June 11, 2012

After discovering the National Registry of Exonerations, I was happy to see that it lists Little Rascals defendants Bob Kelly and Dawn Wilson, whose convictions were overturned on appeal.

But what about Betsy Kelly and Scott Privott, who both finally accepted plea deals while maintaining their innocence, and Robin Byrum, Darlene Harris and Shelley Stone, all of whom waited years for prosecutors to drop charges?

The registry, a joint project of the University of Michigan Law School and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University, speaks unequivocally about “a wave of child sex abuse hysteria that swept the country….

“Starting in the early 1980s, some prosecutors, therapists and child welfare workers became
convinced that child sex abuse on a massive scale was rampant in their communities. They
believed that most of the victims were too afraid or embarrassed to discuss the abuse, so they
worked to overcome this fear and reluctance by using highly suggestive, persistent and
unrelenting questioning techniques when interviewing the young children.

“It worked. Some of the children complied and accused parents, day-care workers and adult acquaintances of numerous horrifying and bizarre acts. This led to a series of extraordinary prosecutions, many involving allegations of satanic rituals.”

Unfortunately, this acknowledgment of the moral panic doesn’t earn the remaining “Edenton 5” a listing in the registry. Here’s why, according to research assistant Ted Koehler:

“For a case to count as an exoneration for our purposes, a person convicted of a crime must be declared factually innocent by a government official or organization with authority to make such a declaration.

“If this has not happened, a person can still be exonerated if the person was relieved of all consequences of the criminal conviction by a government official with proper authority, through pardon, acquittal of the charges for which the person was originally convicted, or dismissal of those same charges. In such a case, the pardon, acquittal, dismissal or posthumous exoneration must have been the result, at least in part, of evidence of innocence that either (i) was not presented at the trial at which the person was convicted; or (ii) if the person pled guilty, was not known to the defendant or to the defense attorney and the court at the time the plea was entered.

“The Edenton case was a terrible witch hunt. Regretfully, though, because they do not meet the criteria above, Kelly’s and Privott’s guilty pleas and the dropped charges against Byrum, Stone, and Harris do not fit our definition of an exoneration, and are not listed on the registry for that reason.”

I understand the registry’s need to set the bar so high. But what a curious twist that the defendants’ only hope for exoneration lies with the same state that so unjustly prosecuted them.

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.

March 26, 2012

How did the moral panic over day-care ritual abuse spread so widely? Did some undetected psychotropic waft from Manhattan Beach to Edenton to Christchurch, New Zealand?

I was reminded of that lingering question while reading the smart and lively “Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions and Hurtful Acts” (2007).

Although Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson address the day-care panic only briefly, their reference to the McMartin case having produced “copycat accusations against day care teachers across the country” caught my attention. Yes, the timing, pattern and similarity of these cases suggest conscious imitation, but I haven’t seen the evidence.

“We didn’t mean ‘copycat’ literally,” Tavris explains in an e-mail. “It’s just that the McMartin hysteria scared people, and got them worried about their own local day care centers, and motivated DAs and cops to advance their careers by finding these villains… and thereby launched a thousand other efforts to find molesters under the bed and in the day care classrooms…. That’s what a hysterical epidemic means.”

Coincidentally, I’ve been corresponding with Michael Hill, professor of sociology at Victoria University of Wellington, who has traced outbreaks in New Zealand and Australia directly to visits from such American Appleseeds as Roland Summit and Kee MacFarlane.

Jan. 2, 2012

Next to “Why are you doing this?” the question I’m most often asked about Little Rascals is, “Since the trial, what has happened with the kids?”

For those alleged child-victims who testified in day-care abuse cases, the need to forget, to deny and to stay silent must be strong indeed. Who wants to believe they were so misused by their parents, not to mention by therapists and prosecutors? Who can look unblinkingly at the grotesque truth and take it public? For many, given the well-documented power of suggestibility, it may simply be impossible.

One exception was Kyle Zirpolo, who came forward in 2005 to apologize for his role in the McMartin pre-school case.

Last week, on the chance that an Edenton child might be ready to break ranks, I took out classified ads in the daily Elizabeth City Advance and the weekly Chowan Herald with this message:

“If you were a child or parent involved in the Little Rascals Day Care case of the early 1990s, I’d like to hear from you….”

Thursday night I received a call from a woman who credibly identified herself as one of those children. She wouldn’t give her name. She is 26 now, no longer living in Edenton, and she was not happy to see the ad. I felt obliged to tell her at the outset that I considered the defendants wrongly accused. Here’s an edited version of her response:

“It’s sad that you and others believe that. Here it is almost 2012, and I’m still opening up the paper and seeing crap like this (ad). It’s either that, or another bullshit book about our ‘witch hunt.’ And I know they study us and McMartin and Fells Acres in different colleges.

“I’m haunted every single day, and I always will be, so long as those bastards are out there, getting to go about their business. I have a lot of emotions – hypervigilance, anger that I had to go through all that badgering (by the defense). My husband put away my files on the case because it bothered me so much.

“I remember vividly what happened, and I’ve told therapists. You believe a dozen little kids just got together and made up lies? There was physical evidence, things they couldn’t put on TV.  The whole situation was just crap.”

Before we hung up, she said she would consider sending me case materials that I would find persuasive. I appreciate her call and hope to hear from her again.