Nelsons daughter and son-in-law accused of sex abuse

[_Rosebud]

Cinepro.....

As far as Bill being so dissociative that he may not have been competent to make a confession, I agree that is a factor that should be looked at very carefully.

And highly dissociative people come with the territory in this kind of case.

I've also met people who are so suggestible that they will make false confessions because they believe them to be true because someone told them they were true. It's frightening because something is so very clearly wrong with their minds.

And in this kind of case, if there is reality to it, perpetrators would have once also been child victims. Or, some people believe, are currently adult victims.

[_Lemmie]

I think we can all agree that Snow's reputation has been totally shot. The narrative is that within the context of a Satanic Ritual abuse panic, Snow fed the fires by planting false memories in many of her patients. She was/is therefore a dangerous woman who has done more harm than good. If there was any truth to any of the claims of abuse then Snow tainted any case she was involved in to such an extent that it would be impossible to proceed. This would be the case with the Miles.

Here is an appraisal of Dr. Snow's techniques that was presented in the Bullock trial. If what these people say is true about how Snow interviewed kids, then I don't think there's much doubt about what was going on.

In response, defendant presented three expert witnesses who were critical of Dr. Snow's techniques and the validity of Dr. Tyler's corroborative assessments because of the asserted contamination of the victims' testimony occasioned by Dr. Snow's interviewing process. Specifically, Dr. Monica Christy testified that it was important to tape the initial interviews of the children, not only to record the answers, but also to understand how the questions were asked and to be able to remember the fine details of the interview. Dr. Christy challenged the objectivity of Dr. Snow's interviewing techniques of ignoring the child's response until the child learned to give the answer she expected and of rewarding answers that she liked by making such comments as "good boy." Dr. Christy was critical of Dr. Snow's practice of "shaping" the testimony of a child by confronting an undesired response with the statement that the child must tell the truth, thereby implying that the truth had not been told. She was also critical of the fact that at the meeting held in the office of the county attorney, the boys were permitted to "cross-contaminate" each other by sharing their versions of the sexual abuse incidents.

Dr. Michael DeCaria was similarly critical of Dr. Snow's interviewing procedures. He testified that when interviewing children, the questions must be "open-ended." That is, a question cannot have the answer already contained within it. The interviewer must also be neutral and impartial from the outset and not make prejudgments as to what has occurred. Additionally, Dr. DeCaria explained that there is a danger in having children repeat allegations to different people since the more an event is discussed, the more real the event may seem to become. He emphasized the need to record the interviews of the children. It was his ultimate opinion that by the time the boys were interviewed by Dr. Tyler, they were irretrievably contaminated by their previous contacts with Dr. Snow, their parents, and the other children.

Dr. Stephen Golding testified that one who interviews a child in such cases must remain completely neutral and that when Dr. Snow conceded that she was a child advocate looking for sexual abuse, she missed the forensic mental health standards "by a mile." It was his conclusion that once the boys had been contaminated by the interviewing methods of Dr. Snow, it was impossible for Dr. Tyler or anyone else to know what had actually happened.

https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supre ... 70053.html
(Emphasis added)

This is how the Deseret News described the situation:

Bullock says his conviction has its roots in a bitter divorce with his first wife, which spawned a custody fight for the couple's children as well as allegations of sexual abuse against Bullock by his ex-spouse.

According to Bullock, in September 1985 when it appeared Bullock and his wife at the time were likely to win custody, the ex-spouse took the children to Dr. Barbara Snow, a therapist with the Intermountain Sexual Abuse Treatment Center.
Before long, Snow was spearheading the investigation into the alleged abuse, which she told police was rampant in the neighborhood. Bullock was eventually charged with abusing four boys when they were 6 or 7 years old.

Snow did not take notes or record any of her interviews with the children, and police found no physical evidence of the alleged abuse, according to court records.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/937 ... -base.html

The techniques used by Snow were unbelievably irresponsible.

Dr. Stephen Golding testified that one who interviews a child in such cases must remain completely neutral and that when Dr. Snow conceded that she was a child advocate looking for sexual abuse, she missed the forensic mental health standards "by a mile."

Making the argument now that the various ritual abuses and "sex rings" must have existed, as a way to rehabilitate Snow's reputation, also seems to disregard those forensic mental health dtandards.

[Guest]

Cinepro... I don't know if you were around a while back when I came down against a man named Karren who was also trying to expose ritual abuse. This is why. What he was doing didn't seem legit to me. His reasoning was off and he was dragging his young adult daughter's name into the fray as if she were old enough to really consent to his activism.

Real criminals fight with each other. They take sides against each other, sometimes accusing a fellow in crime in order to make themselves look innocent, etc.

Karren seemed off to me. He wanted to "expose" his ex-FIL by accusing the guy of sexually abusing his ex-wife and daughter. How would we ever know Karren wasn't doing that to take pressure off of himself if he had also been part of any abuse if abuse did occur?

Doesn't make sense that a well father would drag his ex-wife and daughter through mud to "save the world," if you know what I mean.

Same problem here. In fact, it happens so much that it's one of those things that's worth noting as a red flag.

What do you mean, "same problem here"? How does your example relate to the case being discussed?

[_Mary]

Lemmie,

Hence my question. Thank you for the clarification.

Ah ok. I can see how my response could easily be misread. Apologies.

[_Mary]

Making the argument now that the various ritual abuses and "sex rings" must have existed, as a way to rehabilitate Snow's reputation, also seems to disregard those forensic mental health dtandards.

Sex rings do exist, whether they use ritual or not. They exist now and they existed then.

My concern is that the Satanic Panic, and Snow's methods obscured and are still obscuring that fact.

[_Rosebud]

Snow's reputation should not be the issue.

The defense made Snow's reputation the issue as part of the defense. The point of pointing out that the defense did this and that media then followed suit is to move the discussion away from Barbara Snow (who is a scape goat/red herring) and back to the issue.

The point is not to protect Barbara Snow or help improve her reputation. She appears to be a capable woman. I'm sure she can take care of herself.

[_Mary]

So yeah, when you tell me they were giving Bill drugs and telling him he had done stuff like this and then he seemed to remember doing it, I'm not really convinced. Especially when exchanges like this happen:

The interview with Bill had Marion in attendance but the John Hopkins therapist was there leading the session as I understand it.

Marion recorded it. I can't find any evidence that drugs were used in this session.

Bill was a lawyer, he knew the system and I could make an argument that he carefully chose his words because he was a lawyer and knew the system.

Bill also appeared to be a manipulator. He admits to carefully manipulating his children without the need to use violence against them.

Bill recanted on everything when he knew he wouldn't be charged.

Bill was a prolific paedophile whose list of victims was long.

[_Mary]

Snow's reputation should not be the issue.

The defense made Snow's reputation the issue as part of the defense. The point of pointing out that the defense did this and that media then followed suit is to move the discussion away from Barbara Snow (who is a scape goat/red herring) and back to the issue.

The point is not to protect Barbara Snow or help improve her reputation. She appears to be a capable woman. I'm sure she can take care of herself.

Cinepro seems to know the specific details of the child witness testimony, to the extent that he can discount them as false witnesses even if unwitting.

I don't have access to what they said specifically, only that other therapists were involved and came to the same conclusions as Snow after interviewing the children and drawing their own conclusions.

It seems to me that Cinepro wants to paint Whitehead, Tyler, Smith and others with the same brush..They were all bamboozled and blinded by a Satanic Panic.

I'm not sure that was the case.

[_Lemmie]

The point of pointing out that the defense did this and that media then followed suit is to move the discussion away from Barbara Snow (who is a scape goat/red herring) and back to the issue.

I don't think Snow is a red herring or a scapegoat. Its extremely difficult to tell what you think the issue actually is, because you are not being specific, giving evidence or examples, or clearly stating your opinion. You seem fixated on complaining about extreme, hyperbolic positions, but the problem is that no one in this thread is expressing those extreme, hyperbolic positions, so it is difficult to understand your point in bringing them up.

Snow's unprofessional behavior is directly linked to this case, and in my opinion, was a direct cause of what I believe is the incorrect perception that huge sex rings existed in all these neighborhoods. I am in no way suggesting child abuse does not happen, I am simply saying that her behavior was a direct cause of many false accusations.

[_cinepro]

Just out of interest, have the children of Hadfield or Bullock ever recanted on their childhood testimony. I'm guessing that would be the only thing that could clear their names, and if they aren't doing it, why?

No, it seems that most people who have been let out of prison after being convicted are released because their cases are reappraised in light of what we now know about the reliability of children's testimony after talking with therapists at the time or other considerations.

Here's a case where the couple was let out even though "several children who originally accused the couple still oppose their release."

Falsely accused of Satanic horrors, a couple spent 21 years in prison. Now they’re owed millions.

As you no doubt know by now, once those kids have those false memories, they're going to think that stuff happened for the rest of their lives.