Ritual abuse findings in survey of AFMA

by **professorpan** » Tue May 02, 2006 10:58 pm

I do think Satanic Panic is real, and it's similar to other documented moral panics throughout human history. Again, I don't deny all RA, but many of the most well-documented cases clearly show -- through trial transcripts, interviews, and other documents -- how prosecutors and juries can become convinced that horrific crimes have taken place, when in fact they *didn't.* I don't write off every critic of RA as one of "them," just as I don't dismiss an alleged victim's claim. I look at the objective evidence of both sides before coming to any conclusion -- with RA as with any contentious issue. In reading the transcripts of several cases, I found it appalling that so many people were jailed based entirely on hearsay, shoddy detective work, and overzealous (if well-meaning) therapists. Showing a child a doll with an oversized penis, and not expecting the child to play with it or comment on it, is absurd. Telling children that they are lying because they're not reporting what a therapist or social worker wants to hear is appalling. Yet it happened, and people went to jail because of it. And children in particular can easily be led to saying things that aren't true -- especially when they're subject to aggressive, suggestive interrogation. How anyone can read the transcripts of some of the interviews with children and *not* find them out-of-bounds is hard for me to believe. The idea that Satanic pedophile rings had infiltrated daycare centers became impossible to ignore in the 1980s. I remember people talking about the Geraldo Rivera special on the subject and seeing articles in popular magazines decrying the massive pedophile rings. Many people became convinced of the widespread reality of SRA, and lots of well-intentioned therapists, cops, and social workers began to see traces of ritual abuse everywhere. So, biao, in answer to your question, it's not like the therapists intentionally tried to implant beliefs in children -- they were convinced they were doing the right thing by aggressively seeking evidence of its existence. Haven't you ever known well-intentioned people to fall prey to false beliefs? All I'm suggesting is that people look at all sides of the issue and make an informed decision about the true extent of ritual abuse and the reality of out-of-control memes and the havoc they can wreak. And PW, I thank you for sharing details that I am not privy to. I don't have a closed mind about every case, and I'm always willing to revisit something if new data arises. And biao, to answer a couple of your questions directly: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>a. The professionals involved in those cases would need to have had prior knowledge of RA and a conviction that RA had taken place in those cases - which, if you read their testimony and narratives, is not the case.<hr></blockquote> In many cases, the professionals in the cases were not only aware of satanic abuse rumors, but they believed in them before taking the case. I can't find a statistic, but I'd like to see figures to back up your assertions. I've read most of the trial transcripts, and I have come to a different conclusion. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>b. There would need to be evidence of this "mass hysteria" eg a significant body of professionals that believe in ritual abuse and are prepared to offer care and support to ritual abuse survivors.<hr></blockquote> Are you serious? There were -- and still are -- conferences held for believers in RA and victims of RA. And regardless of how many professionals take the subject seriously, there is a huge amount of material in the public domain -- books, movies, tv shows, magazine articles. There's far less mainstream material on the subject than in the 80s, when it exploded into popular consciousness, but it still exists, and is quite easy to find. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>PP, if you know of this massive body of professionals who are hysterically dedicated to the wellbeing of RA survivors - perhaps you can point us in their direction? Because I've been looking for a few years now, and I can't find any.<hr></blockquote> Most professionals have come to the conclusion that most RA allegations are not real. That's why there are few professionals who openly treat alleged RA victims. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What is the psychological mechanism whereby one person's passive knowledge of a phenomenon is unconsciously transfered/implanted into the mind of another person against their will and without their knowledge, resulting in a conviction that harm had been committed against them, and producing traumatic psychological symptoms congruent with that harm?<hr></blockquote> That's *not* what critics of RA suggest. They suggest that flawed interrogation techniques, therapeutic modalities which can give rise to confabulation and fantasy, and shoddy use of hypnosis in recovering memories can make some people believe in something that never happened. Again, all I ask is that those with an objective mind read the transcripts of some of the interviews and study the techniques (such as facilitated communication) that have proven to be flawed. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You referred to 'fantasies' - could you please discuss the psychopathology that results in children claiming to have been brutally dehumanised by an organised network of sexual offenders when this has not taken place? You'll need to explain how it is that their disclosures are consistent and congruent with the truth claims of other children, adults and perpetrators who have been in similar situations, and such crimes have been established and prosecuted in a court of law.<hr></blockquote> The psychopathology, in many of the most infamous cases, resulted when therapists became convinced that a large group of children had been viciously abused. Often, when a child said he or she hadn't been abused, it was written off as denial. Pressure from therapists and social workers can be powerful to a young child who is being called a liar, and promised rewards if he or she tells the "truth" the therapist wants to hear. And the basic outline of SRA -- including details of blood drinking, feces eating, and so forth -- were commonly featured in the media, and also representative of previous moral panics. Again, I am not denying that RA takes place. I am firmly convinced that there was a satanic panic that began in the 80s with the popularity of the SRA meme, and that many, many innocent people went to jail, where some of them still sit, rotting, separated from their loved ones. I feel for those victims as well as those who were truly victims of intergenerational ritualistic cults or military experiments or pedophile networks.

by **chiggerbit** » Tue May 02, 2006 11:01 pm

Although I post this link, it does not mean that I endorse it: <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/fbi_05.htm">www.religioustolerance.org/fbi_05.htm</a> Sorry, professor, but once a case investigation is fucked up, there is no "objective evidence" either way. A poorly investigated case is polluted, ruined. It is not possible to make an objective conclusion once it is polluted, not for and not against. It just is not possible. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 5/2/06 9:12 pm

by **professorpan** » Tue May 02, 2006 11:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sorry, professor, but once a case investigation is fucked up, there is no "objective evidence" either way. A poorly investigated case is polluted, ruined. It is not possible to make an objective conclusion once it is polluted, not for and not against. It just is not possible.<hr></blockquote> I disagree. We can learn a lot from investigating fucked up cases -- sometimes we can even learn *why* they got fucked up in the first place. The literal transcripts are often very revealing, which is why I suggest that people study them.

by **biaothanatoi** » Wed May 03, 2006 1:38 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I do think Satanic Panic is real, and it's similar to other documented moral panics throughout human history.<hr></blockquote> "Moral panic" is a specific sociological theory, not a "reality" to be taken for granted. Unfortunatley, it's found it's way into pop-psychology, and it's become a convenient shorthand for all sorts of crap. A number of sociologists have critiqued the concept (see Cornwell and Linders, The Myth of “Moral Panic”, Deviant Behavior, Volume 23, Number 4 / July 01, 2002, or Hunt, 'Moral Panic' and Moral Language in the Media, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 4. 1997). These authors argue that members of society try to clarify ambiguous, conflicting or threatening information by affiliating data and drawing simplistic parallels - eg “gee, ritual abuse involves witches, so did the witch hunt, therefore ritual abuse is a witch hunt, and I don’t have to believe in it.” I personally think that junk-skeptics have picked up the notion of “moral panic/Satanic panic” for a few other reasons. Firstly, they like it for it’s patronising, ivory tower overtones - "oh, the foolish masses, always panicking about something". Another part of its appeal is its misogyny. After all, most of the “perpetrators” in the "Satanic panic" worldview are mostly female professions and community members - mothers, teachers, social workers, psychologists – and the backlash literature is explicit that these women are “naturally” prone to “hysteria”. For a textual analysis of the misogyny of the RA backlash movement, see Rogers (1999). ‘Mad Mothers, Over-Zealous Therapists and the Paedophile Inquiry.’ Southern Cross Law Review 3: 115–135. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The idea that Satanic pedophile rings had infiltrated daycare centers became impossible to ignore in the 1980s.<hr></blockquote> Hi. Hello. I don’t live in America. I don’t care about Rivera. Or Michelle Remembers. Or Christian fundies. We don’t have them in Australia. We still had kids emerging from daycare with ritualistic scarring and bleeding anuses chanting prayers to the devil. Yeah, it is hard to ignore, maybe because it’s real. Daycare wasn’t regulated until the “Satanic panic” that you disparage. Until these cases came to light and the government tightened things up, anybody could set up a daycare service – and paedophile rings have been taking advantage of that little loophole for decades. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>So, biao, in answer to your question, it's not like the therapists intentionally tried to implant beliefs in children -- they were convinced they were doing the right thing by aggressively seeking evidence of its existence.<hr></blockquote> Do you have any direct experience of RA and RA investigations? I do, and I’ve never come across this pattern before. This sounds to me like backlash propaganda – second-hand, second-rate information that’s been handed to you by the same people that coined the phrase “Satanic panic”. I would be thrilled to find one social worker “aggressively seeking evidence” of organised child sexual exploitation. For god’s sake, will someone please “aggressively” do something about ritualistic paedophile rings. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>the reality of out-of-control memes and the havoc they can wreak.<hr></blockquote> “Memes”? For a skeptic, you sure like your pseudo-science. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In many cases, the professionals in the cases were not only aware of satanic abuse rumors, but they believed in them before taking the case. I can't find a statistic, but I'd like to see figures to back up your assertions.<hr></blockquote> There are dozens of publicly available accounts in which psychologists discuss their encounters with ritually abused clients – emphasizing their shock and disbelief, their lack of prior knowledge, and the persistent traumatisation and threats they suffer in their work with survivors. There are so many accounts I can’t be bothered giving you a full bibliography, but here’s a selection of accounts from shrinks, social workers and psychologists - Dawson and Johnston 1989; Bloom 1994; Casement 1994; Hudson 1994; MacFarland and Lockerbie 1994; Rockwell 1994; Sinason and Svensson 1994; Mollon 1996; Noblitt and Perskin 2000; Scott 2001; Nelson 2006. And you might want to read Jan Hollingsworth’s “Unspeakable Acts” for the inside story on Frank Fuster. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Are you serious? There were -- and still are -- conferences held for believers in RA and victims of RA. And regardless of how many professionals take the subject seriously, there is a huge amount of material in the public domain<hr></blockquote> We are talking about your “mass hysteria” here, remember? Emphasis on “mass”. A couple of conferences in a country of 295 million people? That’s “mass hysteria”? I would say I own 90% of the books written on ritual abuse in the last thirty years and probably the same proportion of journal articles written on the subject. It takes up one shelf on my bookcase. A “huge amount of material”? Not exactly. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Most professionals have come to the conclusion that most RA allegations are not real. That's why there are few professionals who openly treat alleged RA victims.<hr></blockquote> You are incorrect. Three surveys – one in Britain, one in the States, and one in Australia – found between 10% and 30% of clinicians had come across a case of ritual abuse in the last thirty years. Of those, between 80% - 95% believed that ritual abuse was an indication of genuine trauma. See: Bottoms, B., P. Shaver and G. Goodman (1991). Profile of ritualistic and religion-related abuse allegations in the United States. Paper presented at the Ninety-Ninth Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, August. Andrews, B., J. Morton, D. A. Bekerian, C. R. Brewin, G. M. Davis and P. Mollon (1995). ‘The recovery of memories in clinical practice: Experiences and beliefs of British Psychological Society Practitioners.’ The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 8(5): 209–214. Schmuttermaier, J. and A. Veno (1999). ‘Counselors' beliefs about ritual abuse: An Australian Study.’ Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 8(3): 45–63. That doesn't mean that they are trained to deal with RA cases, or that they go out looking for RA cases, or that they publicise RA cases. It just means that they come across them, and they believe them. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The psychopathology, in many of the most infamous cases, resulted when therapists became convinced that a large group of children had been viciously abused.<hr></blockquote> The pattern of disclosure in RA cases has been noted time and again. The child alleges abuse first, ritual abuse second, and patterns of retraction in sexual abuse allegations are also well established. Again, this is evidence-free backlash rhetoric, pure and simple. No primary research + imbibing Jeffrey Victor and Richard Ofshe + no direct experience = armchair commentator. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And the basic outline of SRA -- including details of blood drinking, feces eating, and so forth -- were commonly featured in the media, and also representative of previous moral panics.<hr></blockquote> Another piece of backlash falsehood. This possibility has been explored and found to be unlikely. A 1997 study found that the religious knowledge of children regarding Satanism and ritual abuse was not sufficient to account for ritual abuse allegations. See: Goodman, G. S., J. A. Quas, B. L. Bottoms, J. Qin, P. R. Shaver, H. Orcutt and C. Shapiro (1997). ‘Children's Religious Knowledge: Implications for Understanding Satanic Ritual Abuse Allegations.’ Child Abuse and Neglect 21(11): 1111–1130. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I feel for those victims as well as those who were truly victims of intergenerational ritualistic cults or military experiments or pedophile networks.<hr></blockquote> “Oh, some people died in the Holocaust, but not that many.” You sound like another denialist to me.

by **chiggerbit** » Wed May 03, 2006 2:05 am

No, even literal transcripts can be fucked up. These investigations require extensive training, incorporating skills from such diverse fields such as law enforcement and child development, at a minimum. Just as an example, an interview timed waaay too late in the game can be uncredible. Timing is everything in investigations. Asking the right questions in original, videotaped interviews, questioning in the right manner (without putting words in victims mouths or minds, for instance) in the very beginning, asking the right questions, is terribly important. Some children are deveopmentally too young or do not have the cognitive and verbal skills to explain what happened to them, but, given the proper tools, are able to demonstrate. Try to put that in a transcript. Videotape, videotape, videotape. Have you been allowed to see these on the net? I doubt it. Havana scoffed at social services not wanting to report publicly in her country, but I have to say that in this country it is quite unlikely in most states that these interviews would become totally public property, due to the victims rights to limited privacy, rightly so. Sorry, I doubt that you are seeing the entire investigation, professor, regardless of how many transcripts you have read. Yes, there is someting to be learned from the old transcripts. Hopefully today's investigators are years beyond needing this, though. Professionalsim is what is needed, from the very beginning.

by **biaothanatoi** » Wed May 03, 2006 2:24 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Some children are deveopmentally too young or do not have the cognitive and verbal skills to explain what happened to them, but, given the proper tools, are able to demonstrate. Try to put that in a transcript.<hr></blockquote> Absolutely. The reason why clinicians believe their RA clients is not because of what they say but how they say it. Clinicians consistently speak of the terror, the fear, the flashbacks, the shaking, the whispering, the eyes flickering and rolling - as the most significant features of RA disclosures. You don't get that in a transcript, "Professor". Slight tangent here - Not many people know that, in the case of Paul Ingram, the judge questioned the manner in which Richard Ofshe "diagnosed" Ingram as suffering from a "dissociative disorder" from the interview transcripts. Firstly, because Ofshe is a sociologist, and has no clinical experience - so why is he making a psychological diangosis in the first place? Secondly, because it is not ethical to make a psychological diangosis without ever having met the patient. Thirdly, Ingram pleaded guilty - Ofshe actually spent an hour and a half on the phone to the guy trying to convince him that he was innocent of crimes that he remembered committing! (WTF?) And our "Professor" doesn't seem to address the issues around children's testimony. How do you get information from a child who is three or four, a child with an STD and injection marks between his fingers? Once you have that information, how do you present it in court? PP glides easily over the issue of anatomically correct dolls, but clinicians know the difference between a child poking and prodding a doll with a penis, vs a child binding the "me" doll with string and sodomising it with the "daddy" doll. Children can't know about anal sex or the smell of semen unless they have direct experience, PP, and these kids know all sorts of things that they shouldn't. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sorry, I doubt that you are seeing the entire investigation, professor, regardless of how many transcripts you have read.<hr></blockquote> The claim itself is a little glib - what have you read, PP? And where?

by **havanagilla** » Wed May 03, 2006 4:10 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Havana scoffed at social services not wanting to report publicly in her country, but I have to say that in this country it is quite unlikely in most states that these interviews would become totally public property, due to the victims rights to limited privacy, rightly so.<hr></blockquote> to clarify. surely privacy is important, but I am amazed at how the argument can be misused in order to obstruct justice. eg, the continuous policy of german archives (re holocaust) to prohibit the disclosure (and commemoration) of victims, because of the victims' privacy rights (dead victims included !). Are they really protecting the victims ? I'd make a clear distinction here. If the institute/person invoking the privacy rights of a victim is the SAME ONE which is allegedly implicated (in any way) in the victimization, the decision must be made by another body. Thing is, that if we are generally claiming the the state is systematically covering up for RA, it cannot be allowed to enjoy the power to protect the privacy of its own victims. there is a clear conflict of interest. There are other ways to protect privacy, such as in covering faces in video tapes, distorting voice to the point you cannot recognize the person, and still get the information which is relevant. So, in cases of RA, when the taped evidence is of public interest, the state can release the material without harming the victims. -- Just to make a quick comparison. in the "anti terror" cosmos, the concept of privacy/privilege is practically gone. Namely, the gov said that fighting terror (???) is so important for OUR safety we are assumed to grant a sweeping waiver. privacy is not absolute, it has to be weighed against other interests and rights.

by **professorpan** » Wed May 03, 2006 1:07 pm

I am not a debunker, so please, stop trying to paint me as one. Ritual abuse is very real. And so are false accusations and false imprisonment based upon hysteria. Like most things in the real world, it's not a black and white issue. Maybe you're too close to the subject to look at the evidence objectively? For instance, listen to what one of the alleged victims of the Wenatchee RA case has to say today: <a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/powertoharm/children.html">seattlepi.nwsource.com/po...ldren.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"They robbed me of my childhood, and that's a terrible thing to do to any child," says Kim Allbee, 14. She says she was interrogated for five hours, bullied and coerced by Detective Bob Perez as Tim Abbey, a supervisor in the Office of Child Protective Services, looked on. Eventually, she did as they asked and accused her mother of sexually abusing her. "It's changed the way I look at things. I was always told to trust the police. Now every time I see a police car driving near my house I worry about them taking my mother away again," says Kim, a pretty girl who seems afraid to laugh.<hr></blockquote> Do you dismiss her account, and the many similar accounts of other (now grown) children? How about the twelve adults who are suing the Rochdale Council in the U.K. for removing them from their homes in 1990? In case you don't know of it, that was the case that started when a kid told his teacher he had been having bad dreams about ghosts. Some of the kids were separated from their parents for *10 years* in a case that was ultimately thrown out. And the evidence that children aren't always reliable is abundant. One example: <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/child3.htm">www.religioustolerance.org/child3.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Dr. Jane Rawls, a child psychologist from Hamilton, New Zealand, conducted a study of 30 five-year-old children. 7 The researchers' goal was to determine how accurately children describe events that they had experienced. However, the study revealed some unexpected results. Trevor, an adult male research assistant, played "dress-up" with each child separately. The adult and child put on or took off items such as hats or jewelry. The sessions were observed and videotaped. Sometimes, the child would be asked to keep a secret of an innocent event that happened with Trevor. No inappropriate touching was involved at any time. This was repeated for 4 sessions per child. Each child was then interviewed afterwards, on multiple occasions. Dr. Rawls was amazed and "unhappily surprised" at the results: • Seven of the 30 children (23%) said that they had been inappropriately touched: • 3 disclosed genital touching. • 2 reported touching under their upper clothes. • 2 said that he had touched "their bottoms" or vice versa. • 2 reported mutual touching under their clothing. • Children's "errors appeared to evolve" during subsequent interviews. • The children created many new errors when a diagram of body parts was introduced during the second interview. • Closed, suggestive questions (e.g. "Did he touch you on the..."<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> generated the most errors. • Open, general questions (e.g. "What happened then?"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> produced an accuracy of 32% during the first interview; closed questions were 9% accurate; mixed questions were 20% accurate. • None of the children told the "secret" without prompting; 23% did not disclose the secret when prompted; 20% consistently provided accurate description of the secret when prompted. The scary part of this study is that under different circumstances, Trevor could easily have been prosecuted on the basis of seven children's stories out of the "class" of 30. He could have received many lengthy jail sentences. Fortunately, the video tapes of the games proved that none of the children's disclosures actually happened. This study is believed to be the first one of its type involving many dozens of children who were interviewed over long periods of time. It shows the dangers of repeated and suggestive questioning of children. It demonstrates how easy it is to obtain disclosures from children of sexual abuse events that never happened. It sheds doubt on the use of body diagrams and anatomically correct dolls. It seems to indicate the extreme unreliability of suggestive, closed, and persistent questioning. <hr></blockquote> One other thing: Why do you think roughly three quarters of the people accused of ritual abuse between 1980 and 1996 have had their cases overturned or all charges dropped against them? Evidence of collusion at all levels of the judicial system -- or maybe people realizing how hysteria can result in false convictions? Insisting that all cases of alleged ritual abuse are valid, and that moral panics don't exist, is as intellectually bankrupt as saying ritual abuse is completely nonexistent. Both are extreme points of view that are not supported by the facts. And both extreme views ruin people's lives.

by **mother** » Wed May 03, 2006 2:06 pm

It sure makes a silly rhyme. There are any number of paid proffessional working for defense in criminal cases who can cast reasonable doubt on the physical evidence that the perps leave on the little bodies of their prey. These cases are only a tiny few of the many. "fr." Stan Fortune of Ireland : may God help his numerous victims. "fr." Paul Shandly of US, founding member of NAMBLA what was it, hundreds of innocent children? I am shaking withfrustration at being unaable to prove my point- - -the situation is VASTLY underestimated for many, many reasons. But you cannot just make the real shit up. At least Shandley got a tiny percenage of what he dished out in prison. Willow, I wish I had your cool head and half your brains in debating the standard debunking, let-saner-minds-prevail reaction to the undeniable fact of the widespread use of innocent children. I always think in terms of SRA, my bias is that it is by definition satanic, utter evil. Hysteria???? Guilty as charged.

by **chiggerbit** » Wed May 03, 2006 2:44 pm

There are other ways to protect privacy I'm not sure where I stand on that issue, Hava. I would have to think on it. I can see your point about conflict of interest. The holocaust is something else. If the victims are dead, the only way for them to speak of their horrors is to expose what was done to them. If they are alive, I guess I would want them to give permission. The consideration should always be the victims needs, not the state's needs. Do you meet the victims' needs one by one, or as a group? (Hmmm... Thinking out loud, here.) But if I were a child victim in a current case, and still a child, I'm not sure that having my face obscured would be good enough. I would know that that was my body, my story, out there for all and sundry to see at will--and know that some perps would be able to get their jollies to infinity just imagining the details of my story. These children have had their rights to their own bodies stolen from them. Should the state have the right to take over from the perps? I can see that it would be very instructive to the general population, but I guess I would rather see the children's rights take precedence, at least so long as the victims are still children. The bottom line on current cases should be the individual child's rights and best interests, I think. This is similar to the issue that often has to be addressed in court on these kinds of cases, where a child's best interests can only be protected if the child is made to testify, in court, which can itself be traumatizing to the child, or else accomplished by some other venue, such as videotaped cross examination. If the child doesn't testify in some manner, it is unlikely that the child will be protected. Tough call.

by **havanagilla** » Wed May 03, 2006 5:09 pm

It is a tough call, i agree. My general tendency is to think that privacy is trumped by prevention of serious crime, not "justice" as an abstract concept. Prevention of certain crimes is costly and difficult and I think RA (and MC, to which I am more attuned) should become a priority, at least as much as the bogus "war on terror".b]--- -- I'll give you an example about a real case I was involved with. My client was a young woman who filed a successful complaint about incest. The accused happened to be top notch Dimona Nuke Plant scientist. So, as was expected, the DA's office took their time with the prosecution of this case. After 2 years of "delay" she came to me for help. I wrote some letters blah blah, not much happened so I contacted a newspaper known to be a "fighting" newspaper. They loved it and were gonig to publish the story after they interviewed my client. Suddenly, when the article was almost going down to be printed, the legal advisor of the network (it was a chain of newspapers) interfered (who told him ?) and said her name should be erased, it should be "anonymous" (which would natrually protect her father). the reason was funny, he invoked HER right to privacy under the sex offences victims' rights. I told him this is funny, cause SHE is initiating the article, so..he made it clear to me there are "pressures". The next thing, she received a phone call from her faculty (she was in her last year of social work studies) that if her name is published, she might have problems getting the license to practice social work (the formal excuse was that people who had psychiatric care, even victims of sex crimes per se) cannot practice social work. We gave up, and the article came out without names, and so his privacy was protected (in the guise of protecting HER privacy and future). BTW, he was never charged and the final excuse was that he is living on his yacht and they can't summon him, blah blah..this is what I mean abuse of the concept of privacy. --- Another case. I filed a "FOIA" request to find out whether my perps were or are employed by the gov (I wrote the request to the Ministry of defense and the Ministry of the Prime Minister in charge of secret services). I received a formal response from DOD's legal advisor that exposing the fact will violate those people's "Privacy rights' ( ?????) which I figured as being a positive answer, namely, affirming my claim. The general director of the Prime MInister's office, wrote back to me, in his handwriting ON my original fax to this extent - I propose you turn this to DOD. I called him and he said that he thinks they were EMPLOYED by DOD...and then I had the refusal under privacy rules, from DOD. case closed. What about my rignts ? -- Next I filed the same query to the Commissioner of state service who is in charge of all civil servants. this was a funnier one. The legal advisore wrote the names on a little piece of paper, made a phone call, and told me "no, they are not employed" I said , can you write it on paper, she said "no." ...Anyway, it boils down to - when privacy is outlawed only the outlaws enjoy it...

by **Project Willow** » Wed May 03, 2006 7:23 pm

Thanks mother, fortunately, the emotional reaction doesn't come through the keyboard sometimes! I was also appreciative of your clarification on an earlier thread. Prof. Pan, what you may have failed to consider in related cases is the amount of control perps have over their victims, and especially with cults, they can have it well into adulthood. Often recantations are due to threats from the family or group. However, it's difficult to determine when that's the case. Once that tangled web is weaved it's nearly impossible to straighten out. Even as an adult an ra survivor, if she chooses to heal, faces a life dealing with horrific memories, the loss of her family and many in her community, perhaps her career, not to mention serious threats and ostracicism. If you were isolated and facing this choice, what would you do? For a lot of survivors the crisis point comes in the midst of dealing with the memories in therapy and we end up with the stories that feed into the FM concept. An objective look at the cases would take these and other rarely mentioned factors into account. I like to use the example of organized crime, because this is a type of organized crime. It is widespread with incidences in almost every community. I imagine how difficult it is til this day for the authorities to deal with the mafia, and many of the same obstacles exist. As Baio points out, there has also been physical evidence in these cases.

by **professorpan** » Thu May 04, 2006 1:48 am

PW, I wouldn't be so asinine to question the validity of your own experiences. As I have stated ad nauseum, I do believe in the reality of ritual abuse. I also believe that ritual abuse became a template for all sorts of wild, baseless accusations. Innocent people suffer, whether they are real victims of ritual abuse or victims of falsehoods. As someone who tries hard to be rigorous in my examination of the facts, I can't automatically believe every alleged victim, nor can I believe every member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. The truth is complex and defies simple, black and white answers.

by **Project Willow** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:03 pm

Prof Pan, Woah, where did that come from? The acceptance of the hysteria idea serves as a prop for denial in general. That is the source of my frustration. I haven't assumed you were questioning my personal experiences. I've been attempting to point out factors that are not present in the general coverage or backlash movement's conception of the cases. Please, do be rigorous. I am confident that in time the current consensus on ra and many of those cases will be adjusted.

by **mother** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:47 pm

The example of the mafia is useful in comparison to the {Anti} Roman Catholic Church in the case of "Fr." Sean Fortune, illicitly ordained and "alleged" satanist foisted upon an unfortunate Irish village of 400 souls. The prelates all the way to the top knew of his vile misuse of children. Barry O'Kelly, crime correspondent for The PostI.E. writes that in 1997 "We already had the goods on Fr. Sean Fortune-including affidavits from seven victims- but within three days of our visit, I was the one under investigation by the gardei." Four victims who might have been able to shed more light on the abysmal practices of Fortune commited suicide (many of our Alter boys and victims of clergy abuse have added to this number) Fortune also killed himself; suicide note blaming his Bishop for abusing him) People trying to come forward thwarted, etc. Hush money? Fortune got extra $$$ by"fleecing old people of their savings and ripping off government schemes". No need to panic, or indulge in hysteria here. Except the people who covered for Sean Fortune are still very much in place, in charge of seminaries, for example. They get to weed out young men who don't go along with sodomising children, and recruit those more appropriate to the program Oh, I forgot, they've had to close the seminaries in Ireland; everybody is too traumatised and cynical there now, because of satanic panic.

Ritual abuse findings in survey of AFMA

Satanic panic

Re: Satanic panic

Re: Satanic panic

Re: Satanic panic

Re: Satanic panic

Re: Satanic panic

Re: privacy or cover up, the politics of privileged material

Biao

"satanic panic"

Re: privacy or cover up, the politics of privileged material

Re: privacy or cover up, the politics of privileged material

Re: privacy or cover up, the politics of privileged material

Re: privacy or cover up, the politics of privileged material

Re: privacy or cover up, the politics of privileged material

organised satanic crime

Who is online