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

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Am I tracking this correctly in that Rosebud believes Satanic ritual abuse occurred and that the therapists were actually uncovering real abuse through their recovered memories therapy?

- Doc

[_Rosebud]

Am I tracking this correctly in that Rosebud believes Satanic ritual abuse occurred and that the therapists were actually uncovering real abuse through their recovered memories therapy?

- Doc

Be careful of falling for straw men.

I believe that "Satanic" and "ritual" are sensationalizations and red herrings. I don't think it matters what kind of foolery people use when they commit crimes. Child abuse is child abuse, plain and simple. I very much like the FBI report on the subject.

I believe that the media has not correctly reported on the documentation that is available (i.e. the 1995 Attorney General report that did, in fact, offer evidence). That failing of credible media has paved the way for lay people who are uniformed to point fingers at the therapists as if the therapists were off their rockers for believing victim reports, often unjustly mocking and discrediting the therapists. This has taken off and has become the "popular" belief that few people have the courage to publicly say they don't accept because if they do, they'll face ridicule. I think this is unfortunate.

I believe that the public is buying the arguments of the defense attorneys without enough information. Even though the cases, as far as I understand, were lost.

I do not believe that "recovered memory therapy" is what the lay public believes it is. In fact, I don't really even know exactly what "recovered memory therapy" is. I can think of a lot of unfortunate practices that surely lack credibility that it might be. I can also think of other credible practices that it might not be.

Children tend to forget traumatic things. Child abuse is traumatic. Does that mean that all forgotten child abused didn't happen? No.

Somebody who actually knows what they're talking about needs to operationalize a few terms rather than throwing them around to sway the opinion of people who know nothing about the subject, in my opinion.

[_Rosebud]

for what it's worth, I really enjoy thinking about social psychology. I like to observe the way people interact in groups and how group mentality sways opinions. I like to observe the ways people try to pressure and shame each other. That's one of the things that attracts me to message boards.

As far as the group thought, pressure and shaming, I see that as happening all over the place with this problem. And despite all of it this problem clearly, at least to me, isn't going to disappear just because the media has made a scapegoat out of Barbara Snow.

And I'm interested in social engineering. That's what drew me to Mormon Stories and that's what I did while I was there. My Q: How can you get large groups of people (in the case of my work at Mormon Stories, believing Mormons) to start accepting ideas that were previously unpopular? For whatever reason, I spend too much of my spare time thinking about that question.

And, I also believe that children were horribly victimized in the past in Utah. I don't give an F about "Satan" or "rituals."

I do hope abuse isn't happening as much today with all the video cameras everywhere. I wish there were better child protection policies in place to protect today's children as, to me, that seems the obvious first answer to this problem. A no-brainer. But the world is steeped in 2-deep (which, as I have pointed out repetitively was promoted by a man convicted of possession and distribution of child porn).

So my Q: How do you change that?

So far, I think this recent lawsuit is a good beginning place. So I'm adding my 2 cents.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Rosebud,

I honestly wasn't trying for a 'gotcha' post. I was just trying to hammer out exactly where you fall on this issue. I think you answered it, in that you do believe the abuse that was reported within context of this particular narrative actually occurred, and that the therapists did, in fact, help uncover or recover (I don't know what term would be acceptable for you) sexual abuse. If I'm wrong, then I'll admit I'm not following you correctly.

-Doc

[_Rosebud]

I believe clients uncovered both real and false abuse.

I believe clients did the brunt of the work and that therapists acted as faciltators: sometimes as promoters of false ideas, other times as implanters of false memories, and sometimes as facilitators of uncovering real memories and real healing.

I believe this whole thing is one conflated mess and that Mary and Meadowchick (if I got her handle right) are likely right when they say more is coming. There is a tidal wave of mental illness underneath all this. It won't stay quiet in the current environment. And I use the words "mental illness" with respect for those who are suffering, not as words of minimization or condemnation.

[_Lemmie]

...I believe that the media has not correctly reported on the documentation that is available (i.e. the 1995 Attorney General report that did, in fact, offer evidence). That failing of credible media has paved the way for lay people who are uniformed to point fingers at the therapists as if the therapists were off their rockers for believing victim reports, often unjustly mocking and discrediting the therapists. This has taken off and has become the "popular" belief that few people have the courage to publicly say they don't accept because if they do, they'll face ridicule. I think this is unfortunate.

I believe that the public is buying the arguments of the defense attorneys without enough information. Even though the cases, as far as I understand, were lost.

I do not believe that "recovered memory therapy" is what the lay public believes it is. In fact, I don't really even know exactly what "recovered memory therapy" is. I can think of a lot of unfortunate practices that surely lack credibility that it might be. I can also think of other credible practices that it might not be.

Children tend to forget traumatic things. Child abuse is traumatic. Does that mean that all forgotten child abused didn't happen? No.

Somebody who actually knows what they're talking about needs to operationalize a few terms rather than throwing them around to sway the opinion of people who know nothing about the subject, in my opinion.

Actual research has been presented and discussed, so it's not clear why you think people who believe that incorrect methods were used during the ritual abuse scare are relying inadequately on media and defense attorneys' statements. It certainly hasn't been the case by posters on this thread, and on similar threads on the other board. Many people have offered research that you seem to be unfamiliar with, given the comments you have made.

For example, from the research paper that cinepro recommended, there is this:

One of the claims of a moral panic is that existing lines of defense against danger and are inadequate and new weapons are needed. This was true of the organized child abuse cases.

First, and most important, was the fact that prosecutors and police were dependent upon a finding by a child abuse professional that a child had been sexually abused. It often required months of therapy before the therapist determined to his/her satisfaction how and by whom the child had been abused, months during which police officers were assigned to look for corroborative evidence.

By the time it became clear that no such evidence could be found (no pornographic pictures, no witnesses, no documents, and no other physical evidence was found to support the charges), police and prosecutors had become emotionally invested in the truth of the charges, and the lack of corroboration could be interpreted as evidence of the cunning of ruthless criminals.

Regarding therapists' methods, from the same article:

[Contributing factor (2): false and coerced confessions and improper interrogations:

Almost from the beginning of the moral panic, critics questioned the methods used to question the child victims (cf., e.g., New Jersey v. Michaels 1993, 1994). Recent r has supported the critics (Ceci and Bruck 1995; Nathan and Snedeker 1995).

The rest of the paper is equally enlightening. Rather than focusing on the character assassination of therapists that you seem to think is going on, I would recommend reading the research.

[_Rosebud]

Lemmie,

You need to stop making personal attacks. It's not about me or you. It's about the issue.

What you have quoted is not research. Do you have a link to research?

Also, the words "research," and "science" mean different things to people depending on what kind of educations they have regarding research and science. I don't know much about what you have studied, but I am guessing you and I would have to have a long conversation about research and science before we came to agreement on much. I am not personally interested in that discussion, but I am interested in a link to research or an actual investigation if you have one. I didn't see one in any of cinepro's posts, but I could have missed something.

Also, it's important not to assume I have read other boards or all the posts you have read.

I would appreciate you either putting me on ignore as well or making an effort to avoid personal attacks. The personal attack in this last post (that my problem is that I am focusing on the discrediting of therapists instead of reading research) is the last personal attack I will tolerate. After the next personal attack, I will never read one of your posts again. There is no need to stoop to them. Try to make your arguments without them. It's possible and will make your posts stronger. State what you believe and why without trying to make other people look like they are wrong for doing something or not doing something, or for believing something or not believing something.

It's not about other people or you; it's about the issue.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I believe clients uncovered both real and false abuse.

I believe clients did the brunt of the work and that therapists acted as faciltators: sometimes as promoters of false ideas, other times as implanters of false memories, and sometimes as facilitators of uncovering real memories and real healing.

I believe this whole thing is one conflated mess and that Mary and Meadowchick (if I got her handle right) are likely right when they say more is coming. There is a tidal wave of mental illness underneath all this. It won't stay quiet in the current environment. And I use the words "mental illness" with respect for those who are suffering, not as words of minimization or condemnation.

How do you come to determine which ones were abused and which ones weren't?

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

What you have quoted is not research.

?????

Wrongful Conviction and the Moral Panic About Organized Child Abuse: National and International Perspectives

Randall Grometstein, J.D., Ph.D.
Fitchburg State College
Fitchburg, Massachusetts 01420
January 15, 2005
Revised December 19, 2005

Accepted 8/1/06 for publication in Wrongful Conviction: International Perspectives on Miscarriages of Justice, ed. C. Ronald Huff and Martin Kilias, forthcoming from Temple University Press.

Final version submitted September 15, 2006.
http://ascdwc.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... stein1.pdf

The personal attack in this last post (that my problem is that I am focusing on the discrediting of therapists instead of reading research) is the last personal attack I will tolerate.

What? I was responding directly to YOUR comment:

...And that's how you get a prosecution based on children's reports and a defense based on discrediting therapists. Which is what got us to where we are today.

I disagree with your focus, and I said so. Disagreeing with someone is not a personal attack.

Also, the words "research," and "science" mean different things to people depending on what kind of educations they have regarding research and science.

No, they don't.

[_Rosebud]

I believe clients uncovered both real and false abuse.

I believe clients did the brunt of the work and that therapists acted as faciltators: sometimes as promoters of false ideas, other times as implanters of false memories, and sometimes as facilitators of uncovering real memories and real healing.

I believe this whole thing is one conflated mess and that Mary and Meadowchick (if I got her handle right) are likely right when they say more is coming. There is a tidal wave of mental illness underneath all this. It won't stay quiet in the current environment. And I use the words "mental illness" with respect for those who are suffering, not as words of minimization or condemnation.

How do you come to determine which ones were abused and which ones weren't?

- Doc

From a therapist's perspective, that would probably be decided based on the symptoms of the client and the way the client behaved in session, while having the memories and after the memories. Therapists are also on the lookout for psychosis and psychotic disorders like schizophrenia. If a person is displaying symptoms of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, a therapist would likely wonder about the neruo-biological contributors and what environmental factors got the person to that point, but wouldn't believe much the person said about reality. The therapist probably wouldn't completely rule out severe trauma and abuse, but wouldn't place too much stock on details or accusations. Psychotic people are generally constantly accusing everybody.

From a legal or prosecution perspective, you can't tell them apart. It's not enough to claim somebody abused you in the past and you didn't remember that before but now you do. If courts accepted that as evidence we'd have a whole slew of mentally ill people taking their relatives to court. That would be a waste of judges' time and taxpayer money.

Therapists know this and do what they can to help their clients as they can. From a therapist's perspective, it's about healing and moving forward, not about taking somebody from the past to court -- especially if you don't have evidence.

So, for the therapist, the most important question is not necessarily, "Is this true?" Rather, it would be more like, "How can you recover from what you're experiencing right now so that you can move forward with better functioning in your life?"

And then... putting adequate child protection policies in place to protect other children from the kinds of reports the therapists hear, regardless of assumptions about veracity.