Jan. 21, 2013

“According to advocates (of victim impact statements), they allow victims to personalize the crime and elevate the status of the victim by describing the effect the crime has had on them or their families. Some laud the courtroom ritual as an aid in the emotional recovery of the victim…. A few legal scholars suggest that the well-intentioned personalization of a crime can blur the line between public justice and private retribution….”

– From “Death by Treacle” by Pamela Haag in the American Scholar (Spring 2012)

“Prosecutor Nancy Lamb and the mothers of the victims burst into tears. Court officials handed out tissues.”

– From “Day Care Owner Convicted on 99 Counts of Child Abuse” by the Associated Press (April 22, 1992)

Count me with those “few legal scholars” who doubt justice is well served by injections of sentimentality. (Although Bob Kelly’s sentencing seems to have concluded without victim impact statements, prosecutors ensured an ample display of mawkishness – the front row was packed with supposed child-victims holding tight to their dolls and teddy bears.)

But sentimentality also extends to the blindered bonding of Little Rascals prosecutors and parents.

What if Nancy Lamb had managed to keep even the slightest professional distance between herself and the parents, instead of being swallowed up in their manic cause? Might she have been able to glimpse reality?

And what if Bill Hart had avoided dating (and later marrying) one of those parents?

Pennsylvania prosecutor Alan Rubenstein managed to avoid such pitfalls – why couldn’t others?

Oct. 4, 2014

Among those journalists who fell for the “satanic ritual abuse” storyline, none fell harder than Civia Tamarkin.

She not only stage-managed an embarrassingly credulous episode of “Nightline,” but also testified earnestly at a Believe the Children convention alongside Little Rascals prosecutor H. P. Williams Jr. and supposed ritual-abuse survivor Laura Buchanan (““ was told that a surveillance device would be inserted into my brain….”).

In 1993 Tamarkin delivered a lengthy address on “Investigative Issues in Ritual Abuse Cases” to the Fifth Eastern Regional Conference on Abuse and Multiple Personality in Alexandria, Va.

Like Ross Cheit two decades later, she had no trouble detailing numerous flaws in the prosecution of McMartin and other ritual abuse cases but inevitably came up frustrated in her search for a smoking gun or two.  Most striking, after recounting all her journalistic fault-finding, was her unquestioning gratitude to SRA snake-oil theoreticians Roland Summit and Bennett Braun for “(taking) the time to teach me what they could.”

Prior to her affiliation with Believe the Children, Tamarkin had reported commendably for Time, People and the Chicago Sun-Times and had coauthored a book with Chicago educator Marva Collins.

More recently, she has directed a documentary on the aftermath of a soldier’s death in Iraq….

So what happened in the 1990s? How did an experienced reporter lose her skepticism in the face of “ritual abuse” claims?

I’ve asked Tamarkin what she was thinking then – and what she believes today – but haven’t received a response.

Oct. 31, 2012

“Mass movements can rise and spread without a belief in God, but never without belief in a devil.”

– Eric Hoffer in his landmark analysis of fanaticism, “The True Believer” (1951)

Hoffer’s point was impressively made in the day-care mania. In no case I’ve found – in this country at least – did religion play a significant factor. To the contrary, several ministers and churches were on the receiving end of wrongful prosecution.

July 17, 2013

“Some reports of day care abuse suggest threats and verbal coercion to be particularly severe. (David) Finkelhor et al. (1988), for example, reported that in day care abuse, perpetrators threatened harm to the child in 41% of cases, harm to the child’s family in 22% of cases and threatened to kill a child’s pet in 12%. (Susan J.) Kelley, Brant and Waterman (1993) added that threats in these cases were most likely to involve harm to the victim or their family. (Kathleen Coulborn) Faller (1990) notes that in addition to death threats against the victim or their family, a further frequent threat was to implicate the victim.”

– From “Women Who Sexually Abuse Children” by Hannah Ford (2006)

So much so wrong in so few words!

Finkelhor, Kelley and Faller – among their era’s most prolific researchers in child sexual abuse – have never retracted their false claims. And despite epochal advances in social science, author Ford in 2006 cites their work without qualification, thus extending its influence to another generation.

Notable also: As does fellow fantasist Susan J. Kelley, Finkelhor uses statistics to lend authority to his alternate universe. How many “perpetrators… threatened to kill a child’s pet”? Not 10 percent, not 11 percent, but “12 percent” – who could doubt such exactitude?