Loftus, E.F. & Ketcham, K., The Myth of Repressed Memory. (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1994)
Posted in 2009 by Peter Tillers
Quattrocchi 2: State v. Quattrocchi, III, 1999 R.I. Super. LEXIS 129 (1999) ("The State has not met its burden of establishing that repressed recollection is reliable and admissible as scientific evidence. As a result, expert testimony on the subject is inadmissible. The areas of consensus regarding repressed recollection remain greatly clouded by continuing and overriding division and discrepancy within the applicable fields. The status of dissension within the scientific discipline as to repressed recollection renders potential expert testimony of little assistance to the trier of fact to date.")
This recently-published book may have a bearing on the debates over claims of repressed memory due to sexual molestation: Susan A. Clancy, The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children--and its Aftermath (Basic Books, Jan. 5, 2010). Susan Clancy is an experimental psychologist who works or worked at Harvard University. See this Wikipedia squib: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Clancy.
Posted in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Stephen Porter, John C. Yuille, and Darrin R. Lehman"The Nature of Real, Implanted, and Fabricated Memories for Emotional Childhood Events: Implications for the Recovered Memory Debate," 23 Law and Human Behavior 517 (1999), http://www.springerlink.com/content/r602w023v6604185/:
Abstract A central issue in the recovered memory debate is whether it is possible to "remember" a highly emotional incident which never occurred. The present study provided an in-depth investigation of real, implanted, and fabricated (deceptive) memories for stressful childhood events. We examined whether false memories for emotional events could be implanted and, if so, whether real, implanted, and fabricated memories had distinctive features. A questionnaire was sent to participants' parents asking about six highly emotional, stressful events (e.g., serious animal attack) which the participant may have experienced in childhood. Next, across three sessions, interviewers encouraged participants (N = 77) to "recover" a memory for a false event using guided imagery and repeated retrieval attempts. In the first interview, they were asked about one real and one false event, both introduced as true according to their parents. In two subsequent interviews, they were reinterviewed about the false event. Finally, after the third inquiry about the false event, participants were asked to fabricate a memory report. Results indicated that 26% of participants "recovered" a complete memory for the false experience and another 30% recalled aspects of the false experience. Real, implanted, and fabricated memories differed on several dimensions (e.g., confidence, vividness, details, repeated details, coherence, stress). These findings have important implications for the debate over recovered and false memories.
Browse from 
See also Quattrocchi 1 http://tillers.net/advanced/memory/quattrocchi1.htm & Quattrocchi 3 http://tillers.net/advanced/memory/quattrocchi3.htm
Abstract A central issue in the recovered memory debate is whether it is possible to "remember" a highly emotional incident which never occurred. The present study provided an in-depth investigation of real, implanted, and fabricated (deceptive) memories for stressful childhood events. We examined whether false memories for emotional events could be implanted and, if so, whether real, implanted, and fabricated memories had distinctive features. A questionnaire was sent to participants' parents asking about six highly emotional, stressful events (e.g., serious animal attack) which the participant may have experienced in childhood. Next, across three sessions, interviewers encouraged participants (N = 77) to "recover" a memory for a false event using guided imagery and repeated retrieval attempts. In the first interview, they were asked about one real and one false event, both introduced as true according to their parents. In two subsequent interviews, they were reinterviewed about the false event. Finally, after the third inquiry about the false event, participants were asked to fabricate a memory report. Results indicated that 26% of participants "recovered" a complete memory for the false experience and another 30% recalled aspects of the false experience. Real, implanted, and fabricated memories differed on several dimensions (e.g., confidence, vividness, details, repeated details, coherence, stress). These findings have important implications for the debate over recovered and false memories.