Nov. 30, 2011

“You have to start with the matter of probability. What every one of these (day care sex abuse) cases has in common is that no adult observer has actually seen a molestation in progress.

“Supposedly, these abuses are going on continually over a period of months. Almost always, they supposedly involve a number of adults and many children, with outsiders constantly walking in and out of these centers. Yet we have no corroborating eyewitnesses. None….

“Throughout it all, these children somehow always come home in the right shoes and socks and underpants. Do you have kids? Do you realize how hard it is to dress two kids in a hurry without some kind of mix-up, let alone 10 or 12 or 20 kids?”

– Dr. Richard A. Gardner, clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, quoted in Playboy magazine (June 1992)

March 6, 2014

First of three posts

Psychiatric Times isn’t the only professional journal to avoid reexamining the “satanic ritual abuse” era.

Other examples include Nursing Research, Child Abuse & Neglect and Relational Child and Youth Care Practice. The editors of each of these journals turned down my requests to retract their articles supporting and promoting the SRA moral panic.

One editor did offer a glimmer of willingness: Jon Conte at the Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

The road to publication, however, has proved long and bumpy and ultimately – spoiler alert – a dead end.

Here are excerpts from my correspondence with Dr. Conte, who is a professor in the School of Social Work, University of Washington:

Powell (Oct. 30, 2012):

Hello Dr. Conte….

I am an independent researcher and blogger in Charlotte, North Carolina. My goal is to obtain a statement of innocence for the Edenton Seven, the wrongfully prosecuted defendants in the Little Rascals Day Care case (1989-1997).

In December 1989 the Journal of Interpersonal Violence published the article “Stress Responses of Children to Sexual Abuse and Ritualistic Abuse in Day Care Centers” by Susan J. Kelley.

In December 1990 the Journal published the article “Ritualistic Child Abuse in a Neighborhood Setting” by Barbara Snow and Teena Sorensen.

Can you tell me whether the Journal ever published a retraction for these articles? And if not, would it consider doing so now?

Conte (Oct. 30, 2012):

I do not believe JIV (ever) published a Comment on this 1989 manuscript.  I would not prejudge any submission so long
as it is consistent with the overall mission and focus of the journal.  A comment on a previous article, even years after publication would certainly be reviewed.  Any submission must be scholarly and consistent with the purpose of knowledge development or dissemination.  Your use of the term “recantation” (actually, “retraction”) would appear to suggest an advocacy purpose and that purpose alone would not be appropriate for a manuscript we would review.

Powell (Nov. 12, 2012):

I apologize for not having been clearer in my request.

What I am seeking is not a recantation but a simple, concise retraction by the editors, acknowledging that the concept accepted and promoted in these two articles – ritual abuse in day cares –  was in fact entirely a product of a moral panic.

I am not an academic or professional, but I believe an examination of the literature in the intervening years would fully support such a retraction.

This passage is from the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics: “Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to publications that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable data may result from honest error or from research misconduct.”

Does the Journal of Interpersonal Violence want to leave these articles as its last word on the era of unfounded claims of ritual abuse in day cares?

Conte (Nov. 13, 2012):

As I said before we would accept a letter to the Editor or longer manuscript.  The letter would not be peer reviewed.
The longer manuscript would be.

Science and knowledge progress slowly.  There are many things which are published in good faith, blindly reviewed, and found acceptable for publication.  Then some years later with more research, experience, or knowledge what was once acceptable is seen in a new light.  I am not saying this has taken place with the manuscript you have identified.  It is not my intent to review previously published work in light of the change in times.

If you wish to write a letter for publication I am happy to work with you in that effort.

Powell  (Nov. 13, 2012):

I appreciate your thoughtful response. As much I would prefer a retraction – professionally researched and peer-reviewed – I appreciate your offer to consider a letter to the editor. Here is what I’d like to say:

“In December 1989 the Journal of Interpersonal Violence published ‘Stress Responses of Children to Sexual Abuse and
Ritualistic Abuse in Day Care Centers’ by Susan J. Kelley.

“In December 1990 it published ‘Ritualistic Child Abuse in a Neighborhood Setting’ by Barbara Snow and Teena
Sorensen.

“Both these articles endorsed and promoted a concept – satanic (or sadistic) ritual abuse in day cares – that subsequent research has proven to be entirely false. Today no respected social scientist will argue otherwise.

“The Little Rascals and McMartin cases were but two manifestations of this moral panic of  the 1980s and early 1990s. Less publicized prosecutions occurred across North America and as far away as New Zealand and Germany.

“Untold harm was done to defendants, families and child-witnesses.

“The Journal of Interpersonal Violence should not allow these articles to stand as its last word on claims of day-care ritual abuse.”

Conte (Jan. 18, 2013):

I would suggest you consider several additional points:  1) you cite research which proves ritual abuse “false.”  I don’t think you need to do a comprehensive research review, but since JIV is a scholarly journal, you should cite some of the research you are referring to.  I am not sure that this research “proves” that RA does not exist but rather raises questions.

You might also make reference (if true) that no law enforcement investigation has every uncovered evidence that such “cults” exist.  You also need to specify the harm that you feel these articles did.  For example, does the term RA in the title imply belief that RA exists?  I don’t think you have to prove some harm, but be specific in what you believe the harm is.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, if there are issues within the articles (i.e., not just the title) then describe what you see as the conceptual, methodological, etc., problems.

We are probably going to invite the authors to respond, and if they choose to do so I will share their responses
before we publish your letter or their responses.

Powell (Jan. 25, 2013):

I appreciate your guidelines and hope to produce something that is not only publishable but also contributes to discussion of this issue.

Conte (Sept. 4,  2013):

I am happy to work with you….

Next: My second attempt to make my case in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Jan. 16, 2012

Darkness to Light is a Charleston-based nonprofit with the goal “End Child Abuse.” Since its founding in 2000, D2L claims to have trained adults in 48 states and 10 foreign countries in how to prevent, recognize and react to child sexual abuse. Among its allies: YMCAs.

Unfortunately, D2L is less than meticulous in associating itself with other organizations. This is a letter I sent D2L officials on Dec. 5:

Darkness to Light does a disservice to the public and to your cause when you include on your list of resources the Survivorship website.

Survivorship’s board president is Neil Brick, who identifies himself as “the founder of S.M.A.R.T. (Stop Mind Control and Ritual Abuse Today) at http://ritualabuse.us. He is a survivor of ritual abuse and a survivor advocate. He works on developing supports for survivors and getting information out to the general public about ritual abuse. He runs yearly ritual abuse conferences on the east coast of the United States every year at http://ritualabuse.us/smart-conference. Links to his presentation transcripts and research papers are http://ritualabuse.us/smart/neil-brick.”

S.M.A.R.T. is perhaps the most prominent organization still insisting that numerous day-care providers in the 1980s and early 1990s subjected children to “satanic ritual abuse.” Although the day-care panic eventually waned and courts freed nearly all the unfortunate defendants, S.M.A.R.T. continues to see abuse in every one of these cases – from McMartin to Little Rascals to Fells Acres, etc.

Like Scientologists and Holocaust deniers, S.M.A.R.T. has been banned from editing Wikipedia entries. Neither should its disinformation campaign be given a platform by Darkness to Light.

Darkness to Light has yet to respond to that letter or to a Dec. 30 follow-up soliciting “a statement explaining why you continue to support this organization.”  I’d be happy to publish such an explanation, but even happier to learn that D2L has cut its ties to the ritual abuse movement.

Feb. 16, 2018

“Eighteen years ago this month, Peter Ellis left prison. He ought never to have been there in the first place.

“[In 1993] Ellis was convicted of child abuse at the Christchurch Civic Crèche. It remains one of New Zealand’s most controversial cases, and one [New Zealand’s] proposed Criminal Cases Review Commission would do well to address.

“If all the allegations were to be believed, Ellis was involved in making children dance naked while some were placed in an oven or suspended in a cage. Others were buried alive, and one child was forced to kill another. One unfortunate lad was turned into a frog and a cat. Needless to say the evidence for these events was not strong…”

– From “Peter Ellis martyr to deranged prejudice” by Jarrod Gilbert in the New Zealand Herald (Feb. 8)

The first allegations against Peter Ellis occurred shortly after a nearby Ritual Abuse Workshop. What a coincidence – the first allegations against Bob Kelly occurred shortly after a
nearby day-care sex abuse seminar….