Crimes of the Times: George Franklin

LA Times Studios | Host: Christopher Goffard

Date: February 18, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode of "Crimes of the Times," hosted by Christopher Goffard, revisits the landmark prosecution of George Franklin, the first American charged and convicted of murder based solely on a “repressed memory” recovered by his daughter, Eileen Franklin Lipsker, after 20 years. The episode unpacks the case's dramatic twists, the debate over the reliability of recovered memories, and its lasting impact on psychology, the criminal justice system, and popular culture.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Disappearance and Murder of Susan Nason

• In 1969, 8-year-old Susan Nason was abducted and murdered in Foster City, CA. The case became cold after three months when her remains were discovered with her skull crushed ([00:00]–[01:53]).
• The police followed hundreds of leads without making an arrest, and the case faded into obscurity.

2. Eileen Franklin’s Recovered Memory

• Two decades later, Eileen Franklin Lipsker, Susan’s childhood friend and George Franklin’s daughter, told authorities she had suddenly recalled witnessing her father murder Susan ([01:53]–[02:39]).
• Eileen claimed her memory was triggered by seeing her own daughter, which brought back vivid memories of the crime. She described details, including the method of the killing and a smashed ring on Susan’s hand.

3. Legal and Psychological Precedents

• This became the first U.S. murder case where repressed memory testimony was admitted as primary evidence ([01:53], [04:59]).
• The prosecution’s sole evidence was Eileen’s memory, with no physical proof tying George Franklin directly to the crime ([05:15]).
• Defense attorney Doug Horngrad grappled with the challenge of discrediting a two-decade-old memory with little documentary evidence ([03:32]).

4. Characterization and Courtroom Dynamics

• Eileen was described as persuasive and charismatic, able to “move through her emotions very easily,” holding her ground under cross examination ([05:36]).
• Her account frequently shifted: times and presence of her sister Janice varied, leading to inconsistency in testimony ([06:37]).
• The jury saw inconsistencies as evidence of trauma rather than falsehood, reasoning that abuse could account for memory gaps ([07:11]).

5. The Role of Repressed Memory in Conviction

• “If she remembers everything, then it happened. If she doesn't remember anything because she was traumatized, it happened.” – Doug Horngrad ([08:42])
• The prosecution employed “child abuse accommodation syndrome” to explain away Eileen’s changing story.
• Dr. Lenore Terr testified for the prosecution, claiming the recovered memory was authentic, despite a lack of scientific consensus ([09:13]–[09:29]).
• Critics, including defense and observer Harry MacLean, saw these psychological arguments as “voodoo psychology” and lacking empirical basis ([09:08], [10:06]).

6. Exclusion of Exculpatory Evidence

• The defense presented evidence that case details—such as the smashed ring—were widely reported in the media and accessible to Eileen as a child ([12:51]–[14:16]).
• The judge, Thomas Smith, repeatedly refused to allow news coverage into evidence, depriving the jury of context to question Eileen's unique knowledge ([14:16]–[15:53]).

7. The Jury, Verdict, and Public Sentiment

• Jurors convicted Franklin on the repressed memory testimony, despite “no physical evidence ever link[ing] Franklin to the scene” ([16:43]).
• Jurors rationalized, believing “if he didn't kill Susan Nason, he did enough other stuff,” reflecting sentiment rather than conclusive evidence ([17:15]–[17:26]).
• The judge expressed open disdain for Franklin, wishing he could impose the death penalty ([17:34]).

8. The Cultural Climate and Epidemic of “Recovered Memories”

• The case unfolded as “recovered memory” became a societal trend, amplified by popular media and therapists promoting the theory in self-help books like "The Courage to Heal" ([19:26]).
• Prosecutions for decades-old abuses surged, often without corroborating evidence ([19:47]).

9. Scientific Backlash and the Birth of the Memory Wars

• Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, now a towering figure in memory research, became involved in Franklin’s defense and was alarmed by the legal embrace of repressed memory ([22:41]–[23:43]).
• Loftus’ landmark “Lost in the Mall” study, which demonstrated the ability to implant vivid false memories, was directly inspired by the Franklin case ([24:53]).
• The case catalyzed a scientific revolution, leading to greater skepticism about recovered memory evidence in court ([26:01], [27:07]).

10. Conviction Overturned and the Collapse of the Case

• A federal judge overturned Franklin’s conviction in 1995, citing exclusion of exculpatory evidence as a violation of due process ([27:46]–[28:03]).
• Eileen’s sister Janice recanted her trial testimony, admitting under oath that she and Eileen lied, and that Eileen had indeed undergone hypnosis, contrary to her initial claim ([28:44]–[29:15]).
• Eileen later claimed to recall her father committing a second murder, but Franklin had an airtight alibi, and DNA evidence exonerated him ([29:15]–[29:43]).
• George Franklin was released after over six years in prison; the prosecution chose not to retry him ([29:49]).

11. Aftermath & Legacy

• Eileen Franklin gained national attention, with TV appearances and a book deal. The judge and prosecutors never recanted their positions ([27:12]).
• The case's legacy: prosecutors rarely, if ever, pursue charges based solely on uncorroborated recovered memories today ([29:49]–[31:06]).
• “No prosecutor worth their salt is going to bring a case like this.” – Doug Horngrad ([29:49]).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “This was the first murder case in which a repressed memory had been allowed into evidence.” – Harry MacLean ([01:53], [04:59])
• “Can you come up with an alibi for 20 years ago?” – Doug Horngrad ([03:32])
• “If she remembers everything, then it happened. If she doesn't remember anything because she was traumatized, it happened.” – Doug Horngrad ([08:42])
• “There were no studies establishing that. There were no colleagues who signed off on her about that.” – Doug Horngrad, on the prosecution’s psychological evidence ([10:06])
• “No physical evidence ever linked Franklin to the scene, but the jury convicted him of first degree murder.” – Christopher Goffard ([16:43])
• “It was everything...here something really, really big had to happen if Eileen Franklin had a whole richly detailed memory of something that didn’t happen.” – Elizabeth Loftus, on her motivation to study false memory ([23:43])
• “We lied. My sister and I lied during trial. She was, in fact, hypnotized…we all lied. She was, in fact, hypnotized about this memory. And I lied at trial, and I’m not going to do it a second time.” – Janice Franklin (voicemail quoted by Doug Horngrad) ([28:44])
• "No prosecutor worth their salt is going to bring a case like this." – Doug Horngrad ([29:49])
• “Without corroboration, impossible. No, no. Franklin changed that.” – Doug Horngrad, on whether such a prosecution could happen now ([31:06])

Timeline of Key Segments

• [00:00–01:53] — The crime and 20-year cold case
• [01:53–02:39] — Eileen Franklin’s memory resurfaces
• [03:32–05:15] — Defense challenges and lack of corroboration
• [05:36–07:11] — Eileen on the stand; narrative inconsistencies
• [09:13–10:39] — Psychological testimony and critique
• [12:51–15:53] — Media coverage, exculpatory evidence excluded
• [16:43–17:34] — Verdict and rationale; judge’s open bias
• [18:46–20:09] — The “memory wars” and the recovered memory movement
• [22:41–24:53] — Elizabeth Loftus, false memory experiments
• [27:46–29:49] — Conviction overturned, witness recantation, case falls apart
• [29:49–31:06] — Aftermath: legal standards radically changed

Conclusion

“Crimes of the Times: George Franklin” masterfully dissects a pivotal miscarriage of justice driven by murky memory and social panic, ultimately inspiring scientific revolutions in our understanding of human memory and altering criminal prosecution standards. The story is a cautionary tale about belief, science, and the dangers of relying on memory alone in the prosecution of crime.