Letter

Dear Sir,

In his letter to the editor, Mollon states that my review of his book (Remembering Trauma) contains some ‘alarming distortions and misrepresentations of what [he] wrote’ (p. 1). In particular, he denies my contention that he wrote pejoratively about the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), he challenges my scepticism about the evidence for ritual abuse, and he argues that I have saddled him with a belief he does not have, namely that implicit memory operates as a kind of recorder of traumatic sights and sounds. Let me reply to these items in turn.

Mollon is correct that, when he refers specifically to the FMSF, his comments are not indignant. He seems to have missed, however, a number of parenthetical references to ‘false memory societies’ (pp. 45, 48, 62, 87, 165), which bracket information and points of view that he criticises. Inasmuch as these asides are completely gratuitous, one might regard their inclusion as disparaging. This attitude towards false memory societies was more visible between the lines than within them.

As a challenge to my relative, and presumably biased certainty, Mollon returns to the issue of ritual abuse. He repeats his quotation from Lanning, the government agent in charge of the criminal investigation of ritual abuse in America. Readers unfamiliar with the Lanning article from which this is drawn might be surprised by Lanning's unequivocal later summary statement in a concluding paragraph:

There is little or no evidence for the portion of their allegations that deals with large-scale baby breeding, human sacrifice, and organised satanic conspiracies. Now it is up to mental health professions, not law enforcement, to explain why victims are alleging things that don't seem to be true (1991, p. 173; ‘Commentary: ritual abuse: a law enforcement view or perspective’. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15:171-3).

And in the time since Lanning's report appeared, I have found no credible evidence to give any support to keeping an open mind about ri