But her methodology has been criticized by researchers working in the field of abuse, trauma and memory. Again:
http://www.jimhopper.com/memory/#el (this is about research, not the court affairs as such)

I'm not entirely discarding her work, I'm pointing out how controversial she has become indeed.

As you put it, those questions about recovered memories can have an enormous impact, on people who have been falsely accused surely, but also actual victims.

Thanks big part to Loftus and the FMSF, recovered memories are nowadays seen as suspect. It's like saying the Vietnam war didn't happen to a veteran with PTSD and delayed recall. It's interesting the controversy about 'altered memories' has taken such proportions in sexual abuse cases but not war victims for instance. It's something I'm wondering about.

I hope I'm clearer, I don't mean to start a debate as such here!

Placing this study in a political context does a disservice to what is a great piece of research.

The big problem about the "false memory syndrom" controversy is that it harms people who are actually suffering from PTSD, amnesia and delayed recall. And amnesia is a fact beyond dispute, to quote from:

http://www.jimhopper.com/memory

who also looks at studies with victims experiencing delayed recalls.

Certainly memories are not perfect and can be suggested (that's the basis of brainwashing: isolation, emotion, repetition). But Loftus' agenda is quite different. It is to diminish the value of victims' testimony in court. And society is very happy to comfort themselves with studies like Loftus', because society doesn't want to hear about child abuse. And it's coming out like that really. It's fine by me to investigate the how and why of false accusations of abuse. But I'm worried that the 'false memory syndrom' is transforming into some kind of heavy social denial.

See Post-Traumatic Gazette, 4: False Memory Syndrome vs. Lying Perpetrator Syndrome: The Big Lie, by P. Mason