Although detective stories and talk shows credulously promote the “diagnosis,” Repressed-Recovered Memory (RRM)–the claim that a trauma victim could accurately encode a memory, then have it blocked but remain reliably stored for years, and then somehow recover it to report it to authorities – is hogwash. Completely unsupported by any empirical evidence, RRM(like its brethren multiple personality disorder (MPD), dissociative identity disorder, traumatic amnesia, dissociative amnesia and betrayal trauma theory) has been thoroughly repudiated by both the relevant scientific community and in courts of law as well. Unfortunately, many (many) attorneys, judges, laypeople and even mental health professionals are unaware of this fact, and, together with the influence of popular culture, the scourge of this particular flavor of junk science continues to invade criminal prosecutions, family law matters and civil litigation. Also due in no small part to the fact that lawyers and judges, as a rule, lack sufficient scientific training to address the myriad of disciplines and issues necessary to refute these pseudoscience claims, RRM remains a thorn in the side of the legal system. This chapter seeks to rectify this problem by identifying the multi-disciplinary approach necessary to demonstrate RRM’s complete lack of reliability or validity. Particular topics addressed include: