Prince Andrew to employ Ghislaine Maxwell’s failed ‘False Memory Syndrome’ Defence & CIA Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus

CIA Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus was a member of the USA False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), an organisation founded by CIA MKULTRA psychiatrist Martin Orne and his fellow pedophiles to cover up the global child sex trafficking operation coordinated by the joint military intelligence agency.

The FMSF was the brainchild of Lt. Col. Michael Aquino who headed the U.S. Army Psychological Operations based in Fort Bragg. The FMSF was dissolved in late 2019 following my five-year social media campaign against it, and after the military’s replacement PSYOP was up and running. The replacement was QAnon. Consequently, victims of the CIA’s global child sex trafficking operation who were rented to and raped by VIPs including business men, politicians and royalty, are now labelled right-wing QAnon conspiracy nutters.

The CIA adopted me as QAnon’s poster child after a knife-wielding CIA asset failed to take me out during my 2016 lecture tour of the USA. QAnon made specific reference to my writings, particularly my ‘Watergate was Pedogate’ article. I was never part of QAnon, despite my association with QAnon followers including CIA asset Isaac Kappy. Kappy was murdered by a former Seal Team 6 assassin he reached out to for help, after he failed to set me up for arrest and internment in MI6 MKULTRA psychiatrist Paul Mullen’s Fixated Persons Units (located in three Australian states). Mullen was employed by the Royal Family to conceal Prince Andrew’s pedophile crimes. UK victims of VIP child trafficking are interned in Mullen’s London based Fixated Person’s Unit.

Elizabeth Loftus is a psychologist and professor at the University of California. Loftus has never worked as a therapist and never treated traumatised child rape victims. Yet she has testified for the defence of accused pedophiles in 150 criminal trials. Loftus has testified or consulted on behalf of Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Michael Jackson and numerous other alleged rapists.

In my book EYES WIDE OPEN, I wrote a comprehensive critique of Elizabeth Loftus, the FMSF, and Loftus’ legacy in Australia where VIP pedophiles escape prosecution and victims of government sponsored child sex trafficking can’t find therapeutic support. The information in my book was originally submitted to the federal Child Sex Abuse Royal Commission who commended the information which, they said, they were previously unaware of. An excerpt from that chapter can be read below.

As someone who has exposed the discredited Elizabeth Loftus’ and her gangrenous False Memory Syndrome writings and scientifically invalid and unethical ‘research’ for decades, I was delighted with the prosecution’s efforts in the Ghislaine Maxwell’s child sex trafficking case, and their success in exposing Loftus’ lies.

In the Ghislaine Maxwell case, the prosecution did a brilliant job of differentiating between benign memories that were tested in Loftus’ substandard research projects – and traumatic memories of being repeatedly raped throughout one’s development.

On cross-examination, the prosecution showed Loftus her research project in which she tried implanting a false memory of a rectal enema. The prosecutor asked Loftus:

“Isn’t it true that not a single participant later claimed to have this memory?”

Loftus: “Yes.”

“Isn’t it true that you attempted to implant a memory of an invasive procedure and you failed?”

“Yes.”

Prosecutor: Isn’t it correct that when a traumatic event occurs, the core memory of that event becomes seared into the brain of the victim, in fragments or flashes – that although the details may necessarily be hazy because traumatic memories are difficult for the brain to process, the core event itself is not easily confused?

Loftus” “Yes.”

Prosecution: And that’s why you cannot implant a false memory of a rectal enema — something that the brain registers as invasive or traumatic.

Loftus: “Yes.”

The prosecutor hammered another Loftus study in which a statistically insignificant number (16%) of subjects were falsely convinced through suggestion that they met Bugs Bunny on a childhood trip to Disneyland, and concluded “This is not a case about Bugs Bunny.”

The prosecution raised another Loftus study in which subjects watched a car wreck video and were confused via suggestion about whether a road sign in the film read either STOP or YIELD. The prosecution concluded: “This case is not about the difference between a stop sign and a yield sign.”

So, Elizabeth Loftus and her bogus research failed to stop the conviction of CIA child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell – who just happened to hold a submarine licence and all those other skills typically found in military intelligence agent scum.

In the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, the defence introduced a new take on Elizabeth Loftus’ False Memory Syndrome theory – that a desire for cash could implant an entirely false traumatic memory. That argument failed, yet the same defence is being employed in Prince Andrew’s upcoming trial.

Here is the excerpt from my book EYES WIDE OPEN concerning Elizabeth Loftus:

ELIZABETH LOFTUS: CIA PSYCHOLOGIST

Royal Commissioner James Wood used the gangrenous writings of CIA psychologist Elizabeth Loftus to dismiss multiple witness accounts of organised pedophilia and ritual abuse. Wood’s Final Report referenced Loftus’ 1994 book, The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse, to support his conclusions: 

  1. ‘False memories’ of Ritual Abuse can be artificially created as a result of third person suggestion,
  2. A victim of Ritual Abuse can’t experience dissociation and repression of traumatic memories, and 
  3. Ritual Abuse victims are female ‘attention-seeking’ hypochondriacs whose flashbacks may be attributed to overly zealous female therapists. 

Loftus’ 1994 book was not a scientifically conducted, peer reviewed research publication. It was just a book. At the time of her 1994 book release, Loftus had published one study relevant to her ‘false memory’ theory, an experiment which examined university students’ memory for films of car accidents.[1] 

In 1995, Loftus co-published the notorious Lost in a Shopping Mall study.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Loftus’ assigned University of Washington postgraduate student James Coan as chief co-investigator for her mall study. Subjects’ family members were asked to provide James Coan with three true childhood stories about the subjects, and to describe a typical family shopping trip. Based on the shopping trip descriptions, a false story was created for each subject about getting lost as a child during a shopping trip. Subjects were told their family members said the events ‘had happened.’ The subjects were asked to repeat the stories and to try and remember more details. Finally, the subjects were told that one of the memories was false and asked to choose the false memory. 

Elizabeth Loftus conducted and published this research before receiving ethical approval for the study. Loftus added a second interview plus another evaluation scale to the research protocol long after the study was approved on 10 August 1992. 

James Coan reported in his 1993 honours thesis that only 6/24 subjects completed the study, and zero subjects created a false memory.[7] [8] Crook and Dean (1999) analysed Loftus’ data and discovered only 2/24 subjects likely completed the study.[9] First year psychology students are taught, a minimum of n=10 subjects is required for valid statistical analysis. So, Loftus blatantly lied when she reported: ‘Of the 24 total, 19 subjects correctly chose the getting-lost memory as the false one, while the remaining five incorrectly thought that one of the true events was the false one… These findings reveal that people can be led to believe that entire events happened to them after suggestions to that effect.’[10]

The raw data from the shopping mall study were subpoenaed by defence attorneys in Burgus v. Braun. Loftus successfully obtained a gag order for her fraudulent data. The case settled on 31 October 1997 and the data returned to Loftus.Elizabeth Loftus published another lab experiment in 1996.[11] This examined, ‘whether imagining events from one’s past can affect memory for childhood events.’ A total of 38 undergraduate psychology students (young female university students studying the same course) participated in the study for course credit. Loftus asked the students to imagine described events such as tripping over or falling through a window.

The characteristics of Elizabeth Loftus’ samples made it inappropriate for her to generalise findings from her studies to the population at large. And yet Loftus drew conclusions from these severely flawed studies about the reliability of child abuse memories, and the possibility that a parent or therapist could create false memories of child abuse in a person who has experienced trauma of the most severe kind. Loftus basically equated a psychology student’s experience of watching a car crash film or imagining themselves falling over – with real life accounts of being systematically raped and tortured throughout one’s development. That is beyond preposterous.

Elizabeth Loftus’ conclusions failed to hold up under cross examination. In 1994, Lynn Crook successfully sued Loftus. Lawyer Barbara Jo Levy asked Loftus, ‘If you are asked to testify about your experiments of implanting false memories, would you use those first six?’ Loftus replied, ‘No, I don’t think I will use the first six’ (Transcript, p.61).

In December 1995, two women filed ethics complaints against Elizabeth Loftus with the American Psychological Association, claiming she had misrepresented their successful recalled-memory lawsuits to the media. Loftus resigned from the APA in January 1996, so the APA dropped their investigation.

Washington Post article entitled, In the Sharon Case, a Grilling to Remember (27 October 2006) described a damning cross examination of Elizabeth Loftus:

But when Fitzgerald got his chance to cross-examine Loftus about her findings, he had her stuttering to explain her own writings and back pedalling from her earlier assertions. Citing several of her publications, footnotes and the work of her peers, Fitzgerald got Loftus to acknowledge that the methodology she had used at times in her long academic career was not that scientific, that her conclusions about memory were conflicting, and that she had exaggerated a figure and a statement from her survey of D.C. jurors that favoured the defence.

In 2003, Nicole Tau successfully sued Loftus for invasion of privacy. At age six years, during a videotaped interview by a medical doctor, Tau had accused her mother of child abuse. Tau subsequently forgot her abuse but spontaneously recalled it at age 17 years. Corwin and Olafson (1997) published an article about the case, favouring the notion that repressed memory of childhood abuse can be recalled. Elizabeth Loftus set out to discredit Tau by hiring a private investigator to locate Tau. The PI lied to Tau’s family by pretending to be Corwin’s research assistant. Loftus subsequently published an article based on the PI’s interviews with Tau’s family in which she identified Tau as a victim of crime. Tau filed an ethics complaint against Loftus in 1999 with the University of Washington who upheld the complaint.During a 2013 TED Talk about memory, Loftus intentionally misrepresented the basic facts of Nicole Tau’s case by saying it was about a ‘woman’ who ‘accused her mother of sexual abuse based on a repressed memory.’ Loftus knowingly omitted crucial facts of the case: that Tau was six years old when she made the report, then forgot the memory, and then spontaneously and accurately recalled the memory 11 years later at age 17 years.

LOFTUS LEGACY IN AUSTRALIA

Elizabeth Loftus was discredited, professionally disciplined, and successfully sued in the USA for her blatant lack of ethical conduct and unscientific methodology. Despite this, Loftus’ unproven opinion regarding memory: (a) was the basis for Royal Commissioner James Wood’s dismissal of multiple independent reports of Ritual Abuse; (b) provides the Australian blueprint for dismissing the nature and existence of extreme child abuse within mental health, education, and forensics; and (c) underpins all psychology teaching and educational texts in Australia. Most Australian psychology textbooks are American imports. Mine were. A 2014 study examined three undergraduate psychology textbooks and found, all three concluded that child abuse memories are likely false.[1] All three textbooks referenced Loftus’ writings. Owing to this unfounded and illogical embracement of Loftus’ opinion:

  • Australian universities and educational materials teach psychology students that most child abuse memories are false, and repressed trauma memories are particularly unreliable.
  • Regulatory bodies deter psychologists from acknowledging the validity of repressed child abuse memories and working with implicit trauma memories.
  • Australian psychology students receive no training in the Trauma Model approach.
  • Australian therapists receive zero training in recognising or treating ritual abuse and mind control.
  • NSW Victims of Crime counselling services forbade the use of scientifically validated, effective tools like EMDR for processing implicit abuse memories (until I publicly accused them of withholding treatment). A therapist can only use EMDR if they tape the sessions; yet this is not required for other, less effective treatment modalities.
  • University criminology lecturers do not teach future Australian law enforcement officials that child trafficking is run as a single, integrated global operation.