And now for a quick look at the other four questions we posed to Pamela Freyd last summer in the hopes of receiving an answer before the FMSF issued what was apparently their final newsletter. As detailed in the post below, Pamela went to great lengths to try to maintain the false impression that the Johnson case was about recovered memory therapy. It was not. As for the other for questions:
1. We asked, will you correct the record about the use of Betrayal Trauma Theory in court? You falsely insinuated that Betrayal Trauma Theory was not accepted in court, when in fact, as documented here, it has passed the Daubert test? Pamela’s answer is that it “remains to be seen how this theory will be accepted in various cases.” But the question was not whether Mrs. Freyd could predicate the future, it was whether she would acknowledge that Betrayal Trauma theory had already been accepted under the Daubert standard, as documented in our post. Pamela Freyd is apparently unwilling to make a simple statement acknowledging that fact. Daubert cases have great significance to the Foundation if they favor their views; otherwise, they apparently do not count. Readers can decide if that is science or politics.
2. We asked, will you acknowledge the evidence of guilt against serial child molester, Billy Banks, who was embraced by the FMSF? The Foundation’s newsletter reported on his case without mentioning the evidence of guilt, which is documented here, including the recent charges, to which he pleaded guilty, that did not even involve adults. Pamela’s answer is to claim that the case was not “embraced.” Readers can decide for themselves whether the FMSF embraced the case, given that they have never written with approval about any recovered memory case, no matter how strong the evidence. But again, the question was whether Pamela would acknowledge the evidence of guilt in the Banks case. Apparently, she will not even though the Foundation pretends to care about the facts of individual cases. So, once again, Pamela, will you acknowledge the evidence of guilt in this case?
3. We asked, will you acknowledge that Wayne Sargent, mentioned favorably in the FMSF newsletter, admitted, as documented here, that his “false memory” defense was a ruse? Pamela’s answer is that this case was not “mentioned favorably.” Readers can decide for themselves whether the FMSF mention was favorable, given that they have never written with approval about any recovered memory case, no matter how strong the evidence. But again, the question was whether Pamela would acknowledge the evidence of guilt. Her “answer” evades that question. Apparently, acknowledging the phony use of a “false memory ” defense is something that Freyd cannot do, even though she claims to be interested in the facts of particular cases. Once again, Pamela, will you acknowledge the evidence of guilt in this case?
4. We asked, will you acknowledge that memories recovered in therapy led to the conviction of Calvin Huss, who, as documented here, confessed to the crimes? Pamela’s answer is that this case was never mentioned in the FMSF newsletter. We know that it was not mentioned. That is why we asked. The Foundation has a way of avoiding all cases and evidence that contradict their beliefs. But the question was whether she would acknowledge the evidence of guilt. Again, the answer is apparently no. A scientific view would, of course, take this evidence seriously. The FMSF chooses not to engage the facts.