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

[_Mary]

https://www.qut.edu.au/

[_Lemmie]

That's a fair comment Lemmie. I checked the reference and looked up the Journal on line.

"Publisher: Queensland University of Technology

Country of publisher: Australia

Platform/Host/Aggregator: OJS

Date added to DOAJ: 5 Nov 2013

Record Last Updated: 20 Jul 2016

LCC Subject Category: Social Sciences: Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology

Publisher's keywords: penology, human rights, green criminology, critical criminology, feminist criminology

Language of fulltext: English

Full-text formats available: PDF

It follows a blind peer review format.

I for one, love the idea of open access.

Again you picked out a minor piece of my post, posted a lot of irrelevant stuff, and completely ignored the issue. Frustrating.

[_Res Ipsa]

Rep, okay, let's take grand conspiracy out of the equation, and couch it in less intentional motives. Still, the result would be to question the reliability of the adult mother's recollection and the Jane Doe's recollections on this particular matter. [That both the Jane Doe and Mother 1 recall that the first instance of alleged abuse of Def 1 and def 2, and days later, the perpetrator, were disclosed in a home environment and not through therapy sessions with Snow.] It will be interesting to see how that point plays out in court because it is an important contradiction between what the Miles Lawyer is claiming and what the witnesses are stating.

Mary, I'm just not seeing the declarations say what you are describing. Please keep in mind: declarations are drafted by lawyers, not witnesses. You have to read very carefully what they say and what they don't say.

I'm going to start with Smith's paper, because it contains much more chronological information:

The first reference we have to any possible abuse to the two girls comes from Smith herself. In January 1986, Smith says she learned that Janice, who had babysat the two girls, was implicated as an abuser in the Bullock case. Janice was implicated through therapy provided by Snow.

Remember, Smith is the founder or co-founder of the place where Snow does therapy. Smith tells the girls' mother about Janice. So, at this point, the mother knows about the allegations against Janice in the Bullock case, which involved touching parties.

The father insists that the girls be evaluated and schedules an appointment with Snow -- the therapist who has already "discovered" a ring of ritual abusers involving Janice.

Snow interviews the girls and says they appear to be okay. But when the parents tell her that Janice babysat the kids, she "reinterview" the children. The reinterview is when the first disclosure of any abuse is made -- and that abuse is Janice -- the individual that Snow already has decided is involved in a sex abuse ring.

"After many appointments" with Snow, the allegations expand to include two teenage boys that Janice brings with her. The girls are then rewarded for their bravery with a "hero party."

Then, "as therapy continued," the ring of accused abusers widened to include Dick and Brenda Miles.

Finally, on February 13, 1986, the younger daughter volunteers information about Daddy's "marriage lessons." And, for the first time, the Father is accused. This is after a month during which the the accusations start with Janice, spread to two teenage friends of Janice, and then to the Miles. It is also Smith's first mention of a disclosure of abuse that did not occur during or through therapy.

Four days later, Smith's husband takes the mother and kids to Hawaii. Meanwhile, Smith's other daughter's kids are getting therapy with Snow, and Smith mentions "parties" for the first time. These are not the touching parties alleged in the complaint, but are described as violent and limited to the Miles'.

In Hawaii, the girls for the first time implicate their grandmother. It is the first time that Smith says that the girls mentioned "parties." But nowhere does Smith describe these as touching parties.

So, it's pretty clear from Smith's narrative, that the first allegations of sexual abuse of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 came out in therapy with a therapist who was already convinced that their babysitter was part of a ring of sex abusers.

So, do the declarations contradict Smith's narrative? Let's see:

The mother's declaration doesn't mention therapy with Snow at all, so she never says anything about whether the initial revelations were made during therapy or not. Although she doesn't give dates, the order of events is similar to Smith's: the allegations against the father came after those against Janice, her friends, and another man. (Miles?) Although she describes certain allegations made at home, she doesn't specify which of the long description of abuse was made at that time.

Nothing in the daughter's declaration indicates that her first disclosure of abuse occurred outside of therapy.

The younger daughter says nothing about the timing of her disclosures.

So, I have to disagree with your description of the recollections. Based on years of legal practice, it appears to me that the Mother's declaration was drafted to be fuzzy about the dates and timing of recollections and to avoid giving any information about whether the first disclosures of abuse occurred in therapy.

The shame of it is, I think based on what we have that the father did abuse his daughters. Getting "marriage lessons" from daddy sounds more like the kind of one on one abuse that the daughter from the second marriage describes. But, if the church skates on this, it may very well be that Snow was chasing yet another ritual sex ring instead of focusing on what was actually happening.

[_Mary]

That's a fair comment Lemmie. I checked the reference and looked up the Journal on line.

"Publisher: Queensland University of Technology

Country of publisher: Australia

Platform/Host/Aggregator: OJS

Date added to DOAJ: 5 Nov 2013

Record Last Updated: 20 Jul 2016

LCC Subject Category: Social Sciences: Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology

Publisher's keywords: penology, human rights, green criminology, critical criminology, feminist criminology

Language of fulltext: English

Full-text formats available: PDF

It follows a blind peer review format.

I for one, love the idea of open access.

Again you picked out a minor piece of my post, posted a lot of irrelevant stuff, and completely ignored the issue. Frustrating.

Hold your darn horses. YOU find my response frustrating. You clearly argued that the Journal wasn't reliable. I checked the thread you linked to. It was mildly relevant. I then checked where the Journal came from and whether articles were peer reviewed. They are.

What on earth do you want from me.

[_Mary]

Rep. The factual claims. Copy pasted from the suit.

"16. Shortly thereafter, JANE DOE 1 identified to MOTHER 1 that DOE 1 MALE DEFENDANT and DOE 2 FEMALE DEFENDANT sexually assaulted children at so called “touching parties.”

18. Shortly after the visit by the Apostle in late January or early February 1986, JANE DOE 1 identified Perpetrator, her own father, as participating with DOE 1 MALE DEFENDANT and DOE 2 FEMALE DEFENDANT in committing these heinous crimes against children. 19. After these disclosures, MOTHER 1 decided to take her children to Hawaii to visit their grandparents.

And from Marion Smith (p8)

"OnFebruary13,1986,Eileen was driving six year-old Tricia home from therapy when Tricia asked, “What’s the difference between what Janice and Dick Miles do to us and Daddy’s marriage lessons?”


I don't see any ambiguity in the factual claim that Jane Doe 1 revealed the abuse of Def 1 and 2 to her mother first.

[_Lemmie]

That's a fair comment Lemmie. I checked the reference and looked up the Journal on line.

"Publisher: Queensland University of Technology

Country of publisher: Australia

Platform/Host/Aggregator: OJS

Date added to DOAJ: 5 Nov 2013

Record Last Updated: 20 Jul 2016

LCC Subject Category: Social Sciences: Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology

Publisher's keywords: penology, human rights, green criminology, critical criminology, feminist criminology

Language of fulltext: English

Full-text formats available: PDF

It follows a blind peer review format.

I for one, love the idea of open access.

Again you picked out a minor piece of my post, posted a lot of irrelevant stuff, and completely ignored the issue. Frustrating.

Hold your darn horses. YOU find my response frustrating. You clearly argued that the Journal wasn't reliable. I checked the thread you linked to. It was mildly relevant. I then checked where the Journal came from and whether articles were peer reviewed. They are.

What on earth do you want from me.

Here is what I said:

Again you picked out a minor piece of my post,

I said that because I posted some concerns about the journal, and then I made my main point, which was this:

One question I immediately had, based on your quotes, was why there was no discussion of whether actual evidence (not just existence of convictions) supported the extreme ritual abuse claims. From your quotes, the article seems to focus on just the belief or disbelief psychological constructs, not the actual existence or lack of existence of evidence.

You did not respond to that main point at all. Instead, even though I said I had looked into the journal, you posted a large list of irrelevant items about the journal that gave no additional information.

Re: the minor point, I'm not sure why you thought PG's quote is only "mildly relevant," when it actually makes a full and direct case for looking at articles from this journal with caution. A few key points:

Open access online journals are thus not a scam per se, but they are a model that is easily open to abuse. Anyone can set up a website and claim to be an open access online journal....

....obvious tactics are to give your journal a very broad subject range, advertise short review times, and appeal to authors who want to record their "achievements". ...

The journal can loudly claim to practice strict peer review, but the claim is worthless....

Scientific peer review is a powerful force that is entirely unregulated. It's whatever journal editors decide it should be....

So, bottom line: don't assume that everything you find online [ in an open source journal] which calls itself a scientific journal is actually worth anything....

In my opinion, the paper is not relevant because it does not discuss ritual abuse from an evidentiary standpoint, but rather a psychological mindset ( kind of like discussing what type of person believes in UFOs), AND it comes from a journal that doesn't create confidence in its peer review process, thus rendering it further suspect.

[_Mary]

Lemmie. Next time, outline it as a minor point. I'm not a mind reader.

[_Mary]

And Lemmie, the clue is in the title and abstract as to what the purpose of the article is

*Dissecting Disbelief: Possible Reasons for the Denial of the Existence of Ritual Abuse in the United Kingdom

She made a good case for why people are skeptical any time the term *ritual abuse* is raised.

She notes the extreme responses, many of which have been displayed in this thread.. ie Ritual abuse under any definition categorically does not exist, and anyone who takes a more nuanced view is an idiot, uncritical in thought, gullible and may as well be arguing for the existence of aliens.

She also notes that efforts are made to single out ritual abuse as fundamentally different to other types of abuse, when in point of fact there are overlaps.

Gosh, even Lanning takes a more reasoned approach than some commenting here.

[_Lemmie]

Gosh, even Lanning takes a more reasoned approach than some commenting here.

I give up. I have enjoyed this thread because I have learned a lot about a situation that occurred just months after I left the state. It will be interesting to see how the current case plays out.

Mary, I am "outin[ing] as a minor point" that I find your statement above to be ironic.

[_Mary]

Gosh, even Lanning takes a more reasoned approach than some commenting here.

I give up. I have enjoyed this thread because I have learned a lot about a situation that occurred just months after I left the state. It will be interesting to see how the current case plays out.

Mary, I am "outin[ing] as a minor point" that I find your statement above to be ironic.

Passive aggressive much Lemmie.