Nov. 25, 2011

“In the prototypical witch hunts in Europe and in the Massachusetts colony, the accused were often scapegoats for some calamity – disease, bad harvests, the birth of a deformed child.

“In the witch hunts of the ’80s, there was no such injury to be avenged or repaired. There was, however, a psychological need to be fulfilled. Our willingness to believe in ritual abuse was grounded in anxiety about putting children in day care at a time when mothers were entering the work force in unprecedented numbers.

“It was as though there were some dark, self-defeating relief in trading niggling everyday doubts about our children’s care for our absolute worst fears – for a story with monsters, not just human beings who didn’t always treat our kids exactly as we would like; for a fate so horrific and bizarre that no parent, no matter how vigilant, could have ever prevented it.”

– Margaret Talbot, writing in The New York Times Magazine, Jan. 7, 2001

Aug. 3, 2014

“Over the last 12 years, there have been hundreds of day care cases across the United States which involved allegations of ritual child abuse. The discovery and successful prosecution of a number of these cases has done much to expose cult activity and increase our awareness. While day care cases may ultimately be the ‘Achilles’ heel’ of organized cults who desire to expand their power and influence, there is nonetheless tremendous reluctance on the part of most victims to come forward. This is primarily due to the response of the media and the public.

“Along with the very real fear of reprisal or death associated with disclosure, adult survivors of ritual abuse who come forward face not only a climate of disbelief, but a lack of support services as well. Having endured the unspeakable horrors of ritual abuse, they face further victimization by an entire system in denial…..

“It is also often difficult to obtain conclusive medical evidence supportive of a child’s allegations of ritual physical and sexual abuse. Most cults use very sophisticated abuse, torture, and mind control techniques which are difficult to detect. For example, during the abuse and programming of children, cults may use the following: electroshock; pins and needles which are inserted under the fingernails or into sexual or other orifices of the body; knife cuts or burns into the scalp, onto the soles of the feet, or in the creases of the skin; as well as injuries designed to be explainable by otherwise acceptable means….

“Many cults either own or have access to a crematorium, and are assisted by cult physicians and/or coroners who cover up the cause of death of their victims. Less sophisticated methods for body disposal which have been used effectively are lime or acid pits, as well as tree shredders….

“When a concerned parent or therapist manages to make the child feel safe enough to make a disclosure, the system responds by discounting the allegations on the basis that the disclosure was not made at the onset of the therapeutic process….

“Children frequently report having been taken by train, boat, submarine or airplane to a specific location to participate in ritual activity. Often they are blindfolded and only told the name of the location after they have arrived.

“In reality, such transportation may only have been simulated, and a false location given. Or the child may, in fact, have been in a plane which flew in a circle for 20 minutes, with the ultimate destination falsified. In either case, facts are distorted to discredit later disclosures….

“(Footnote:) My contact with survivors in South Carolina and other states in the South reveals that alligators are commonly used as a means of disposal in these areas….”

– From “Representing Children in Family Court: A Resource Manual for Attorneys and Guardians Ad Litem,” a (no longer available) publication of the South Carolina Bar (1993, 1995) by Sylvia Lynn Gillotte, chairman of the Resource Manual Project, Officer of the Governor, Guardian Ad Litem Program, in Spartanburg, S.C.

Ms. Gillotte makes an earnest and articulate argument that the nation’s day cares were (are?) plagued by “satanic ritual abuse.” Predictably absent in her 5,000-word manifesto, however, is anything approaching the requisite extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Electroshock? Tree shredders? Plane rides? Alligators? “Cult physicians and/or coroners”?

Unlike so many who shared her convictions in the 1980s and ’90s, Ms. Gillotte has not retreated from the arena. Now an adjunct professor in the department of criminology at the University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee, she teaches a course on “Legal Perspectives on Crimes Against Children” that features a main text by John E.B. Myers and a Skype interview with Randy Noblitt.

Professor Gillotte’s syllabus is unusual if not unique in 21st-century academia. Much more typical: Catherine Caldwell-Harris’s at Boston University.

Despite our wide differences, Professor Gillotte has generously taken the time to address my skepticism about ritual abuse. Later this week I’ll be quoting from our exchange.

Nov. 30, 2012

In 1993 (January-February issue), the journal Child Abuse & Neglect published “Sexual Abuse of Children in Day Care Centers” by Susan J. Kelley, Renee Brant and Jill Waterman. This is from the article’s abstract:

“Sexual abuse of children in day care center settings has received considerable attention in the past decade. The nature and extent of allegations of sexual abuse in day care poses unique challenges to clinicians. Cases of sexual abuse in day care typically involve multiple victims and multiple perpetrators, and use of extreme threats to prevent disclosure….”

The article’s misinformation has spread far beyond its original readership. Google Scholar shows “Sexual Abuse of Children in Day Care Centers” to have been cited in other publications no fewer than 36 times, as recently as this year.

I asked Child Abuse & Neglect to publish a retraction.

I received this response from editor-in-chief David A. Wolfe, professor of psychology and psychiatry at the University of Toronto:

“The journal only retracts papers if there are significant errors or other problems, such as plagiarism, health risks etc. Otherwise, it is up to the scientific community to decide when new knowledge or findings would usurp those previously published. This is the case in many areas of research, whereby older (sometimes well-accepted) findings are no longer given credence due to newer findings. It is not feasible or appropriate to remove the previous findings, as that is how science progresses.

“Unless you are aware of specific errors in the 1993 data, rather than drawing different conclusions, the journal would not take any further action.

“I trust this resolves your concerns.”

Well, no, actually it doesn’t. This is what I wrote back to Dr. Wolfe:

“The problem with ‘Sexual Abuse of Children in Day Care Centers’ is not a matter of ‘different conclusions’ being drawn from the data. The entire concept of the article is false: There was never any ‘multiple victim, multiple offender’ sexual abuse in day cares, any more than there was witchcraft in Salem. As has been thoroughly documented by social scientists such as Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Bruck, and eventually validated in the legal system, all these ritual-abuse cases resulted from a moral panic.

“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.’

“And this is from Tom Reller (vice president of global public relations at publisher Elsevier): ‘Our journals, and academia overall, do better when shining a light on bad actors and bad science.’ ”….

“This is my concern, not yours, but ‘bad science’ fostered numerous convictions in Little Rascals, McMartin and other day care prosecutions of the 1980s and early 1990s. A retraction in a journal such as yours would be a significant step toward obtaining true exoneration for these defendants.”

No response from Dr. Wolfe. Maybe he’s reconsidering?

Oct. 19, 2011

Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education in 2003, social psychologist Carol Tavris noted that:

“One mother (in the Little Rascals case) told reporters that it took 10 months before her child was able to ‘reveal’ the molestation.

“No one at the time considered the idea that the child might have been remarkably courageous to persist in telling the truth for so long.”