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

[_Mary]

I've read through Marion Smith's account and the Suit .

I can't find any reference to Satanism or Satanic ritual in either.

Perhaps Cinepro, Rep Ipsa or Lemmie can help out?

I don't have access to Paper Dolls or Riptide. Maybe I am missing something. Lehi, a different matter.

[_Mary]

My common sense take on the bizarre claims in the unsubstantiated cases that Pace refers to is that drugs impact and mess up memory. Ritual abuse does occur (as the 1995 report notes because the parents admitted). And sometimes false memories can be implanted on children that may or may not have been abused, which complicates matters further.

[_Rosebud]

I guess ---if--- the latter (referring to my last post) were what happened, meaning ---if--- predators intentionally convinced children they were being sewn into corpses (when they weren't) or were killing babies (when they were actually "killing" dolls), the memories wouldn't really be "false" memories, but would be accurate memories of what predators intended victims to believe.

Seems an important distinction....

[_Rosebud]

I've read through Marion Smith's account and the Suit .

I can't find any reference to Satanism or Satanic ritual in either.

Perhaps Cinepro, Rep Ipsa or Lemmie can help out?

I don't have access to Paper Dolls or Riptide. Maybe I am missing something. Lehi, a different matter.

I read Paper Dolls about.... idk when.... decades ago. I don't remember Satanic Ritual Abuse being explicitly mentioned, but maybe.

It was connected to this case during the time period.

It goes back to, defining "Satanic" and "Ritual" what the FBI report said, I think. Does it suddenly become "Satanic" if it's a religious practice and candles are used? But it's not if they aren't?

[Guest]

My common sense take on the bizarre claims in the unsubstantiated cases that Pace refers to is that drugs impact and mess up memory. Ritual abuse does occur (as the 1995 report notes because the parents admitted). And sometimes false memories can be implanted on children that may or may not have been abused, which complicates matters further.

And false memories can be implanted in adults.

Some adults are convinced to believe false things about themselves. Some are convinced to believe false things period.

And some adults suffer from psychotic disorders.

And all of that doesn't also definitively mean that it's impossible that predators aren't doing bizarre things possibly for the purpose of making their crimes too "unbelievable" for a reasonable person to readily believe. When people make the assumption that it does, they're making an error in logic.

Serious mess.

[_Mary]

Rosebud said

Serious mess.

So true, Rosebud.

I'll see if I can find any references to Satanic Ritual abuse in the Miles case..But it seems to me that Introvigne was unfairly conflating the cases. Perhaps the media were too.

[_Rosebud]

If it hasn't been mentioned yet, my guess is (again) that it'll be brought up if/as the case moves forward. And even if the case gets quashed, I don't think the issue is going to stay completely down.

[_Rosebud]

This is going to be a ride for sure.

We have one group of people that thinks it's so unlikely a teenager might sexually abuse kids that they're sure any report of such a thing is a false memory implantated by a quack therapist, and that's more sickened by the way the therapist spoke to the children while the false memories were being reported than much of anything else... and another side that's sickened by sexual abuse of children and forcing children to drink feces.

My prediction is that a lot of people are going to have a hard time as they gain more information about how bad the real world is.

Uhh, you've heard of the straw man fallacy, right? I've not seen anyone here who would fit in your first group. Why can't you accurately describe the positions of the people here you disagree with? I'd be pretty surprised if anyone who posts here is not sickened by the sexual abuse of children. So why are you trying to shove folks into groups that exist only in your head?

Res.... I chose the word sickened because you used the word referring to your reaction to reading about Barbara Snow's interrogations in the dissenting opinion. Am I remembering incorrectly?

If it's a straw man and you're more sickened by the possibility that this might be accurate, I apologize. It was earlier on in the thread, If I recall correctly, that you said there was an equal likelihood of this being true and the church being true. That means zero. And that means that what Snow did was the most sickening thing.

I acknowledge that I am sickened by people being more sickened by an argument in a dissenting opinion that selected certain parts of testimony and trial to make an argument that a therapist caused these problems while simultaneously quoting the therapist herself stating that it wasn't her role to be an investigator.

It wasn't. It was her job to be an advocate. I'm not trying to claim she was perfect. I have no idea. But I do believe she really believed what she was hearing and was trying her best.

People need to stop blaming the therapists. The ones who try to help children and adults with these reports are the good guys, not the bad guys. She doesn't have to be perfect.

And I'm pretty dang sure she never feeds children feces, too.

And for crying out loud, doctors performed physical examinations of the kids to prove they were sexually abused. That's so hard on the doctors. They have to try to figure out how to help kids understand that what they're doing is different than "marriage lessons" while the know the children won't ever really understand. The kids are terrified. It's awful for the professionals who try to help. And then they get dragged through the mud.

[_Lemmie]

nor am I required to provide written evidence for every assertion I make on this board. When have I ever done that? I provide written evidence when I choose. In the past, it was offered -after- I allowed the issue to play itself out publicly.

Let's let this play out.

So, you have evidence, but you want something to "play out," before you give it? This is a discussion, what do you think needs to "play out?" That's just special pleading. It's illogical and absurd.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[_Rosebud]

1986 January, - According to Marion Smith, Janice, a baby tender used by both of her daughters, was implicated by a child victim in the Bullock case.
[ABlipHereAndABlipThere p6]

All from the timeline. Hadfield was allegedly implicated in the Lehi abuse cases.

Bullock was implicated in the Bountiful case. I don't think Satanism featured in the Bountiful case. Introvigne isn't particularly clear on that.

"The press believed, for the most part that Hadfield was innocent. Reporters became still more suspicious of Dr. Snow's methods when they discovered that the therapist, who had moved from Lehi, had subsequently discovered other Satanic cults guilty of extended sexual abuse in Bountiful in 1986 and in the Salt Lake City area in 1988. No charges related to a specific "Satanic" abuse were filed in Bountiful, and a fourteen months probe was quietly dropped in Salt Lake in April 1988."

Rosebud, it is Introvigne who accuses the press of bias. He must have had access to far more newspaper reports than I can access online.

Mary, I apologize. I'm a bit behind. Who is Introvigne and is that document accessible in your timeline? This is so complicated. Did he/she leave a list of sources?