“Recovered Memories” brought forth by therapy are notoriously susceptible to falsity and suggestion often manifesting in strong belief and/or obsession on the part of the person “recalling” them. This is especially so in childhood “memories.” Most courts will not even entertain these recollections, so fallacious and unreliable they have proven to be. That conclusion was hard earned with numerous long convictions based upon such only to find later they were bogus.
Here’s a sample collected by Wikipedia —
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome
Also—
https://staff.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/lof93.htm
http://www.fmsfonline.org/index.php?...iesInTheCourts
Of course, we can only surmise these charges are of that kind and character because the principals offering the charges have refused to state fully how and where the memories came to light instead refusing even to release the only written indicia (letters to her pols) or be interviewed. Her husband is on record saying the incident only came to light during a session with Ford’s therapist leading me to the conclusion the memories were induced by the lowly regarded techniques which have often failed to bring forth reliable recollection.
Incidentally, a person suffering from a false recovered memory will exhibit the characteristics of someone telling the truth because to them it is the truth and the more they are questioned about it what is termed “hardened memory” is likely to occur.