Elizabeth Loftus dared to write an article in the Skeptical Inquirer critically examining questionable claims of recovered memory abuse (Aug. 26, 2004); justices seemed skeptical of the argument Nicole Taus shouldn’t be allowed to sue for Loftus’s alleged misrepresentations to obtain information, which scares media lawyers: “Although journalists generally identify themselves truthfully, ruling for Taus would ‘create a motive’ for news sources unhappy about their portrayals ‘to belatedly contend that the reporter obtained the information by misrepresentation,’ lawyers for the media argued.” Loftus denies lying, but, at the dismissal stage, the Court assumes the allegations of the complaint are true. Whether Veronica Mars would be sued into next week is left as an exercise for the reader. (Maura Dolan, “High court considers privacy issue”, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 6).
2 Comments
After taking a course in clinical hypnosis I have concluded that ANY memory testimony can be completely false regardless of how firmly the person believes it to be factual.
At Thanksgiving dinner I related a favorite memory of some of my siblings. Even though this wasn’t a “recovered memory” my siblings both said that what I remembered didn’t happen. This is very rare for me but it has happended before, and I know of it happening to everyone I have ever discussed the subject with. One day when “Recovered Memory” is throughly debunked people will be asking,”Do we get our money back?”