June 12, 2013

“We received only one call, from a gentleman in Massachusetts, and he said he felt sorry for the whole community and wished us well. It was business as usual, except for all the damn reporters.

“I don’t see why this thing has to be tried again. It’s been through the judicial system, and I just don’t know what ‘Frontline’s’ agenda is.

“The town is not divided or in turmoil or any of that stuff they’re saying about it.”

– Edenton Town Manager Anne Marie Kelly (no relation to Bob Kelly), reacting to “Innocence Lost: The Verdict” (as quoted in “Sex-case documentary stirs up Edenton again,” News & Observer, July 22, 1993)

June 7, 2013

“One hundred and fifty-five years after it snubbed Dr. John Snow in his obituary, The Lancet is taking it back.

“The British medical journal noted that its original obituary – published June 26, 1858 – failed to mention his “remarkable achievements” in epidemiology, especially his research on the way cholera is spread….

“It’s not the first time a publication has issued a correction for work published decades ago. The New York Times corrected a 26-year-old error about horse-drawn carriages in Central Park in 2011, and once retracted a 1920 editorial that claimed space travel was impossible.”

– From “The Lancet Corrects Obituary For John Snow Published 155 Years Ago” in the Huffington Post (April 12)

If The Lancet and The New York Times can reach back in their archives to right the record, why can’t Journal of Child and Youth Care, Child Abuse & Neglect and Nursing Research?

June 5, 2013

“More than 50 parents of alleged child victims in the Edenton day care sex abuse case issued a statement Tuesday criticizing ‘Innocence Lost’ (after) reviewers in the national press hailed the show as a compelling portrait of a small town that may have become overcome with mass hysteria:….

“ ‘ “Innocence Lost” conveyed the false impression that parents of the children came to the conclusions of sexual abuse as a hysterical reaction to rumors of abuse.

“ ‘We, as parents, came to the devastating conclusion of the sexual abuse of our children after great reluctance and only after the most convincing evidence, evidence which could not be revealed in interviews for “Innocence Lost” and can only be revealed during the trials of the defendants.’

“Specifically, the parents faulted the show for:

• “Failing to make clear that parents could not discuss ‘the factual reasons for the determinations of sexual abuse’ because of pending trials.
• “Suggesting to viewers that three state-sponsored, local therapists were responsible for evaluating the children when ‘in fact, the children were evaluated by no less than eight independent therapists, none of whom live or practice in Edenton, N.C.’
• “Giving the impression that the families who used the day care center were a ‘prestigious group’ when they represent a ‘broad economic and social cross-section of the town of Edenton.’ ”

– From “Day care parents resent implications of hysteria” (News & Observer, May 15, 1991)

Most disingenuous is the Little Rascals parents’ claim that “the most convincing evidence… could not be revealed in interviews for ‘Innocence Lost’ and can only be revealed during the trials of the defendants.”

In fact, it was the parents themselves who had so excitedly “revealed” the supposed evidence and sent it coursing unchecked through the town’s consciousness, reproducing and mutating as it spread, and resulting in unimaginable tragedy.

May 31, 2013

“After the DSM-III, often called the ‘Bible’ of psychiatric diagnosis, included (Multiple Personality Disorder) in 1980, thousands of spurious cases emerged in the next two decades, and special psychiatric clinics arose to treat them. Yet faced with evidence of this disastrous epidemic, the DSM-IV did not delete the diagnosis. Instead, the manual renamed it Dissociative Identity Disorder.

“ ‘MPD presented a dilemma for me,’ says (psychiatrist Allen Frances, who oversaw DSM-IV). ‘We took scrupulous pains to present both sides of the controversy as fairly and effectively as possible – even though I believed one side was complete bunk.’ How do you ‘fairly’ argue for a diagnosis you think is complete bunk? Where’s the methodological rigor? Why did it take malpractice suits to close the psychiatric MPD clinics and not the presumed voice of scientific authority, the DSM? Dissociative Identity Disorder remains in the DSM-5.”

– From “How Psychiatry Went Crazy” by Carol Tavris in the Wall Street Journal (May 17, 2013)

“Another disturbing by-product of the MPD diagnosis is the prevalence of alleged repressed memories of satanic ritual abuse. The association of satanic ritual abuse in MPD diagnoses has been attributed to the belief by numerous MPD adherents in the existence of an intergenerational satanic cult conspiracy that has murdered thousands without leaving a trace of evidence.”

– From “Repressed Memory, Multiple Personality Disorder and Satanic Ritual Abuse,” an amicus brief filed in Supreme Court of Georgia, Kahout v. Charter Peachford Behavioral Health System (September 1998)

May 29, 2013

“Very sick! There is clear evidence (the Edenton Seven) are guilty… Very troubling to know someone wastes their time writing about this every day. He’s just as sick as they were. Will pray for (him) and the others. Very sad! Think about the real victims here, they were the children (who) never can escape what they went through. Let it go.”

– Comment from “Believer” in response to “Retired Charlotte Observer Columnist Lew Powell Pursuing State’s Admission of Guilt in Witch Hunt of Wrongly Accused” at NewspaperAlum.com (Aug. 9, 2012)

Was Ben Franklin (or Ambrose Bierce?) correct that “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into”? If so, he could hardly have imagined a better example than continued belief in day-care ritual abuse.

May 24, 2013

“The research described is a study of a clinical sample of 72 women who allegedly sexually abused 332 children. The Sample is examined from a variety of perspectives, including whether the abuse was intrafamilial (n = 33), extrafamilial (n = 18), or both (n = 21); and whether the abuse involved multiple intrafamilial offenders (n = 33), a solo intrafamilial offender (n = 17), multiple extrafamilial offenders (n = 16), or solo extrafamilial offenders (n = 6). Social situational factors and individual deficits – mental illness (n = 23), mental retardation (n = 16), substance abuse (n = 37), and other maltreatment of their children (n = 61) that might lead women to sexually abuse children – are examined. Case outcomes, including the number of confessions (n = 49), criminal prosecution (n = 3), and protection of victims (n = 44) are described.”

– From “A Clinical Sample of Women Who Have Sexually Abused Children” (abstract) by Kathleen Coulborn Faller in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse (Vol. 4, Issue 3, 1996)

Yes, I am endlessly appalled by the ornateness of the statistical sham woven by the likes of Kathleen Faller, Susan J. Kelley and David Finkelhor.

What ever could Faller have been thinking as she wrote the words “72 women who allegedly sexually abused 332 children”? Surely she knew the historical absurdity of those numbers.

Did she simply choose to be oblivious? Or was she swallowed up by something more powerful than rationality?

May 22, 2013

“One of the biggest strengths for the prosecution was that these children would go home every night to a parent or parents fully aligned with the prosecution theory. The story line would be reinforced at dinner, bathtime, playtime, bedtime….

“The children were, of course, separated from further contact with the accused day care workers, and by the time of trial their young memories of the actual person had been replaced by the fictional person, if they could remember who the perpetrators were supposed to be at all.

“At one point, a Little Rascals child pointed to a picture of the sheriff as one of the defendants; this identification, of course, was selectively ignored.”

– From “The Metanarrative of Suspicion in Late Twentieth-Century America” by Sandra Baringer (2004)

Edenton’s mayor was also among the initially accused, who numbered either 20, 24 or “dozens,” depending on the source. The inevitable question: How did prosecutors come to choose the Edenton Seven? Who lucked out – and why?