Feb. 3, 2016

“A new survey finds that adults at school, day care and organizations such as churches and scouting groups are less likely than relatives to abuse or mistreat children.

“In general, organizations that serve young people ‘do not look like particularly risky environments,’ said study co-author David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center. This contradicts perceptions by some people who ‘think these are magnets for molesters,’ he said.”

– From “Child Abuse at Daycare, Youth Groups Rarer Than Thought: Survey” by Randy Dotinga in the Northwest Indiana Times (Feb. 2)

Surprising to see Dr. Finkelhor dismiss the notion of day cares as “magnets for molesters,” given that his own overwrought “Nursery Crimes: Sexual Abuse in Day Care” (1988) was an influential text in spreading the moral panic.

How did he determine back then whether sexual abuse had actually occurred? “If at least one of the local investigating agencies had decided that abuse had occurred and that it had happened while the child was at a day-care facility….then we considered the case substantiated.” In other words, one supposed “red flag” sighting from Brenda Toppin was certification enough.

As recently as 2012, when I queried Dr. Finkelhor about his beliefs past and present,  he denied being “an authority on the validity of claims” that he had laid out with such credulity in “Nursery Crimes.”

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.

June 23, 2014

“The emphasis has got to be on the crime. Once you start using labels like satanic, sadistic or ritualistic, then you’re immediately raising a red flag…. Law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, mental health professionals and especially the general public begin to back off, because it’s so hard to believe these things happen…. We emphasized rape, sex offense, indecent liberties, crimes against nature…Those were the crimes that Bob Kelly was convicted of, those are what the jury heard evidence of….

“We let the defense attorneys bring out the sadistic and ritualistic….”

– From District Attorney H. P. Williams Jr.’s address to “From Heartbreak Through Healing: Facing the Reality of Sexual and Ritual Abuse of Children,” the first national convention of Believe the Children (April 2-4, 1993, in Arlington Heights, Ill.)

I transcribed Williams’ cautionary prosecutorial advice from audiotapes, so I can only imagine the scene on the speakers’ dais he shared with not only one of the Little Rascals mothers, but also Laura Buchanan, author of “Satan’s Child: A Survivor’s Story That Can Help Others Heal from Cultic Ritual Abuse.”

What must have Williams been thinking as Buchanan earnestly recalled that:

“We stood poised with knives in an incomprehensible world where children killed children….  Permitted to live until age four (my sister) was sacrificed by my parents…. My final programming, as a teenager, occurred on an autopsy table in the coroner’s office. A surgical procedure was staged and through a small incision in my scalp I was told that a surveillance device would be inserted into my brain. The supposed implant would be used at national headquarters to continuously monitor my thoughts. For decades the programming was extremely effective. Until the age of 44, I had no idea that my parents practiced satanism….”

With Bob Kelly and Dawn Wilson locked away, and the overturning of their convictions still two years away, DA Williams was riding high. But surely he must have experienced the slightest frisson of doubt when he saw Buchanan’s patent insanity being swallowed whole by the same audience that so enthusiastically applauded his case against the Edenton Seven.

April 6, 2017

“Beginning with the McMartin preschool case in 1984… much of the media accepted without question fantastic claims brought by police, parents and prosecutors. But by the early 1990s when the courts began tossing out convictions based on recovered memories, coached testimony, and magical thinking, the media backed away….

“Two stories in the U.S. and British press have resurrected SRA: Pizzagate and abuse claims lodged against deceased British Prime Minister Edward Heath. However, this time round these stories are being treated with skepticism ….

“Abuse is a serious enough crime without having the false and inflammatory adjective of ‘satanic’ appended to it. I am glad to see The Sun and Mail on Sunday are treating this aspect of the claims as being ridiculous….”

– From “Satanic Ritual Abuse Is Back In The News, But Now Met With Skepticism” by George Conger at the Media Project (March 30)