Elizabeth Loftus

Called by the defense as a memory-science expert on Day 11, Loftus gave general testimony on how memory can be acquired, retained, and retrieved. Judge Nathan accepted her as an expert in memory science, memory reconstruction, and the impact of events on memory. Before her testimony, the court denied the government's motion to preclude her while requiring general opinions rather than opinions applying her research to the facts of the case.

On direct examination, Loftus described research on misinformation and false memories, including the effects of later conversations, interviews, media, suggestive language, elapsed time, and internal inferences. She testified that vividness, confidence, and emotion do not by themselves establish accuracy, and that confirming information and the perceived source of later information can affect expressed confidence and acceptance of suggestions. Her testimony supplied a general framework relevant to the defense challenge to the reliability of recalled events.

On cross-examination, Loftus acknowledged extensive defense-side criminal consulting, a $600 hourly rate in this case, and that people can retain core traumatic events and details. She also described studies in which some participants accepted false suggestions while others did not, and acknowledged limits on the sexual-abuse research she had conducted. On redirect, she explained that ethics review limits experiments that could harm participants, including deliberately planting memories of sexual abuse, and said her testimony would not have differed if called by the government. During deliberations, the court identified a request for the memory expert's transcript as a request for Loftus's transcript.