Eleanor Gordon Smith

It struck me as kind of infuriating.

Nicole complained to Loftus University, who told her to stop investigating the Jane Doe case.

Loftus was eventually cleared, and she published her findings on Jane Doe.

She argued that the abuse might never have happened.

Of course, this was the opposite of what Nicole had believed and clung to since she was 17.

Loftus printed eight pages worth of doubts in a magazine and called the article Who Abused Jane Doe?

When Nicole heard the article was on stand, she took a friend from her military base and drove 50 miles to Barnes & Noble, where they stood side by side reading it.

It was so hurtful.

I don't think the claim is that you should have just believed her uncritically.

I think Nicole says that the way that you went around this research was sort of traumatising and demoralising to her.

It made her feel like she didn't have any control over her own records and her own confidential information from her childhood.

Can you put yourself in her shoes at all?

Can you understand why she feels like this was a trespass?

It doesn't seem to me like what she was upset by was that there was another way of telling the story.

I think what she found upsetting was that you found out who she was and looked into her life without asking her or without thinking about her.

Usually when you write a story about someone, you contact them or you ask them what they think of the things that you've found out.

Nicole sued with the help of a lawyer who took her case for free.

They went after Loftus and everyone who'd helped write the article for 21 complaints from defamation to invasion of privacy.

But even though she was angry with Loftus, Nicole read her article over and over again, until something happened that she wasn't expecting.

She found herself agreeing with Loftus.