Aug. 20, 2012

Endlessly fascinating – and baffling – is how some experts fell headlong for “satanic ritual abuse,” while others managed to keep their wits. This is from an April 25, 1989, Associated Press story:

“David G. Bromley, a sociologist at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Va., sees not an increase in satanic crime, but a ‘cult scare’ that has more to do with urban legends and modern psychology than with criminology.

“‘I think it’s all a hoax,’ says Bromley, who investigated allegations of cult ‘brainwashing’ in the 1970s that were never proven.

“Bromley says rumors about rings of adults who start day care centers to find children to abuse in satanic rituals are ‘sheer fantasy’ – but fantasy fed by reports of real child abuse and by today’s parents’ guilt and fears of entrusting their children to strangers.

“‘It is not coincidental that allegations of satanic conspiracies are centered on day care centers,’ he says.”

April 25, 1989! Bob Kelly was attending his probable cause hearing. The first McMartin trial was still ongoing. Stephen Ceci and Maggie Bruck were six years from publishing their landmark “Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children’s Testimony.” So how was David Bromley able to see through the fog?

“This kind of ‘subversion episode’ is not new,” he told me recently. “There has been one every few decades in American history. The focus has changed but not the phenomenon. Indian captivity tales, Salem witch trials, drug scares, communist scares, immigrant scares, UFO scares.

“There has always been some group or coalition that has found social insecurities a way of advancing its own status. In this case police and therapists made careers out of the episode.

“The story was only plausible for a limited period, and these kinds of events tend to implode eventually. But there are a lot of casualties in the meantime.

“It will happen again, I am sorry to say.”

And when it does…?

March 29, 2013

“ELIZABETH CITY – Attorneys for the seven defendants in the Edenton child abuse case want to know what techniques were used to elicit accusations from the children…. Prosecutors don’t want to tell them….

“(District Attorney H.P.) Williams would not address a reporter’s questions about how the Edenton investigation was conducted….

“Mr. Williams declined to say how the Edenton investigation grew from complaints by three families to its current size. He declined to say how they communicated with parents or whether a letter was sent out.

“He would not discuss who had interviewed the children or what interview techniques had been used….”

– From “Prosecutors won’t discuss techniques” in the Raleigh News & Observer (Feb. 25, 1990)

Two decades later Williams, though no longer district attorney, was still “not in a position to talk about it.”

Coincidentally – or not – the Little Rascals story shared Page 2C with one noting that “Social workers are trying to determine why reported cases of child abuse and neglect in North Carolina jumped 27 percent in 1989, while cases nationally are expected to rise only 3 percent or 4 percent….”

A consultant with the state Division of Social Services observed that “Any time you get a radical increase in the number of complaints, you’re probably getting a number of complaints of questionable validity…..Folks who make those reports need to use some common sense.”

March 8, 2014

Last of three posts

As I recounted earlier, Dr. Jon Conte expressed a willingness to consider my expanded letter seeking a retraction of the Journal of Interpersonal Violence’s past support of the “satanic ritual abuse” moral panic. So what might have happened after I submitted that October 25 letter that resulted in Conte’s cutting off contact by email or phone?

I suspect the crucial clue lies in his specifying that “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.” Those authors would include Susan J. Kelley (“Stress Responses of Children to Sexual Abuse and Ritualistic Abuse in Day Care Centers,” December 1989) and Barbara Snow (“Ritualistic Child Abuse in a Neighborhood Setting,” December 1990).

Kelley has been oft-recognized at littlerascalsdaycarecase.org, not only for her enthusiastically wrongheaded academic work, but also for her prosecutorial interviewing techniques in the Fells Acres case.

Unlike Kelley, Snow eventually suffered consequences, however small. From the Salt Lake Tribune (February 22, 2008):

“A therapist accused of unprofessional conduct – including imposing false memories on her relatives – entered into an agreement Tuesday with (Utah’s) Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing.

“Barbara Snow is voluntarily being placed on probation, according to a statement from her attorney….

“The disciplinary notice alleged Snow convinced a male relative he was sexually abused by his father. It also contended Snow convinced a female relative she was the victim of satanic abuse and military testing. When state investigators questioned Snow, she allegedly provided made-up notes about those sessions.

“In the agreement, Snow admitted destroying a relative’s computer equipment (with a baseball bat!) and adding two incorrect dates to her psychotherapy notes….

“Snow was involved in the prosecutions of a string of child sex abuse cases in the 1980s. One man she testified against was granted a new hearing after the Utah Supreme Court questioned her credibility….”

Should it surprise anyone that Kelley and Snow – or Dr. Richard Kluft – would be less than eager to look back at the toxic misconceptions they spread?

April 10, 2013

“Consider the use of anatomically detailed dolls to prompt shy or frightened children to reveal abuse. This was an innovation of the 1970s, and at first it certainly seemed like an effective and compassionate one.

“But more recent studies have cast doubt on whether these dolls prompt more accurate recall, especially for the pre-schoolage children for whom they are usually deployed.

“The doll is supposed to be a body double for the child him- or herself; but since the vast majority of children this age lack the symbolic thinking required to make such a connection– most two- and three-year-olds, for example, cannot see the relation between a room and a scale model of it – this proposition turns out to be rather dubious.

“More to the point, it seems that some children who have not been sexually abused will also play with an anatomically detailed doll in sexually suggestive ways – promptly removing its clothes, touching or grabbing its ‘genitals,’ sticking their fingers into various orifices. As the authors of one study judiciously put it, the ‘average amount of sexualized doll play by presumably non-abused children is not alarming, but there is enough of it to be potentially problematic in clinical or forensic situations.’

“In other words, if you are prepared to see signs of abuse, you may see them even in behavior that, in other contexts or at other times, would be attributed to normal sexual curiosity.

“And this is precisely the issue: At a time when there was comparatively little data available on what constituted normal sexuality in children, this vacuum was filled by people with a very narrow view of the possibilities.”

– From “Against Innocence: The truth about child abuse and the truth about children” by Margaret Talbot in The New Republic (March 15, 1999)

Prosecution therapists in the Little Rascals case made extensive use of anatomically correct dolls. During Bob Kelly’s trial, therapist Janet Hadler of Chapel Hill showed a video clip of a 5-year-old girl pressing together the pelvises of a male and a female doll. “Children who are demonstrating explicit sexual contact,” Hadler testified confidently, “are doing that because they have some knowledge of adult sexual behavior.”