by the Chair of the Ethics Committee [Younggren] and Director of the Ethics
Office” (“Rules,” 1992, p. 1614). Crook and Hoult filed their complaints on or before
December 18, 1995, and Loftus submitted her resignation on January 16, 1996. In her
response to Crook’s query, Schroeder offered no explanation as to why Younggren hadn’t
been informed of the two complaints, even though they were filed nearly a month before
Loftus’s resignation.
According to both Crook and Hoult, Schroeder stated that APA policy generally bars the
resignation of members when they’re under the scrutiny of the Ethics Committee. Schroeder,
however, further stated that Loftus hadn’t yet come under the Committee’s scrutiny, and that
she hadn’t been informed of the complaints against her, even though Crook and Hoult filed
their complaints nearly a month before Loftus submitted her resignation.
Based on these procedural considerations, the APA Office of Ethics declined to investigate
the ethics charges. Schroeder told Crook and Hoult that it’s “unusual”
for a member to resign in the timeframe between receipt of a
complaint and a committee decision regarding appropriate action.
When such a resignation does occur, however, Schroeder indicated that
the APA no longer has any authority to pursue ethics complaints
against the member.
REMEMBERING DUBIOUSLY
In her complaint, Hoult alleges that Loftus used distortion and misstatement of fact to
seriously misrepresent Hoult’s legal case. In 1988 Hoult brought a civil suit against her father,
alleging that he had raped and otherwise sexually abused her throughout her childhood. After
several years of legal wrangling, the case finally went to trial in June 1993. On July 1, 1993,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of Jennifer Hoult, awarding her $500,000 for the suffering
caused by her father’s incestuous abuse. All higher courts have upheld the jury’s decision,
including the first circuit appellate court. When Hoult’s father petitioned the US Supreme
Court, his petition was rejected as untimely. At some point during all these proceedings,
Hoult’s father joined the FMSF.
Hoult also alleges that Loftus used mischaracterization and omission of facts to
misconstrue Hoult’s legal case against her father. She pointed out many inaccuracies that
support this allegation. In the article, for instance, Loftus claims that “Jennifer was a 23-year-
old musician who recovered memories in therapy of her father raping her from the time she
was 4″ (1995, p. 26). Actually, Hoult began to remember the abuse at 24, at which time she
was an artificial intelligence software engineer. Records in the case show that the bulk of her
memories emerged outside of therapy. Furthermore, Hoult never stated that the rapes began
when she was four, a “fact” apparently created by Loftus for the purposes of her article.
In another passage, Loftus claims that Hoult “remembered one time when she was raped in
the bathroom and went to her mother wrapped in a towel with blood dripping” (1995, p. 27).
A review of court records, however, shows that Loftus has added two elements of her own
making: the memory of the rape itself (the trial transcript shows that Hoult never claimed to
remember a “rape”) and the blood-soaked towel (again the transcript shows that Hoult only
reported a small amount of blood between her legs, which wasn’t visible to the mother until
Hoult dropped the towel from around her body). Hoult argues that these misstatements by
Loftus put her in violation of several APA ethics guidelines, among them ethics in media
presentations and ethics regarding matters of law.
In October 1991, Lynn Crook brought a civil suit against her parents based on her delayed
memories of childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by her parents. Loftus testified as an expert
witness for the defense. On March 4, 1994, the judge in the case ruled in Crook’s favor,
awarding her $149,580 in damages against her parents, who chose not to appeal the case to
any higher court.
Among other ethical concerns, Crook alleges that Loftus introduces the idea of memory
progression (“from . . . to”), even though this claim had failed to hold up during the trial
itself. During Crook’s trial, Richard Ofshe, PhD, another prominent FMSF board member
who testified for the defense, claimed to see a “progression” in her memories that called them
into doubt. The judge in the case specifically dismissed Ofshe’s attempt to cry “false
memory” based on memory progression:
Finally, Dr. Ofshe characterizes plaintiff’s memories as a progress toward ritual, satanic cult
images, which he states fits a pattern he has observed of false memories. It appears to the
Court, however, that in this regard, he is engaging in the same exercise for which he
criticizes therapists dealing with repressed memory. Just as he accuses them of resolving
at the outset to find repressed memories of abuse and then constructing them, he has resolved
at the outset to find a macabre scheme of memories progressing toward satanic cult ritual and
then creates them. (Lynn Crook v. Bruce Murphy and Lucille Murphy, Superior Court of the
State of Washington In and For the County of Benton, #91-2-0011-2-5) Despite the judge’s
statement, rendered from the bench, Loftus resurrected the “progression theory” in the
PSYCHOLOGY TODAY article. According to Crook, Loftus should have indicated that her
opinion had been rejected by the court, and that her failure to do so constitutes a violation of
APA ethics guidelines dealing with truth and candor.
According to Crook, Loftus also transformed another memory, her recollection of the event
involving the horse. In the quoted passage, Loftus does seem to imply that the memory
involving the horse emerged as an elaboration and distortion of Crook’s earlier memory
involving her father, an implication that Crook denies. Crook also points out that Loftus
omitted important information given by the veterinarian who testified during the trial.
Though Loftus chose to present the possibility of anal penetration of the horse as a wholly
fantastical absurdity, the veterinarian (who testified for the defense) pointed out that it’s a
common practice in veterinary medicine.
JUST TO BE BELIEVED
Crook told TREATING ABUSE TODAY that she hopes Loftus will be asked to corroborate all
cases that she reports to the media. “I’m dismayed,” she stated, “that Loftus would use her
position as an expert witness in my case to try to prove to the public that I was yet another
victim of ‘repressed memory’ therapy.” Crook further stated that PSYCHOLOGY TODAY
should have contacted her to check the facts of the case before they published Neimark’s
article.
Loftus in fact cites scientific considerations as the reason for her resignation from the APA. In
her letter of resignation, she claims that the organization had “moved away from scientific and
scholarly thinking.” Loftus further stated that she had decided to resign “to devote her
energies to the numerous other professional organizations that value science more highly and
more consistently.” During her tenure as an APA member, Loftus served “as President of two
distinguished divisions (Experimental Psychology and Psychology/Law),” a fact she points
out in her letter of resignation.
Alice Eagly, PhD, who presently chairs the APA Board of Scientific Affairs, expressed
puzzlement over Loftus’s abrupt resignation from the APA. Eagly dismissed Loftus’s attempt
to draw a “global judgment” regarding APA’s commitment to science. She pointed out that
the APA fosters a great many scientific endeavors, and that it publishes the premiere scientific
journals in psychology.
Loftus stated in her resignation letter that she resigned largely because of the increasing drift
of the APA “away from scientific and scholarly thinking and . . . towards therapeutic and
professional guild interests.” The APA, however, recently approved the FMSF as a continuing
education sponsor, [for more information on the APA's action, please see "APA Approves
FMSF as CE Sponsor" in the same issue of TREATING ABUSE TODAY (Vol 5 No 6/Vol 6
No 1).] and one of Loftus’s colleagues on the FMSF Scientific and Professional Advisory
Board (Ulric Neisser, PhD) also serves on the APA Board of Scientific Affairs. Neisser
declined to comment on Loftus’s resignation. TREATING ABUSE TODAY sent written
requests for comment to the other members of the Board of Scientific Affairs; with the
exception of Eagly, none responded.
Peter Freyd, PhD, co-founder of the FMSF, issued a puzzling Internet statement (February 8,
1996) regarding Loftus’s resignation. Under the subject heading, “It’s their stupidity, stupid,”
Freyd stated:
The RMT ["recovered memory therapy"] people certainly go in for believing whatever
rumors they like. For the record: there are no ethics complaints against Elizabeth Loftus. She
resigned from the APA because it has moved too far from science. From his brief statement,
Freyd appears to endorse Loftus’s claim that the APA no longer holds a strong, consistent
commitment to science. The APA, however, recently recognized Freyd’s organization as a
continuing education sponsor, a move that many see as evidence of Loftus’s claim that the
APA has indeed moved away from science by entering into a partnership with an organization
(the FMSF) that promulgates pseudoscience. Pamela Freyd, PhD, the FMSF executive
director, declined to comment on the ethics charges filed against Loftus and her resignation
from the APA.
REFERENCES
TREATING ABUSE TODAY has granted permission for Internet users to post this
article onto other mailing lists and home pages. However, the publisher asks that this file
be posted without revision and in its entirety.
Source: http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/ethics-complaints-filed-against-
elizabeth-loftus-board-member-of-the-false-memory-syndrome-foundation-a-cia-mind-
controlpedophile-front