The Jane Doe case is an influential childhood sexual abuse and recovered memory case study published by psychiatrist David Corwin and Erna Olafson (1997). The case was important in regards to repressed and recovered traumatic memories because, being a well-documented study, it had the potential to provide evidence for the existence of the phenomena. The case served as an educational example of childhood sexual abuse and recovered traumatic memory. Elizabeth Loftus and Melvin J. Guyer later expressed serious concerns about its background and validity. The original article appeared in Child Maltreatment in 1997, accompanied by a series of articles by five additional psychologists and memory experts: Paul Ekman, Stephen Lindsay, Ulrich Neisser, Frank W. Putnam, and Jonathan W. Schooler, giving their own comments and interpretations about the case.
Background
First interviews Forensic psychologist David Corwin first interviewed Jane Doe in 1984 at age six, to evaluate claims by her father and stepmother, about sexual and physical abuse allegedly committed by Jane's biological mother. At the time of these interviews Jane's parents were going through a custody battle, and both accused each other with wrongdoings such as tax fraud, failing to comply with visitation orders and physical abuse of the children. In the absence of conclusive evidence about these allegations, Corwin was left to decide about their credibility, believing the father's version and discarding the mother's. Corwin met Jane Doe three times as a child, videotaping the conversations with her, using the tapes and transcriptions as the basis of his analysis and evaluation of the abuse. Six-year-old Jane stated on the videotapes several times that her mother repeatedly abused her, but it was evident that this was not the first time she was asked to talk about what happened, raising the possibility for previous suggestions that could have influenced her. She reported instances of digital penetration while the mother was bathing her, and other physical abuse such as hitting her, pulling her hair, and burning her feet on the stove. On the basis of these interviews, Corwin concluded that the mother was abusing Jane Doe, and as a result she lost custody over her daughter, including visitation rights.
Second interview The second interview took place eleven years later, when Jane Doe was seventeen. After her father and step-mother separated, she lived with her father until he became seriously ill and died. She was now living with a foster mother, and had some relationship with her biological mother. Jane wanted to see the old tapes because she was having trouble remembering what had actually happened. Corwin interviewed her in the presence of the foster mother. She did not have any memories of the abuse such as the foot-burning episode, but she remembered the interviews and the accusations. However, after further questioning Jane recalled some memories about a single episode in the bathtub, being hurt by her mother. Although still unsure whether her mother intentionally hurt her or not, the memories seemed vivid and powerful. She also recalled accusing her mother of taking pornographic photographs of her and her brother, and selling these. The origin of this recollection was uncertain, as it was not previously documented. Based on the lack of prior documentation, Loftus and Guyer later proposed that the memory was false and induced or suggested by outside sources. During the meeting, Corwin showed the old videotapes to Jane. After watching the tapes, Jane was reluctant to believe that she would have lied as a child, and concluded that her mother must have hurt her.
Interpretations Corwin used the videotape and the transcript for educational purposes about childhood sexual abuse since the first interview, with consent given by Jane Doe's father. The second session was later added and consent from Jane was acquired. The case-study was published in the May 1997 issue of the quarterly psychological journal Child Maltreatment (CM), the official journal of APSAC. Several other psychologists (Paul Ekman, Stephen Lindsay, Ulrich Neisser, Frank W. Putnam and Jonathan W Schooler) also commented on the case in the journal, mostly in agreement with Corwin's interpretation, and with some criticism from Neisser and Lindsay. After publishing this article, the Jane Doe case became influential, frequently used as an example in psychology and law, as an evidence for the repressed memory phenomenon.
Further research Loftus and Guyer, skeptical of Corwin's evidence, sought to identify Jane Doe through details in Corwin's recordings such as the mention of her first name and hometown. After identifying Jane, they sent a private investigator to her town, tracking down friends and relatives. The research team spoke with a friend of the family who stated "no way did any of the allegations occur." They also discovered that Jane suffered from a fungal condition that caused her skin to peel, which Loftus and her team interpreted to mean that Jane's allegations of foot burns may have been false. They also found a report from a clinical psychologist who stated that Jane's testimony sounded "mechanical and rehearsed," which Loftus and Guyer took to mean that her testimony was not credible. In addition, they found evidence of the father being a problem drinker and abusive towards Jane's older brother.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
