Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

December 21, 2008 Comments Off on Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

http://ritualabuse.us/research/parental-alienation-syndrome/

This article analyzes every precedent-bearing decision and law review article referencing PAS in the past twenty years, finding that precedent holds PAS inadmissible and the majority of legal scholarship views it negatively.”

Both Gardner (PAS’s originator) and NAMBLA claim that adult-child sex is biologically natural, not inherently harmful to the child, and that any resultant harm is caused by social stigma rather than the sexual contact itself.”

“While Gardner claimed that “repeat offenders must be removed from society,” he advocated that they only be imprisoned after treatment has failed, advocating that they not be imprisoned with “hardened criminals,” or be subjected to lengthy sentences. As a political advocate, Gardner lobbied to abolish mandated reporting of child abuse, to abolish immunity for reporters of child abuse, and for the creation of federally funded programs to assist individuals claiming to be falsely accused.”

The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy
Jennifer Hoult – Children’s Legal Rights Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006  Abstract:  Since 1985, in jurisdictions all over the United States, fathers have been awarded sole custody of their children based on claims that mothers alienated these children due to a pathological medical syndrome called Parental Alienation Syndrome (“PAS”). Given that some such cases have involved stark outcomes, including murder and suicide, PAS’s admissibility in U.S. courts deserves scrutiny. This article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the science, law, and policy issues involved in PAS’s evidentiary admissibility. As a novel scientific theory, PAS’s admissibility is governed by a variety of evidentiary gatekeeping standards that seek to protect legal fora from the influence of pseudo-science. This article analyzes every precedent-bearing decision and law review article referencing PAS in the past twenty years, finding that precedent holds PAS inadmissible and the majority of legal scholarship views it negatively. The article further analyzes PAS’s admissibility under the standards defined in Frye v. United States, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, and Rules 702 and 704(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including analysis of PAS’s scientific validity and reliability; concluding that PAS remains an ipse dixit and inadmissible under these standards. The article also analyzes the writings of PAS’s originator, child psychiatrist Richard Gardner – including twenty-three peer-reviewed articles and fifty legal decisions he cited in support of his claim that PAS is scientifically valid and legally admissible – finding that these materials support neither PAS’s existence, nor its legal admissibility. Finally, the article examines the policy issues raised by PAS’s admissibility through an analysis of PAS’s roots in Gardner’s theory of human sexuality, a theory that views adult-child sexual contact as benign and beneficial to the reproduction of the species. http://ssrn.com/abstract=910267
paper available at : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=642440

from the paper : 1. American Precedent Holds PAS Inadmissible – Because unreliable scientific claims pose a unique risk of undue influence and prejudice in the courtroom, the evidentiary admissibility of novel scientific material is governed by gate-keeping rules that are intended to ensure that such testimony meets adequate standards of reliability. As a novel scientific theory, PAS’s admissibility is governed by these gate-keeping rules. Gardner published the claim that fifty American decisions set precedent holding PAS admissible under the relevant evidentiary rules. A closer examination reveals this claim to be unfounded; current U.S. precedent holds PAS inadmissible. By July 19, 2005, sixty-four precedent bearing cases referenced PAS. Only two of these decisions, both originating in criminal courts in New York State, set precedent on the issue of PAS’s evidentiary admissibility; both held PAS inadmissible….

A. PAS Is Not a Medical Syndrome – A medical “syndrome” defines a “distinct” correlation between a set of symptoms and a particular pathology. Determining whether PAS is a valid medical syndrome requires an assessment of whether it is an existing pathology and whether its diagnostic criteria correlate accurately with that pathology….Both Gardner and NAMBLA claim that adult-child sex is biologically natural, not inherently harmful to the child, and that any resultant harm is caused by social stigma rather than the sexual contact itself. Gardner claimed the sole “determinant as to whether these experiences [i.e. a sexual encounter between an adult and a child] will be traumatic is the social attitude towards these encounters” and stated: [M]any societies have been unjustifiably punitive to those who exhibit these sexual paraphilic variations [e.g. pedophiles, rapists, etc.] and have not been giving proper respect to the genetic factors that may very well be operative. Such considerations may result in greater tolerance for those who exhibit these atypical sexual proclivities. My hope is that this theory will play a role (admittedly small) in bringing about greater sympathy and respect for individuals who exhibit these variations of sexual behavior. [Further,] they do play a role in species survival. While Gardner claimed that “repeat offenders must be removed from society,” he advocated that they only be imprisoned after treatment has failed, advocating that they not be imprisoned with “hardened criminals,” or be subjected to lengthy sentences. As a political advocate, Gardner lobbied to abolish mandated reporting of child abuse, to abolish immunity for reporters of child abuse, and for the creation of federally funded programs to assist individuals claiming to be falsely accused. 

Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Getting It Wrong in Child Custody Cases Carol S. Bruch  University of California, Davis 35 Family Law Quarterly 527 (2001)  Abstract:   As courts and legislatures continue their enthusiastic ventures into family law reform, they make frequent use of theories and research from the social sciences. This essay focuses on developments in child custody law stemming from “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS), a theory propounded in 1985 by Richard Gardner, M.D. that became widely used despite its lack of scientific foundations. The discussion highlights theoretical and practical problems with PAS, provides a similar review of more recent proposals labeled “Parental Alienation” (PA), and concludes with recommendations for lawyers and judges who must evaluate these and similar developments. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=298110&rec=1&srcabs=910267
paper available at : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=228611

C. The Flaws in PAS Theory – The deficiencies in PAS theory are multiple. Some have already been identified in social science literature and child custody judicial opinions; still others are now emerging. First, Gardner confounds a child’s developmentally related reaction to divorce and high parental conflict (including violence) with psychosis. In doing so, he fails to recognize parents’ and children’s angry, often inappropriate, and totally predictable behavior following separation. This error leads him to claim that PAS constitutes a frequent example of folie à deux or folie à trois, Shared Psychotic Disorders that the American Psychiatric Association and scholarly studies report occur only rarely. His assertion that these disorders occur primarily in young children is also contrary to the literature, probably also due to a misreading of typical developmental responses to divorce on the part of young children. Second, possibly as a consequence of these errors and his tail-of-the-elephant view, Gardner vastly overstates the frequency of cases in which children and custodial parents manufacture false allegations or collude to destroy the parent-child relationship. Taken together, these assertions have the practical effect of impugning all abuse allegations, allegations which Gardner asserts are usually false in the divorce context. Here, too, Gardner cites no evidence in support of his personal view, and the relevant literature reports the contrary—that such allegations are usually well founded. Third, in this fashion, PAS shifts attention away from the perhaps dangerous behavior of the parent seeking custody to that of the custodial parent. This person, who may be attempting to protect the child, is instead presumed to be lying and poisoning the child. Indeed, for Gardner, the concerned custodial parent’s steps to obtain professional assistance in diagnosing, treating, and protecting the child constitute evidence of false allegations. Worse yet, if therapists agree that danger exists, Gardner asserts that they are almost always man-hating women who have entered into a folie à trois with the complaining child and concerned parent. Indeed, he warns judges not to take abuse allegations seriously in the divorce court setting in high conflict cases (severe PAS cases). Neither Gardner nor those who accept his views acknowledge the logical difficulties when Gardner asserts that abuse allegations which are believed by therapists constitute evidence of PA by the protective parent. Fourth, Gardner believes that, particularly in serious cases, the relationship of an alienated child with the rejected parent will be irreparably damaged, probably ending for all time, unless immediate, drastic measures (custody transfer, isolation from the loved parent, and deprogramming) are taken. Here, too, reliable sources reveal that his theory is exaggerated, with all but unusual cases (for example, those appearing in violent families) resolving themselves as the children mature. Fifth, as these sources suggest, Gardner’s proposed remedy for extreme cases is unsupported and endangers children. In his admitted decision to err on the side of under-identifying abusers, Gardner appears to have overlooked the policy differences between criminal law and child custody law and also to have misunderstood the distinction between the burdens of proof in criminal and civil cases in the United States. To the extent that PAS results in placing children with a parent who is, in fact, abusive, the youngsters will be bereft of contact with the parent who might help them. Parent groups and investigative reporting describe, for example, numerous cases in which trial courts have transferred children’s custody to known or likely abusers and custodial parents have been denied contact with the children they have been trying to protect. In less extreme cases, too, children are likely to suffer from such a sudden dislocation in their home life and relationship with the parent they trust. Even therapists who accept PAS theory have advised against custody transfers to no avail in some reported cases in which it seems judges have implemented Gardner’s views on their own initiative….PAS as developed and purveyed by Richard Gardner has neither a logical nor a scientific basis. It is rejected by responsible social scientists and lacks solid grounding in psychological theory or research. PA, although more refined in its understanding of child-parent difficulties, entails intrusive, coercive, unsubstantiated remedies of its own. Lawyers, judges, and mental health professionals who deal with child custody issues should think carefully and respond judiciously when claims based on either theory are advanced.

Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force On Violence And The Family – ISSUES AND DILEMMAS IN FAMILY VIOLENCE Issue 5 WHEN PARENTS SEPARATE AFTER AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP, SHOULDN’T FATHERS HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT AS MOTHERS TO BE GRANTED PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF AND VISITATION RIGHTS WITH THEIR CHILDREN? Tensions exist between children’s need for contact with their father and their need to be protected from the physical, sexual and psychological abuse that is common in families where there has been other forms of violence such as woman abuse.  Although most people believe that fathers should have equal access to their children after the termination of a relationship between the parents, the equal-access option is based on the assumption that the fathers will act in their children’s best interests. However, that is a naive assumption in situations where family violence has occurred. Fathers who batter their children’s mothers can be expected to use abusive power and control techniques to control the children, too. In many of these families, prior to separation, the men were not actively involved in the raising of their children. To gain control after the marital separation, the fathers fight for the right to be involved. Often children who have been exposed to violence in the family are frightened to confront their father’s negative or abusive behavior, and mothers cannot protect them. Sometimes the father tries to alienate the child from the mother by using money and other enticements, negative comments, or restricted access to the telephone during visitation with him. Other times, fathers may threaten or actually kidnap the child to punish the mother for leaving, or to try to force her to return. Most people, including the battered woman herself, believe that when a woman leaves a violent man, she will remain the primary caretaker of their children. Family courts, however, may not consider the history of woman abuse relevant in awarding custody. Recent studies suggest that an abusive man is more likely than a nonviolent father to seek sole physical custody of his children and may be just as likely (or even more likely) to be awarded custody as the mother. Often fathers win physical custody because men generally have greater financial resources and can continue the court battles with more legal assistance over a longer period of time. Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children’s witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers. http://web.archive.org/web/20000307233013/www.apa.org/pi/pii/familyvio/issue5.html

LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW 29:1367-1415 (1994) THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME: A DANGEROUS AURA OF RELIABILITY Cheri L. Wood – PAS testimony should not be admitted in court because of the causation and evidentiary problems with the theory. Because of the dangerous aura of reliability and trustworthiness extant in Dr. Gardner’s self- published theory, admission of PAS is inevitable and particularly disconcerting. http://fact.on.ca/Info/pas/wood94.htm

Dr. Richard Gardner: A Review of His Theories and Opinions on Atypical Sexuality, Pedophilia, and Treatment Issues by Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, MSN, FNP Reference: Dallam, S. J. (1998). Treating Abuse Today, 8(1), 15-23. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/2.html

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is one such theory. This unsophisticated, pseudoscientific theory explains a child’s estrangement from one parent or allegations of abuse at the hands of one parent by blaming the other. The theory, developed by the late Richard A. Gardner, M.D., portrays the preferred parent (usually the mother under PAS) as an evil “alienator” who is virtually solely responsible for turning a vulnerable child against their estranged parent (usually the father under PAS)….there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS is a valid syndrome or that the so called “alienator’s” behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child’s behavior towards the target parent (Walker et al, 2005). In fact, the majority of mental health and legal experts who have studied the issue consider PAS theory to be both erroneous and dangerous to the children involved. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/faq.htm

The Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is It Scientific? by Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, MSN, FNP Dallam, S. J. (1999).  In E. St. Charles & L. Crook (Eds.), Expose: The failure of family courts to protect children from abuse in custody disputes . Los Gatos , CA : Our Children Our Children Charitable Foundation. Gardner ’s theories are based on his assumption that sex between a child and an adult is not inherently harmful, and his belief that there is an epidemic of false sexual abuse allegations being made by vengeful wives during custody disputes. Gardner maintains these beliefs in spite of a wealth of clinical and experimental data which prove otherwise. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/3.html

Faller, K. C. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome: What is it and what data support it? Child Maltreatment, 3(2), 100-115 “No data are provided by Gardner to support the existence of the syndrome and its proposed dynamics. In fact, the research and clinical writing of other professionals leads to a conclusion that some of its tenets are wrong and that other tenets represent a minority view” (p. 112).  http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/docs/Faller1998.pdf

Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 1 of 2 Update – Volume 16, Number 6, 2003 By Erika Rivera Ragland & Hope Fields PAS is based primarily upon two notions, neither of which has a foundation in empirical research. 1. PAS Presupposes a High Rate of False Accusations in Custody Cases The theory of PAS is based in part on the notion that, within custody disputes, there is a high incidence of false abuse allegations. Dr. Gardner theorized that allegations arising within the context of a custody dispute have a “high likelihood of being false,”5 and went so far as to state that he believed “the vast majority of allegations in this category [divorce cases with custody disputes] are false.” To the contrary, the available research suggests that false allegation rates are not significantly high. For example, a 1990 study by Thoennes and Tjaden evaluated 9,000 divorces in 12 states and found that sexual abuse allegations were made in less than 2 percent of the contested divorces involving child custody. Within this group, it appears false allegations occurred in approximately 5% to 8% of cases. This study is one of the most comprehensive and least subject to bias and sampling problems, since its sample is so large and representative of the population of those divorcing with custody and visitation disputes. 2. PAS Presumes a Disadvantage to Women in Child Custody Determinations….Other Weaknesses: Lack of Peer Review and Recognition by DSM-IV Dr. Gardner mostly self-published and thus did not generally subject his theory to the peer review process. Moreover, PAS is not recognized by any professional associations, including the American Psychiatric Association. PAS is also not included within the DSM-IV. It is also worth noting that Dr. Gardner often expressed disdain for child abuse professionals, labeling them “validators,” theorizing that greed and desire for increased business prompted some sexual abuse allegations, and speculating that parents and professionals alike made some false allegations because “all of us have some pedophilia within us.” Conclusion – At best, PAS is a nondiagnostic “syndrome” that only explains the behavior of the child and the mother when there is a known false allegation. It is a courtroom diagnosis befitting adversaries involved in legal sparring. It is not capable of lending itself to hard data or inclusion in the forthcoming DSM-V. In short, PAS is an untested theory that, unchallenged, can have far-reaching consequences for children seeking protection and legal vindication in courts of law. http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_6_2003.html

Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Update – Volume 16, Number 7, 2003 Part 2 of 2 By Hope Fields & Erika Rivera Ragland PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children. Prosecutors should educate themselves about PAS and be prepared to argue against its admission in court. In cases where PAS testimony is admitted, it is a prosecutor’s responsibility to educate the judge and jury about the shortfalls of this theory. As more criminal courts refuse to admit PAS evidence, more protection will be afforded to victims of sexual abuse in our court system. http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_7_2003.html

Parental Alienation Syndrome: Frye V. Gardner in the Family Courts by Poliacoff, Ph.D., P.A., Greene, Esq., and Smith, Esq http://web.archive.org/web/20051124134133/http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/poliacoff.htm

RICHARD A. GARDNER: IN HIS OWN WORDS “At the present time, the sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim,” though the child may initiate sexual encounters by ’seducing’ the adult.” Gardner, Richard A., Child Custody Litigation (1986), p.93  http://web.archive.org/web/20061012010857/http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/pedoph.htm

Advertisements

proof mk-ultra exists

December 18, 2008 Comments Off on proof mk-ultra exists

MC Documents & Links

proof mk-ultra exists

There were several congressional hearings proving that mk-ultra existed. A book was written about  it.

see:
A LOOK AT THE LAW AND GOVERNMENT MIND CONTROL THROUGH FIVE CASES
CIA VS SIMS
UNITED STATES VS STANLEY
ORLIKOW, ET AL VS UNITED STATES
KRONISCH VS UNITED STATES ET AL
HEINRICH, ET AL VS SWEET, ET AL
http://ritualabuse.us/mindcontrol/articles-books/the-law-and-mind-control-a-look-at-the-law-and-goverment-mind-control-through-five-cases/

Declassified MK-Ultra Project Documents:
http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm

MKULTRA Documents
http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/freebook/mk/

http://cryptome.org/mkultra-0001.htm
The Search for the Manchurian Candidate

The CIA and Mind Control  – John Marks
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/marks.htm

List of MKULTRA Unclassified Documents (including subprojects)
http://nemasys.com/rahome/library/programming/mkultra.shtml

APPENDIX B Documents Referring To Discovery Of Additional MKULTRA Material?
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/AppendixB.htm

1995 congressional hearing – MKULTRA Victim Testimony C
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-ES8Bv0_8w

http://ritualabuse.us/mindcontrol/mc-documents-links/mk-ultra-links-torture-based-government-sponsored-mind-control-experimentation-on-children/

http://ritualabuse.us/mindcontrol/mc-documents-links/cia-mind-control-nazis-mk-ultra-ritual-abuse-information/

The Shock Doctrine – by Naomi Klein – Chapter 1 – The Torture Lab – Ewen Cameron, the CIA and the maniacal quest to erase and remake the human mind.
http://books.google.com/books?id=b1uQNYbE8DkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0805079831#PPA25,M1

MKULTRA Victim Testimony A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iflBkRlpRy0&feature=related

MKULTRA Victim Testimony B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXDASDDrDkM
MKULTRA Victim Testimony C http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-ES8Bv0_8w

U.S. Supreme Court  CIA v. SIMS, 471 U.S. 159 (1985) 471 U.S. 159 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ET AL. v. SIMS ET AL.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT  No. 83-1075.  Argued December 4, 1984  Decided April 16, 1985 ….Between 1953 and 1966, the Central Intelligence Agency financed a wide-ranging project, code-named MKULTRA, concerned with “the research and development of chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behavior.” The [471 U.S. 159, 162]   program consisted of some 149 subprojects which the Agency contracted out to various universities, research foundations, and similar institutions. At least 80 institutions and 185 private researchers participated. Because the Agency funded MKULTRA indirectly, many of the participating individuals were unaware that they were dealing with the Agency.  MKULTRA was established to counter perceived Soviet and Chinese advances in brainwashing and interrogation techniques. Over the years the program included various medical and psychological experiments, some of which led to untoward results. These aspects of MKULTRA surfaced publicly during the 1970’s and became the subject of executive and congressional investigations. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/471/159.html

U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. STANLEY, 483 U.S. 669 (1987) 483 U.S. 669 UNITED STATES ET AL. v. STANLEY CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 86-393. Argued April 21, 1987 Decided June 25, 1987 Respondent, a serviceman, volunteered for what was ostensibly a chemical warfare testing program, but in which he was secretly administered lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) pursuant to an Army plan to test the effects of the drug on human subjects, whereby he suffered severe personality changes that led to his discharge and the dissolution of his marriage. Upon being informed by the Army that he had been given LSD, respondent filed a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit. The District Court granted the Government summary judgment on the ground that the suit was barred by the doctrine of Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 , which precludes governmental FTCA liability for injuries to servicemen resulting from activity “incident to service.” Although agreeing with this holding, the Court of Appeals remanded the case upon concluding that respondent had at least a colorable constitutional claim under the doctrine of Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , whereby a violation of constitutional rights can give rise to a damages action against the offending federal officials even in the absence of a statute authorizing such relief, unless there are “special factors counselling hesitation” or an “explicit congressional declaration” of another, exclusive remedy. Respondent then amended his complaint to add Bivens claims and attempted to resurrect his FTCA claim. Although dismissing the latter claim, the District Court refused to dismiss the Bivens claims, rejecting, inter alia, the Government’s argument that the same considerations giving rise to the Feres doctrine should constitute “special factors” barring a Bivens action….In February 1958, James B. Stanley, a master sergeant in the Army stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky, volunteered to participate in a program ostensibly designed to test the effectiveness of protective clothing and equipment as defenses against chemical warfare. He was released from his then-current duties and went to the Army’s Chemical Warfare Laboratories at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Four times that month, Stanley was secretly administered doses of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), pursuant to an Army plan to study the effects of the drug on human subjects. According to his Second Amended Complaint (the allegations of which we accept for purposes of this decision), as a result of the LSD exposure, Stanley has suffered from hallucinations and periods of incoherence and memory loss, was impaired in his military performance, and would on occasion “awake from sleep at night and, without reason, violently beat his wife and children, later being unable to recall the entire incident.” App. 5. He was discharged from the Army in 1969. One year later, his marriage dissolved because of the personality changes wrought by the LSD. December 10, 1975, the Army sent Stanley a letter soliciting his cooperation in a study of the long-term effects of LSD on “volunteers who participated” in the 1958 tests. [483 U.S. 669, 672] This was the Government’s first notification to Stanley that he had been given LSD during his time in Maryland. After an administrative claim for compensation was denied by the Army, Stanley filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., alleging negligence in the administration, supervision, and subsequent monitoring of the drug testing program. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/483/669.html

Paul McHugh

December 17, 2008 Comments Off on Paul McHugh

Information on Paul McHugh Bishops Select Lay Board On Sexual Abuse Review By Laurie Goodstein 6/25/02  “Dr. McHugh, who was a founder and board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.”  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DEFD91038F936A15754C0A9649C8B63

Brown, D; Frischholz E, Scheflin A. (1999). “Iatrogenic dissociative identity disorder – an evaluation of the scientific evidence”. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law XXVII No. 3-4 (Fall-Winter 1999):549–637. p. 604 – 605 “The problem with McHugh’s publications on MPD/DID, like those of Mersky, is that they are mere speculation. From deposition testimony in several cases, McHugh has made it clear that other than an occasional consultation, he has very little actual clinical experience with the ongoing treatment of MPD/DID patients and is generally unfamiliar with both the clinical features of MPD/DID and with what usually occurs in their treatment. This McHugh’s opinion is informed neither by actual in-depth clinical experience with contemporary MPD/DID patients nor by any scientific research on MPD. Furthermore, with regard to McHugh’s main hypothesis that hysterical behavior is implicated in DID iatrogenesis, Gleaves has shown that such phenomena are no more prevalent in DID than in any other psychiatric condition.” (Gleaves, D. July 1996 The sociocognitive model of dissociative identity disorder: a reexamination of the evidence, Psychological Bulletin 120, 1  p.42-59 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8711016?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus) “ No reason exists to doubt the connection between DID and childhood trauma.http://ritualabuse.us/research/did/basic-information-on-didmpd/

Morrison threatens to sue witness – Expert witness Paul McHugh, a psychiatrist, could face disciplinary action for revealing information in Wichita abortion records. By Dion Leflert 6/13/07 Wichita Eagle – Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison on Tuesday threatened to sue a psychiatric expert hired by his predecessor if he doesn’t stop making public statements about medical records from an investigation of Wichita abortion provider George Tiller. In a letter, Morrison told psychiatrist Paul McHugh that if he persists, the attorney general’s office will “pursue all available remedies.” That could include legal action to get a refund of $5,000 the state has paid McHugh and possible disciplinary action against him in his home state of Maryland. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31256521_ITM

Dubious choice for resolving church scandal by Mara J. Math 9/21/02 “McHugh’s actions…pose the deepest threat to the council’s credibility. McHugh is the only therapist on the lay council. This makes his participation especially significant, because other members may rely on his presumed expertise. Because he frequently testifies on behalf of accused molesters, doubts may be raised about the council’s desire to truly solve the problem. McHugh…is the man whose report to the court in one case stated that a defendant’s harassing phone calls were not obscene – including the call that detailed a fantasy of a 4-year-old sex slave locked in a dog cage and fed human waste. At least eight men have been convicted of sexually abusing Maryland children while under treatment at the “sex disorders” clinic McHugh runs at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine – abuse the doctors did not report, citing client confidentiality. When Maryland law was changed to require that doctors report child molestation, the clinic fought it and advised patients on how to get around the law. The memo to patients suggested that molesters report their pedophilic activities to their lawyers, who could in turn tell staff; attorney-client privilege would then protect the molesters from being reported. This memo was fully approved by the boss – Dr. Paul McHugh…” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/20/ED175849.DTL

Paul McHugh on transsexualism – From an article by Elizabeth Gilbert: McHugh has always reserved special scorn for the practice of sex-change surgery on adult transsexuals. Classifying transsexualism as merely one symptom in a larger complex of personality disorders, McHugh had long believed that psychiatrists should treat such patients with the talking cure, not radical, irreversible surgeries. In a 1992 article in the American Scholar, McHugh lambasted transsexual surgery as ‘the most radical therapy ever encouraged by twentieth century psychiatrists’ and likened its popularity to the once widespread practice of frontal lobotomy.  http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/paul-mchugh.html

Ralph Underwager

December 17, 2008 Comments Off on Ralph Underwager

Information on Ralph Underwager:
Interview in Amsterdam in June 1991 by “Paidika,” Editor-in-Chief, Joseph Geraci.

PAIDIKA: Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individuals?

RALPH UNDERWAGER: Certainly it is responsible. What I have been struck by as I have come to know more about and understand people who choose paedophilia is that they let themselves be too much defined by other people. That is usually an essentially negative definition. Paedophiles spend a lot of time and energy defending their choice. I don’t think that a paedophile needs to do that. Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God’s will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: “This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I’ve made.”

Paedophiles are too defensive. They go around saying, “You people out there are saying that what I choose is bad, that it’s no good. You’re putting me in prison, you’re doing all these terrible things to me. I have to define my love as being in some way or other illicit.” What I think is that paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, “I believe this is in fact part of God’s will.” They have the right to make these statements for themselves as personal choices. Now whether or not they can persuade other people they are right is another matter (laughs).
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html

WITNESS FOR MR. BUBBLES Transcribed from “Australia 60 Minutes,” Channel Nine Network  (Aired on August 5, 1990 in Australia) Produced by Anthony McClellan; Reported by Mike Munro….

(describes crimes)
Reporter: Six weeks ago (17 June 1990) we brought you a story that a number of people, including some in high places, wanted to keep secret: the case against Mr. Bubbles. In that report, parents named Tony Deren as the man who had sexually assaulted their children. Deren’s wife ran the kindergarten they attended. Tonight we investigate another crucial aspect of this disturbing case. You remember, police listed seventeen young victims, and more than fifty (54) criminal charges were eventually laid. But when the Mr. Bubbles case went to court, not one of the children was called to give evidence. The charges were thrown out, and Tony Deren was set free.

One of the key Deren witnesses was a hired gun from the United States, a psychologist named Ralph Underwager, who says he’s an expert in child sexual abuse. He testified that the children’s evidence had been contaminated, and they were too young to know what the truth was.

“Reporter: This is Ralph Underwager. Psychologist. He was paid $25,000, and gave crucial evidence in favor of Tony Deren. Evidence which helped Deren walk free….

Reporter: Always the same story. Three and four year olds being lured into bubble baths with a man who sexually abused them.

Professor Kim Oates: Having examined them, and talked with them, I’m absolutely convinced the children were sexually abused.

Reporter: There’s absolutely no doubt?

Oates: No doubt at all

(Voice over)
Reporter: That’s the evidence Professor Kim Oates wanted to give in court. But he was never asked. As head of the Child Protection Unit at the Camperdown Children’s Hospital in Sydney, he’s known around the world as an expert in detecting child sexual abuse.

(Back to what is being said with the Professor)
Reporter: So we have eighteen children who were examined, five of whom your staff say were definitely sexually abused, and all of them from the same preschool. What’s your reaction to that?

Oates: Well, I think if you look at the incidence of significant child sexual abuse in the community, significant enough to lay physical findings in the preschool age group, I think it’s extraordinary….

Reporter: This is Debbie’s medical report. Once again, it was positive; there was sexual abuse.

(Switch to interview with Debbie’s mother)
Debbie’s mother: I was entirely spun out on that because I, at that point, had been trying to tell myself that, no, this wasn’t happening, it wasn’t true, who would interfere with my child.

Another child (wasn’t identified): I put some things in his body, and he put some things in my body, but I didn’t want him to.

Reporter: Cindy’s medical report confirms she was abused. The doctor found signs consistent with traumatic dilatation of the anus….

Reporter: This is Boroko Court House, Port Moresby, New Guinea. In 1972, Deren was brought here, charged with the aggravated assault of two young girls. He’d interfered with them in a swimming pool. Something Deren admits. And both charges were proven….

Reporter: There’s no doubt scores of questions remain unanswered in the Mr. Bubbles case, and some of them relate to Ralph Underwager, the expert witness Tony Deren paid to testify on his behalf. Ralph Underwager was imperative to Tony Deren’s defense. As a supposed independent expert, he testified that the evidence of the Bubbles children had become contaminated. And, they were too young to understand their duty to tell the truth. But, here in America, we’ve certainly discovered Underwager’s reputation and credentials aren’t all they’re cracked up to be….

Dr. Anna Salter: Well, he is someone who makes his living going around the country and testifying against children in child sexual abuse cases. He says the same thing in essentially every case. Which is every . . .

(Voice over)
Reporter: And Anna Salter knows what she’s talking about. A Ph.D. from Harvard, and a Master’s Degree in Early Childhood. She says young children can be believed.

(Back to Salter)
Anna Salter: This is consistent with the literature. If you look at what is the best legal textbook in the country today on children as witnesses, “Child Witness: Theory and Practice”, John Meyers says clearly children as young as three can comprehend the duty to tell the truth.

Reporter: And this man is a highly respected legal scholar in America?

Anna Salter: I think he’s fairly clearly the chief leading scholar on child sexual abuse in the country.

Reporter: Six American states have given Dr. Salter a grant to check Underwager’s methods in court. And what did she find?

Anna Salter: That he isn’t accurate. That what he says in court does not necessarily fairly represent the literature.

Reporter: He distorts the facts?

Anna Salter: Uh, frequently. Sometimes he quotes specific studies, and he’s frequently wrong about what the studies say.

Reporter: So we thought we’d get Dr. Salter to analyze the evidence Underwager gave under oath at the Mr. Bubbles hearing, where he testified his qualifications had never been questioned. But in an American case, the Swann case, this is what the courts said about Mr. Underwager.

Anna Salter: The court remains convinced the psychologist did not have the qualifications to testify as a doctor. The trial court ruled that the psychologist’s proposed testimony was not proper because there was no indication that the results of the doctor’s work had been accepted in the scientific community.

Reporter: In the Mr. Bubbles case, he said his qualifications were never in question….

Reporter: Now, the second incident, in the Mr. Bubbles case, was where Underwager said that 90 percent of accusations against child molesters are wrong. Now, is that backed up scientifically?

Anna Salter: No, that’s gobbledegook. I don’t know of any study that would support that….

Reporter: Ralph Underwager was hired to defend Polly’s father. And as usual, he testified that nothing had happened. It was all a delusion, and Polly had simply made the whole story up. But then, Underwager was cross-examined by Polly’s lawyer, Charles Vaughan.

(Scene switch to Vaughan’s office)
Vaughan: He used the theory that it was a delusion of the child that she was doing a favor for the mother by saying this happened when it really didn’t happen, to gain the favor and to be the apple of the eye of the mother.

Reporter: A delusion that she was continually raped over four days.

Vaughan: That’s right….

Reporter: The jury took only an hour to decide Polly Barnes was telling the truth. And that Ralph Underwager’s testimony that nothing had happened, could be ignored. In fact, Underwager’s evidence was rejected so much, the jury awarded Polly three and a quarter million dollars.

(Scene switch to Underwager’s house)(Voice over)
Reporter: So while Underwager was being rejected here in America, he had no such trouble at the Mr. Bubbles hearing in Australia where he testified that the children were too young to tell the truth….

Reporter: Ralph Underwager has testified for the defendants in about four hundred child abuse cases.  http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/MrBubbles.html

State of Minnesota v. Deloch, 1990 WL 48536 (Minn.App.), April 24, 1990 “After the state rested its case, it brought a motion in limine regarding Dr. Ralph Underwager, a psychologist the defense planned to call as a witness. Dr. Underwager’s testimony was directed to two issues: (1) the techniques used by Dr. Carolyn Levit in examining alleged child sexual abuse victims, and their impact on the child; and (2) characteristics of the memory process, especially learned memory versus acual recall of a real event. The trial court excluded Dr. Underwager’s testimony.
Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Underwager’s testimony about Dr. Levitt’s examination procedures lacks merit. Before testimony by an expert witness may be admitted, the expert must be qualified by way of education or experience. Because Dr.Underwager is not a medical doctor, he does not have the expertise or qualifications to either evaluate Dr. Levitt’s examination technique for child abuse victims, or assess its acceptance or reputation in the scientific community.
The trial court did not err in excluding Dr. Underwager’s testimony about learned memory. The record does not establish that the scientific basis for his theory is reliable and broadly accepted in its field. Furthermore, the basic rule is that expert testimony, to be admissible, must be helpful to the jury, and we conclude that Dr. Underwager’s testimony….. would not necessarily be helpful. Dr. Underwager’s testimony would tend to inappropriately interfere with the role of the jury in assessing credibility. No evidence exists that Dr. Underwager’s testimony would add precision or depth to the jury’s conclusions.… Dr. Underwager’s testimony was excluded precisely because its helpfulness to the jury was seriously questioned. The trial court correctly excluded Dr. Underwager’s testimony. The evidence is sufficient to support the convictions.”

State v. Swan, 114 Wash.2d 613, 790 P.2d 610, May 3, 1990 At the trial of this case, the defense sought to qualify Dr. Ralph Underwager, a licensed psychologist, as an expert witness. The trial court ruled that the psychologist’s proposed testimony was not proper because there was no indication that the results of the doctor’s work had been accepted in the scientific community and because the testimony went directly to the credibility of the victims and invaded the province of the jury.
The court remains convinced [the psychologist] did not have the qualifications to testify as a doctor, and that the offered testimony, in any event, was within the common experience of all of us. The psychologist [w]as a researcher who did not have bona fide qualifications in the view of the Court. He was not involved in an independent research undertaking, but rather was approached to undertake research by an interested party with no interest [in] the outcome of the research. It is the Court’s memory [the psychologist’s] research was undertaken at the behest of the insurance industry relative to civil claims for child sexual abuse.
It was not shown at trial that the psychologist’s position on child interviewing was accepted by the scientific community. The psychologist’s proposed testimony did not satisfy the test for admissibility set forth in ER 702 and was properly refused. http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager4.html

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C0-97-55 In Re: Investigation of Dr. Ralph Underwager, Ph.D., L.P. by the Minnesota Board of Psychology. Filed July 8, 1997  Affirmed – Kalitowski, Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. C59612185….Appellant Dr. Ralph Underwager challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to quash a subpoena issued by the Minnesota Board of Psychology (Board) in connection with an investigation by the Board. We affirm….Further, the investigation is being conducted to determine whether Underwager violated the rule of conduct that requires the informed consent of a client before a diagnostic interview can be electronically recorded. The Board is requesting that Underwager produce the written informed consent of S.K.H. from her psychological sessions with him. This document is clearly relevant to the determination of whether Underwager violated the rules of conduct.

Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Anna Salter, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 22 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 1994)  Federal Circuits, 7th Cir. (April 25, 1994) Docket number: 93-2422

Psychologists Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield have written two books: Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse (1988), and The Real World of Child Interrogations (1990). They conclude that most accusations of child sexual abuse stem from memories implanted by faulty clinical techniques rather than from sexual contact between children and adults. The books have not been well received in the medical and scientific press. A review of the first in the Journal of the American Medical Association concludes that the authors took a one-sided approach: “it may be that the adversarial system has so influenced this discussion [about child abuse] that objectivity no longer has value. The book contains almost 420 text pages and the authors cite over 700 references, but they do not really review this body of literature, they cross-examine it. When a given reference fails to support their viewpoint they simply misstate the conclusion. When they cannot use a quotation out of context from an article, they make unsupported statements, some of which are palpably untrue and others simply unprovable.” David L. Chadwick, Book Review, in 261 JAMA 3035 (May 26, 1989)….

Salter had for some years doubted that Underwager’s books and testimony accurately reflected the clinical literature. After receiving a grant from the New England Association of Child Welfare Commissioners and Directors to finance an annotated bibliography of studies on child abuse interviews, Salter decided to concentrate on the papers Underwager and Wakefield had cited in their 1988 book. Over the course of 18 months Salter read the original works Underwager and Wakefield had discussed. In January 1990 she delivered to the New England Association a monograph titled: “Accuracy of Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: A Case Study of Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield.” This unpublished monograph has been widely circulated; Salter sent a copy to the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, which has made it available to prosecutors and other interested persons. The monograph is highly critical of the 1988 book and of Underwager’s testimony. Like Dr. Chadwick’s book review, the monograph states that the book misrepresents the studies, rips quotations from their context (and misleadingly redacts them), attributes to scholars positions they once held but have repudiated in light of more recent research, and ignores evidence contradicting its thesis. While Chadwick’s indictment of the book advances conclusions but not the supporting evidence, Salter’s is packed with details. For her interview with 60 Minutes Australia, however, Salter compressed her conclusions into popular language, telling Munro that Underwager “distorts the facts” and that his testimony in the Mr Bubbles case that 90% of all accusations of child molestation are wrong is “gobbledygook” unsupported by any scientific evidence….

What, then, does the record show about actual malice? Did Salter or Toth know that the statements were false? Did either one harbor doubts about the statements’ truth yet plunge recklessly ahead? The record allows no doubt about the answer to either question, for either defendant.

Salter testified by deposition that she read every one of the more than 500 papers her monograph discusses, and that she believes that her interpretation of these studies (and her condemnation of the Underwager and Wakefield interpretation) is correct. Salter’s view of the scholarly literature is congruent with Dr. Chadwick’s, and all of the other reviews we could find take Salter’s side rather than plaintiffs’. Sandra Shrimpton, Book Review (of Accusations …), 14 Child Abuse & Neglect 601-02 (1990); David L. Chadwick, Book Review (of Real World …), 15 Child Abuse & Neglect 602-03 (1991); Lenore Olson, Book Review (of Real World …), 37 Social Work 276 (1992); John E.B. Myers, The Child Sexual Abuse Literature: A Call for Greater Objectivity, 88 Mich.L.Rev. 1709, 1711-17 (1990) (discussing Accusations … and two books by other authors). Some judges have reached a similar conclusion. For example, the Supreme Court of Washington held that Underwager’s analysis and conclusions are not accepted by the scientific community, making it appropriate for a trial judge to preclude him from testifying. State v. Swan, 114 Wash.2d 613, 655-56, 790 P.2d 610, 632 (1990). See also Timmons v. Indiana, 584 N.E.2d 1108 (Ind.1992) (sustaining a decision to limit Underwager’s testimony severely). Cf. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., — U.S. —-, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). It may be that Salter, the judges, and the book reviewers all err in evaluating the Underwager-Wakefield work. Scientific truth is elusive. Nothing in this record suggests, however, that Salter either knew that she was writing falsehoods or feared that she might be doing so but barged ahead without checking….

Both Salter and Toth came to believe that Underwager is a hired gun who makes a living by deceiving judges about the state of medical knowledge and thus assisting child molesters to evade punishment. Persons who hold such opinions cannot be expected to look kindly on their subjects, and the law certainly does not insist that they shut up as soon as they are challenged. Van Straten, 151 Wis.2d at 917-18, 447 N.W.2d at 110-11 (repeated publication did not establish actual malice when the speakers believed their statements to be true). Underwager and Wakefield cannot, simply by filing suit and crying “character assassination!”, silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. Cf. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, No. 89-2441 (7th Cir. Apr. 6, 1994), slip op. 8-11 & n. 1, 20 F.3d 789, 796-97. More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models–not larger awards of damages–mark the path toward superior understanding of the world around us.  http://vlex.com/vid/36092881

Confessions of a Whistle-Blower: Lessons Learned Author: Anna C. Salter  DOI: 10.1207/s15327019eb0802_2   Published in:  Ethics & Behavior, Volume 8, Issue 2 June 1998 , pages 115 – 124  Abstract – In 1988 I began a report on the accuracy of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases utilizing Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield as a case study (Wakefield & Underwager, 1988). In response, Underwager and Wakefield began a campaign of harassment and intimidation, which included multiple lawsuits; an ethics charge; phony (and secretly taped) phone calls; and ad hominem attacks, including one that I was laundering federal grant monies. The harassment and intimidation failed as the author refused demands to retract. In addition, the lawsuits and ethics charges were dismissed. Lessons learned from the experience are discussed.    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a784402311~db=all

ANNA SALTER, PH.D., is a psychologist in Madison, Wisconsin. In 1988, she began a study of the accuracy of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases utilizing psychologist Ralph Underwager and his wife and practice partner, Hollida Wakefield, as a case study….Salter writes:  “The people who support and defend those accused of child sexual abuse indiscriminately, those who join organizations dedicated to defending people who are accused of child sexual abuse with no screening whatsoever to keep out those who are guilty as charged, are…not necessarily people engaged in an objective search for the truth. Some of them can and do use deceit, trickery, misstated research, harassment, intimidation, and charges of laundering federal money to silence their opponents.” — Confessions of a Whistle Blower: Lessons Learned, p. 122. http://fmsf.com/ethics.shtml

suppressed ritual abuse memories fully substantiated, white house boys

December 12, 2008 Comments Off on suppressed ritual abuse memories fully substantiated, white house boys


http://ritualabuse.us

describes crimes – Anne’s Story of Deliverance From Satanic Ritual Abuse and her Journey to Freedom “Hell Minus One” When Anne A Johnson Davis was just three years old, her mother and stepfather began to physically, sexually and mentally abuse her—in the name of Satan. Until she ran away from home at 17, her parents and other cult members subjected her to satanic ritual abuse, a criminally inhumane and bizarre form of devil worship. In the middle of the night, Anne would be drugged and forced to endure hours of ritualistic torture as a symbolic sacrifice….The horrors Anne experienced, the astounding miracles that helped her to survive, and the heal-or-die choices she made as an adult to triumph over her tragic past, are revealed in her new book Hell Minus One: My Story of Deliverance From Satanic Ritual Abuse and My Journey to Freedom. Hell Minus One is different from other previously published memoirs by victims of satanic ritual abuse. Instead of distressing, heart-breaking accounts without collaborative or corroborative evidence, Anne’s parents confessed their atrocities—both in writing and verbally—to clergymen, and to detectives from the Utah Attorney General’s Office. Anne’s suppressed memories, which erupted when she was in her mid-30s, were fully substantiated by her mother and stepfather….The book’s foreword was written by Lt. Detective Matt Jacobson, who was the lead investigator with the Utah Attorney General’s Office on Anne’s case in 1995. In April 1995, Anne was interviewed by KTVX Channel 4 News and The Deseret News in Salt Lake City for stories regarding a then newly released three-year study by the Utah AG’s Office about ritual abuse. In those news accounts, Anne’s identity was concealed as she explained some of the horrors of her childhood. In Hell Minus One, Anne publicly blows the door open on who she is and tells her story openly for the first time. http://www.hellminusone.com/

Woman revisits the ‘Hell’ of ritual abuse By Ben Winslow Deseret News 12/10/08 describes crimes –

She isn’t Rachel Hopkins anymore. Anne A Johnson Davis is shedding the moniker she used in a 1995 Deseret News story about her childhood as a victim of ritualistic Satanic abuse and speaking out in a memoir of her life. Davis, now a Lehi mother of three, is stepping into the spotlight again with the publication of her book “Hell Minus One.” “I have had enough healing and closure of my own, I feel I’m in a place where I really feel the call to share what I have to help others find courage,” Davis said in an interview Wednesday. Davis’ story is so bizarre, it’s hard to believe it actually happened — save for the fact that she has signed confessions from her mother and stepfather, a financial settlement and investigators from the Utah Attorney General’s Office who vouched for her. From age 3 until she ran away at 17, she said she was sexually abused, tortured, bathed in blood and forced to hurt her siblings in Satanic rituals. “They would tell me, ‘Now you’re one of us. If you tell anybody, they won’t believe you and they’ll put you in a mental hospital.’ And they threatened to torture me until I was dead,” Rachel Hopkins said in 1995. It was a study by the Utah Attorney General’s Office that downplayed ritual abuse that prompted Davis to come forward. At the time, she insisted on a pseudonym and did interviews in silhouette. “I’m glad that she’s come out of the shadows and she’s in the sunlight to tell her story so other victims will speak out and know they don’t have to be afraid anymore,” said Paul Murphy, a spokesman for the Utah Attorney General’s Office who interviewed her as a TV reporter back in 1995. He also wrote a blurb on the book’s jacket. Davis still takes issue with the attorney general’s report, which came out at a time when ritual abuse was being attacked as indicative of false memory syndrome — events and fantasies imagined by patients or planted by unscrupulous therapists….The Utah Attorney General’s Office has no plans to revisit the controversial study, but continues to investigate any reports of ritual abuse. “We take all child abuse very seriously,” Murphy said….When she ran away from home at 17, Davis said she cut ties with her family and anyone associated with them. She heard her stepfather died a few years ago but has no idea what happened to her mother. She also isn’t scared about publishing the family secrets. “Secrecy is their greatest weapon,” she said. “I don’t believe I have anything to be afraid of.” http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705269563,00.html

describes crimes – ‘White House Boys’ win inquiry of reform school graves By Rich Phillips CNN Senior Producer 12/10/08 MARIANNA, Florida (CNN)– Four men, now in their 60s, met over the Internet, shared stories bout the darkest days of their pasts and spurred an investigation into 32 graves at a reform school….Roger Kiser, Michael McCarthy, Bryant Middleton and Dick Colon talked about whippings and beatings and other boys who disappeared. They discussed the 32 crosses marking the graves of persons unknown on the grounds of the former Florida Industrial School for Boys. They called their group the White House Boys, taking the name from the single story concrete building where, they say, boys were beaten and tortured decades ago. The White House Boys believe that delinquents and orphans sent to the concrete White House were killed and their remains buried to cover up the brutality. This week, the four called on Florida Gov. Charlie Crist to investigate. Crist agreed and asked the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to search for remains, identify them and determine whether any crimes were committed….Two of the White House Boys, Middleton and Colon, spoke with CNN. The stories they told were chilling…. Middleton said he took six trips to the concrete White House, where he endured brutal beatings. He says boys were regularly struck with a metal-reinforced double strap with a long wooden handle…. The White House boys, who are all white, said black kids at the school were beaten even more savagely than white kids. http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/09/reform.school.graves/

Woman revisits the ‘Hell’ of ritual abuse

December 11, 2008 Comments Off on Woman revisits the ‘Hell’ of ritual abuse

Woman revisits the ‘Hell’ of ritual abuse By Ben Winslow Deseret News 12/10/08 describes crimes –

She isn’t Rachel Hopkins anymore. Anne A Johnson Davis is shedding the moniker she used in a 1995 Deseret News story about her childhood as a victim of ritualistic Satanic abuse and speaking out in a memoir of her life. Davis, now a Lehi mother of three, is stepping into the spotlight again with the publication of her book “Hell Minus One.” “I have had enough healing and closure of my own, I feel I’m in a place where I really feel the call to share what I have to help others find courage,” Davis said in an interview Wednesday. Davis’ story is so bizarre, it’s hard to believe it actually happened — save for the fact that she has signed confessions from her mother and stepfather, a financial settlement and investigators from the Utah Attorney General’s Office who vouched for her. From age 3 until she ran away at 17, she said she was sexually abused, tortured, bathed in blood and forced to hurt her siblings in Satanic rituals. “They would tell me, ‘Now you’re one of us. If you tell anybody, they won’t believe you and they’ll put you in a mental hospital.’ And they threatened to torture me until I was dead,” Rachel Hopkins said in 1995. It was a study by the Utah Attorney General’s Office that downplayed ritual abuse that prompted Davis to come forward. At the time, she insisted on a pseudonym and did interviews in silhouette. “I’m glad that she’s come out of the shadows and she’s in the sunlight to tell her story so other victims will speak out and know they don’t have to be afraid anymore,” said Paul Murphy, a spokesman for the Utah Attorney General’s Office who interviewed her as a TV reporter back in 1995. He also wrote a blurb on the book’s jacket. Davis still takes issue with the attorney general’s report, which came out at a time when ritual abuse was being attacked as indicative of false memory syndrome — events and fantasies imagined by patients or planted by unscrupulous therapists….The Utah Attorney General’s Office has no plans to revisit the controversial study, but continues to investigate any reports of ritual abuse. “We take all child abuse very seriously,” Murphy said….When she ran away from home at 17, Davis said she cut ties with her family and anyone associated with them. She heard her stepfather died a few years ago but has no idea what happened to her mother. She also isn’t scared about publishing the family secrets. “Secrecy is their greatest weapon,” she said. “I don’t believe I have anything to be afraid of.” http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705269563,00.html

Quotes: Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D.

December 11, 2008 Comments Off on Quotes: Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D.

 

Repression

Wortman, C. and Loftus, E. Psychology. (1981) Alfred A. Knopf: New York, p. 203. Thus a young woman who is sexually attracted to her father may try to repress her disturbing incestuous desires. But her behavior may indicate that these feelings are not completely forgotten. The woman may pause or fumble for words when discussing certain things about her father and she may show other signs of anxiety such as sweating or blushing.

Loftus, G.R and Loftus, E.L. (1976). Human Memory – The Processing of Information. Lawrence Erlbaum Associated: New Jersey, p. 82-83.
A laboratory analogy to repression can be found in an experiment by A.F. Zeller.
Zeller arranged a situation so that one group of students underwent an unhappy “failure” experience right after they had successfully learned a list of nonsense syllables. When tested later, these subjects showed much poorer recall of the nonsense syllables compared to a control group, who had not experienced failure. When this same “failure” group was later allowed to succeed on the same task that they had earlier failed, their recall showed tremendous improvement. This experiment indicates that when the reason for the repression is removed, when material to be remembered is no longer associated with negative effects, a person no longer experiences retrieval failure.”

It’s not unusual for killers to have amnesia about event. Saturday, February 15, 1997, Section: News, Page: A3 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/archives/1997/9702160036.asp It is possible to commit a murder and then forget you did it, according to a leading memory researcher. A significant proportion of people who commit murders have some amnesia surrounding the event, particularly if it is a crime of passion, University of Washington psychologist Elizabeth Loftus said yesterday.

Loftus, E. (1979). Reactions to blatantly contradictory information. Memory & Cognition, 7(5), p. 371. In two experiments, subjects were shown a complex event and were later exposed to misinformation about that event. In addition, some subjects received a piece of blatantly contradictory misinformation. Blatant misinformation both was rejected by subjects and caused them to be more resistant to other misinformation . . . Second, when an attempt is made to mislead a person about a detail that is patently false the person becomes more resistant to suggestions of any kind….”

Deposition Upon Oral Examination of Elizabeth Loftus, PhD.
, Seignious v. Fair et al., January 22, 1998, In the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia #E-56169 p. 125
Q. Have you ever contemplated actually doing a study somewhere along the lines I was just talking about where you have no crime scene at all and then you try to convince someone there was a crime scene or crime event?
A. [Loftus] No I haven’t thought about that but that’s kind of an interesting idea.



Loftus, E. (1993, January 18). Deposition upon oral examination of Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D.
Carol C. Smith, vs. Richard Alton Smith, Case No. 67 52 64, Superior Court in the State of California in and for the County of Orange, 67-69.
Q: [Reading from M.R.’s report, page 53, line 20] “There are no reliable methods for sorting out which of these allegations may be true or false apart from observations from other witnesses who may be able to provide data either tending to support or tending to refute the validity of the allegations and the overall patterns of circumstances surrounding the incidents.” Do you have an opinion on that statement?
A: [Loftus] I believe you need corroboration to sort out true allegations from false ones. That part of it I agree with.
Q: In the case of Carol Smith, what corroboration would you require to enforce the reliability, the believability, of her memories?
A: I don’t know what it would look like, maybe photographs.
Q: Of what?
A: Abuse happening.
Q: You mean a Rod King video?
A: There are cases of sex abuse where there are photographs and videotapes.

Loftus, E. and Ketcham, K. (1991). Witness for the Defense. St. Martin’s Press: New York, p. 72. Most of the time, perhaps 99 percent of the time, the defendant is guilty; his screams are the final protest of a human being about to lost his most precious possession, his freedom.

Loftus, E. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist, 48, 518-537. http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/lof93.htm Some who question the authenticity of the memories of abuse do so in part because of the intensity and sincerity of the accused persons who deny the abuse . . . the current denials of those accused of sexual abuse are not proof that the allegations are false. Research with known rapists, pedophiles, and incest offenders has illustrated that they often exhibit a cognitive distortion –a tendency to justify, minimize, or rationalize their behavior (Gudjonsson, 1992). Because accused persons are motivated to verbally and even mentally deny an abusive past, simple denials cannot constitute cogent evidence that the victim’s memories are not authentic.

Loftus, E. (1986). Ten years in the life of an expert witness. Law and Human Behavior, 10(3), p. 242. . . . I now continue to battle against a growing horde of scalpel-wielding opponents . . .
Elizabeth Loftus. June 14, 2001. Toronto William James Fellow Acceptance Speech. American Psychological Society. Published in Skeptical Inquirer, November / December 2001 William James Award & Acceptance Speech 2001 http://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/SkepticalInquirerWmJamesSpeech01.doc
I am gagged at the moment and may not give you any details. But to me, that itself is the problem. Who, after all, benefits from my silence? Who benefits from keeping such investigations in the dark? My inquisitors. The only people who operate in the dark are thieves, assassins, and cowards.

Testimony – US v. Libby

United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby; Docket No. 05-394 (RBW); October 26, 2006; United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Motion hearing before the Honorable Reggie B. Walton; Elizabeth Loftus, witness for the Defendant, p. 65
Q And the question they’re asked is “the act of remembering a traumatic event was like a video recording in that one can recall details as if they had been imprinted or burned into one’s brain?” And 46 percent on the telephone say “Yes.” Forty-eight percent say “No.” And six percent say “Not sure.” Correct?
A [Loftus] Yes.
Q So a juror doesn’t necessarily think that memory is like a video recorder. . . .
A Well, that’s just one example of . . .
Q And isn’t it a fact that if you look down here in this same question
question number 11F the responses would actually show that jurors don’t understand memory to be so pristine in a video recording form? Eighty percent . . . clearly understood it is not like a tape recorder to the extent that it can’t be wrong. Eighty percent recognized it could be wrong correct? (p. 65)
A On item 11F, yes.
Q Within the same question. Yes.

No Memory Expert for Libby Trial
By Joel Seidman
NBC News Thursday 02 November 2006

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15534713/

But after nearly three-hours of methodical cross-examination by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Dr. Loftus found it difficult at times even to explain her own writings. Fitzgerald had her backing away from her earlier assertions on memory. And the Special Counsel got Loftus to acknowledge – after citing several of her publications and methodology – that some of her own research was not that scientific, and that her conclusions about memory were conflicting. Fitzgerald – who read all of Loftus’s books and research himself to prepare for the hearing – found a line in one of her books that raised doubts about her research. Loftus responded, saying. “I don’t know how I let that line slip by.”

Other testimony

Brewer, S. (2000, April 1) Expert rips police ID methods – Defense witness admits first descriptions matched Goldberg. Houston Chronicle, p. 33.
Loftus conceded under cross examination that she’s normally paid about $400 an hour and that in this case she has relied solely on information provided by [defense attorney Dick] DeGuerin …And in some her writings, which Loftus had trouble recalling on the stand, she also frequently portrays herself as a champion of defendants wronged by bad eyewitness testimony, another factor [prosecutor Kelly] Siegler used to question the expert’s motives. In the most dramatic moment, Siegler got Loftus to acknowledge that Goldberg [the murder defendant] did, in fact, match the first basic descriptions given to police by Beckman [witness] and Ingrando’s [one of those who survived the assault] husband, Roland.

Before Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba, Presiding in the Hague Trial Chamber. (1998, December 10). Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija. Online at: http://www.un.org/icty/furundzija/trialc2/judgement/fur-tj981210e.htm Loftus testified for Anto Furundzija – was charged with orchestrating multiple rapes of a woman to obtain information. The judge ruled: “The evidence of expert witness Dr. Loftus, who did not examine any of the witnesses, but testified in these proceedings, was submitted to demonstrate the weakness of memory, in particular where shock is involved . . . The Trial Chamber is of the view that survivors of such traumatic experiences cannot reasonably be expected to recall the precise minutiae of events, such as exact dates or times. Neither can they reasonably be expected to recall every single element of a complicated and traumatic sequence of events. In fact, inconsistencies may, in certain circumstances, indicate truthfulness and the absence of interference with witnesses. The Trial Chamber therefore attaches no particular significance to the inconsistencies in the order in which Witnesses A and D say they entered the pantry.”

Intermural eyewitness suggestion

Inquiry Regarding Thomas Sophonow, click on “Problems Noted by Dr. Loftus,” at http://angel-diaz-florida.blogspot.com/2006/12/inquiry-regarding-thomas-sophonow.html (December 2, 2006). For example, [Loftus] testified that when, as here, there are multiple witnesses who participated in the preparation of a composite drawing, those witnesses have an opportunity to influence one another. They often inadvertently supply each other with erroneous information. This is true even if they are not together in the room when the composite is being prepared. This, she noted, created problems with the identification made by Mrs. Janower. (Inquiry, Vol. 51, pages 8947-8949).

State of Missouri v. Ryan William Ferguson, Case No. 04CR165368-01, In the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, DivisionIII, Honorable Ellen S. Roper, Judge, Cross examination of Elizabeth Loftus by prosecuting attorney Crane, p. 2031
Q Are we in agreement that there was no suggestion by anyone or anything to Mr. Erickson that he or Mr. Ferguson committed this crime? Are we in agreement on that?
A [Loftus] The only suggestion was in the mind of Mr. Erickson.
Q That’s not a suggestion
A Yes, it –it can be auto suggestion.
Q Suggesting it to himself”
A Exactly. It’s called auto suggestion.
Q Well, how about this then. There was no external suggestion.
A None that I saw. Correct.

Cross-examined on Inconsistency between findings and conclusion in Loftus and Burns (1982)

Deposition of Elizabeth F. Loftus, December 21, 2006 and January 4, 2007, Paul Liano v. The Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Phoenix, an Arizona corporation’ Thomas O’Brien, Former Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix; Father Michael O’[Grady, Father Patrick Colleary, John Does 1-10 In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for 6the County of Maricopa, p. 180
Q. But is it possible that by referring to the football jersey number as a key event and the conclusions of the paper that this might end up giving a distorted impress or bias to the conclusions of the study?
A [Loftus] Well, the data are all presented there and they speak for themselves, so if people wanted to have a different conclusion, they can try to do that.

Cross-examined on Inconsistency in Loftus, Miller and Burns (1978)

Deposition of Elizabeth F. Loftus, December 21, 2006 and January 4, 2007, Paul Liano v. The Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Phoenix, an Arizona corporation’ Thomas O’Brien, Former Biship of the Diocese of Phoenix; Father Michael O’[Grady, Father Patrick Colleary, John Does 1-10 In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for 6the County of Maricopa, P. 180
Page 206
Q Didn’t they conclude that your findings in the red Datsun study showed the rate of acceptance of misinformation in your study was exaggerated and it was in part an artifact of a research design that fails to control for response bias?
A [Loftus] Well, I don’t remember exactly what they claim, but what they did was to give people a very peculiar test and not allow them to say what they wanted to say, so they didn’t even give people an opportunity to say they saw a screwdriver.

Cross-examined on Inconsistencies in Loftus and Pickrell (1995)

Deposition of Elizabeth F. Loftus, December 21, 2006 and January 4, 2007, Paul Liano v. The Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Phoenix, an Arizona corporation’ Thomas O’Brien, Former Biship of the Diocese of Phoenix; Father Michael O’[Grady, Father Patrick Colleary, John Does 1-10 In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for 6the County of Maricopa
Page 211-212
Q But in that [mall] study did you control for demand characteristics?
A [Loftus] I don’t remember what we did to address the demand characteristic issue.
Q Did you control for response bias?
A I don’t remember that we did that.
Q Isn’t it true that only two of the 24 subjects fully accepted the false lost in the mall suggestion?
A Well, our report was that 25 percent accepted all or part of it.
Q. Wasn’t it in fact at 29 percent rather than 25 percent accepted all or part?
A Well, I usually use the more conservative figure of saying a quarter.
A But is it more accurate, though, to say that only two accepted the false lost in the mall suggestion; in other words, fully accepted that as a memory they adopted?
A We wouldn’t have reported 25 if—I don’t know what you mean by fully, and I would have to go back and read the paper because it’s 12 years ago.
Q You would agree with me that if it were two out of the 24 and not the—I guess basically the six that you’re suggesting if it’s one-fourth that the acceptance rate should be a lot lower than your published acceptance rates?
A First of all numerous other researchers have gone on to adopt this methodology and they get much higher rates of subjects falling for the suggestion so I don’t have to defend the 25 percent rate when other people I mean are getting three percent or 50 percent false memory rate in these studies.

Feels like Schindler

Kahn, J. P. (1994, December 14). Trial by memory: Stung by daughters’ claims of abuse, a writer lashes back. Boston Globe , p. 80.
“I feel like Oskar Schindler, “ Loftus muses, referring to the German financier who rescued doomed Jews from the Nazis. ‘There is this desperate drive to work as fast as I can.”

Didn’t refer to herself as Schindler

Loftus, E. (1998, April 27). Testimony. Rodriguez et al. v. Perez et al. King County Superior Court Cause No.: 98-2-07404-3
Q. And isn’t it true that you have, uh, identified yourself, uh, as somewhat of a crusader for what we refer to as the falsely accused?
A. Uh, I do care an awful lot about the falsely accused, yes.
Q. And haven’t you made public statements and referred to yourself as the Oscar Schindler of [the] falsely accused?
A. That, that is absolutely false. It’s been taken out context and distorted.
Q. So you don’t, you don’t regard yourself in that light, is that correct?
A. Well, if you’d like the truth of exactly what I said, I’d be happy to provide that.
Q. I’ll let Mr. Beecher delve into that.

On Ted Bundy – Loftus testified as a defense expert for Bundy in 1976, Bundy was found guilty of aggravated kidnapping

Loftus, E. and Ketcham, K. (1991). Witness for the Defense. St. Martin’s Press: New York. The thought had occurred to me as I was flying to Salt Lake City earlier that day that Ted Bundy might offer to let me stay in his apartment” (p. 74).

Loftus, E. and Ketcham, K. (1991). Witness for the Defense. St. Martin’s Press: New York. In court the next morning I sat at a table in the judge’s chambers. On the other side of the table, close enough for me to reach across and touch him, sat Ted Bundy. He’s adorable, I thought, surprised at my first impression, because I’d pictured him in my mind as brooding, dark, intense disdain (p. 83).

Where Am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for December, 2008 at Eassurvey's Weblog.