Expert Witnesses, Dissociative Amnesia, and Extraordinary Remembering: Response to Brand et al.

Abstract

Brand et al.'s (2018) response-as well as previous works by some of the authors-reveal a recurrent and concerning picture of using lengthy, but flawed, arguments to promote the concept of dissociative amnesia. Our focus here is not so much on the weak-to-moderate correlation between measures of trauma and dissociation-we concentrate more on the weak evidence for dissociative amnesia. If triers of fact accept there is a correlation between trauma and feeling depersonalized or experiencing memory errors, we foresee relatively few legal consequences. However, if the leap is made to accept that trauma causes dissociative amnesia (or dissociative identity disorder) then it opens the door to repressed memory testimony being trusted in the courtroom, which in the past has had negative consequences. The problem with the concept and theory of dissociative amnesia is that there is an easy-to-miss claim of extraordinary remembering that contradicts findings and theories in memory research. Incorrect beliefs in such extraordinary remembering that can have severe repercussions in court. We document some areas of agreement with Brand et al., but reiterate that there is a lack of evidence for the mechanisms proposed in dissociative amnesia.

The Return of the Repressed: The Persistent and Problematic Claims of Long-Forgotten Trauma

“…The possibility of head injury causing memory impairment is particularly relevant here, especially because Harrison et al found that a history of head injury was common in the “psychogenic” cases. In addition, Harrison et al did not establish whether psychological shock or trauma caused the reported memory problems or that any recalled memories really were inaccessible for a period of time (see also Patihis, Otgaar, & Merckelbach, 2019).…”

Dissociative Amnesia beyond the Evidence about the Functioning of Memory

“…The controversy surrounding dissociative amnesia within forensic contexts has reopened an interesting discussion (Brand et al, 2018;Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017;Merckelbach, & Patihis, 2018;Patihis, Ho, Loftus, & Herrera, 2018;Patihis, Otgaar, & Merckelbach, 2019), under the denomination of memory wars (Loftus, 2004), that had been closed for some time (Freyd, Klest, & DePrince, 2010;Lindblom & Gray, 2010;Loftus, 1993;Loftus & Ketcham, 1996;Memon & Young, 1997).…”

“…This discussion is relevant in forensic contexts, where the acceptance of the phenomenon of repressed and later recovered memories can lead to judicial errors as, in reality, they were false memories caused by bad practices when trying to get victims to "remember" facts that had not taken place (Loftus, 2004). However, it should not be limited to whether the courts accept these theories or not (Patihis et al, 2019), as this area should be very clear. The theory about repressed memories or dissociative amnesias does not meet the criteria established in Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993); therefore, it should not be taken into consideration by the courts, because of the noise and misinformation generated among professionals due to the lack of agreements on the scientific evidence.…”

“…For this reason, other types of samples have been sought. As pointed out by Patihis et al (2019), the study of victims of wars and catastrophes could provide more information on the characteristics of traumatic memories, as it is easier to establish the reality of the traumatic experience. However, in these samples, it is not always easy to rule out unwanted effects of uncontrolled variables (organic damage, drug effects or pharmacological treatments, sleep deficits, nutritional deficiencies, etc.…”

DID in resurgence, not retreat

“…An empirical study specifically using verified childhood sexual abuse also contradicts it (Alexander 2005). Dissociative amnesia/DID sceptics agree that trauma may cause depersonalisation and memory errors but contend that there is no evidence for dissociative amnesia – even though it is now embedded in the pantheon of diagnoses in DSM-5 (Patihis 2019). They observe that dissociative amnesia requires a traumatic event to be: (a) accurately encoded and stored, (b) blocked from awareness – owing to the traumatic event – and (c) accurately retrieved in pristine form.…”