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

[_cinepro]

Well. You did quote elsewhere, a case where the kids did recant in a custody case.

Again, it seems that the Prosecution only proceeded where there was enough evidence, and weeded out testimony that seemed bizarre and without any foundation in reality. They tried to do the just thing despite the panic.

Yes, there was the case in Bakersfield where some of the kids recanted. And this boy from the McMartin trial:

I'm Sorry

I remember them asking extremely uncomfortable questions about whether Ray touched me and about all the teachers and what they did--and I remember telling them nothing happened to me. I remember them almost giggling and laughing, saying, "Oh, we know these things happened to you. Why don't you just go ahead and tell us? Use these dolls if you're scared."

Anytime I would give them an answer that they didn't like, they would ask again and encourage me to give them the answer they were looking for. It was really obvious what they wanted. I know the types of language they used on me: things like I was smart, or I could help the other kids who were scared.

I felt uncomfortable and a little ashamed that I was being dishonest. But at the same time, being the type of person I was, whatever my parents wanted me to do, I would do. And I thought they wanted me to help protect my little brother and sister who went to McMartin.

Later my parents asked if the teachers took pictures and played games with us. Games like "Naked Movie Star." I remember my mom asking me. She would ask if they sang the song, and I didn't know what she was talking about, so she would sing something like, "Who you are, you're a naked movie star." I'm pretty sure that's the first time I ever heard that: from my mom. After she asked me a hundred times, I probably said yeah, I did play that game.

My parents were very encouraging when I said that things happened. It was almost like saying things happened was going to help get these people in jail and stop them from what they were trying to do to kids. Also, there were so many kids saying all these things happened that you didn't want to be the one who said nothing did. You wouldn't be believed if you said that.

I remember feeling like they didn't pick just anybody--they picked me because I had a good memory of what they wanted, and they could rely on me to do a good job. I don't think they thought I was telling the truth, just that I was telling the same stories consistently, doing what needed to be done to get these teachers judged guilty. I felt special. Important.

If you're suggesting the prosecutors "weeded out" the bizarre stuff to help get a conviction and that seems like a good thing to you, I don't know what to tell you.

[_Res Ipsa]

What is particularly bizarre to me is that in the mind of the public, the "Satanic Panic" is somehow inextricably interwoven with the name of one woman, "Barbara Snow," as if there really could be one woman who somehow created and promoted the "Satanic Panic" all on her own. It's as if citing her methods and the cases she was involved in somehow discredits all of the reports and all other thought on the matter.

That's not true at all.

Barbara Snow is being emphasized in this thread because, if you'll recall, we were talking about the Miles (see: the thread title), and it was Snow who was a key figure in that case and the other Utah incidents of the 1980s.

But Snow was just a reflection of the larger moral panic that spread worldwide through the 1980s and 1990s. She was a part of it, but certainly not the source of it or the sole instigator.

That's part of the reason we can be so confident that the stories she produced were false. Not because they were so unique, but because they were so similar to all the other stories of Satanic Ritual Abuse being told in other parts of the country. As the media picked up on it and therapists (who no doubt really believed in what they were doing) discovered patients who had suffered at the hands of the local baby-killing cult, it was being spread by the therapists and law enforcement who really believed that, in spite of the total lack of physical evidence, these things were really happening.

You really should know this by now. It happened with the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, CA. It happened all over.

This article about the Bakersfield panic is the best example of how such things started and spread in a community:

Kids Don't Lie

I've already pointed out that when you post articles that were written in the 1980s and 1990s, you are posting artifacts from the moral panic, not about the moral panic. They serve to show us what people were thinking at the time, but they should be read with the wider (and hopefully more informed) perspective that additional research and time can give us.

Barbra Snow may be a big deal in Utah, but she was a bit player in the Satanic Ritualized Abuse Scare. I've read several articles that discuss the history of the incident, and never have seen her name come up. She's one of a number of therapists who got caught up in it.

[_Rosebud]

What is particularly bizarre to me is that in the mind of the public, the "Satanic Panic" is somehow inextricably interwoven with the name of one woman, "Barbara Snow," as if there really could be one woman who somehow created and promoted the "Satanic Panic" all on her own. It's as if citing her methods and the cases she was involved in somehow discredits all of the reports and all other thought on the matter.

That's not true at all.

Barbara Snow is being emphasized in this thread because, if you'll recall, we were talking about the Miles (see: the thread title), and it was Snow who was a key figure in that case and the other Utah incidents of the 1980s.

But Snow was just a reflection of the larger moral panic that spread worldwide through the 1980s and 1990s. She was a part of it, but certainly not the source of it or the sole instigator.

That's part of the reason we can be so confident that the stories she produced were false. Not because they were so unique, but because they were so similar to all the other stories of Satanic Ritual Abuse being told in other parts of the country. As the media picked up on it and therapists (who no doubt really believed in what they were doing) discovered patients who had suffered at the hands of the local baby-killing cult, it was being spread by the therapists and law enforcement who really believed that, in spite of the total lack of physical evidence, these things were really happening.

You really should know this by now. It happened with the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, CA. It happened all over.

This article about the Bakersfield panic is the best example of how such things started and spread in a community:

Kids Don't Lie

I've already pointed out that when you post articles that were written in the 1980s and 1990s, you are posting artifacts from the moral panic, not about the moral panic. They serve to show us what people were thinking at the time, but they should be read with the wider (and hopefully more informed) perspective that additional research and time can give us.

I hear you.

I will add "Utah" to my statement:

[

What is particularly bizarre to me is that in the mind of the UTAH public, the "Satanic Panic" is somehow inextricably interwoven with the name of one woman, "Barbara Snow," as if there really could be one woman who somehow created and promoted the UTAH "Satanic Panic" all on her own. It's as if citing her methods and the cases she was involved in somehow discredits all of the reports and all other thought on the matter.

I don't have any doubt that the sensationalized panic spread and that false memories and false panic occurred -- in Utah and outside of Utah. That is not in dispute. I have personally witnessed the harm that comes to people from false memories and accusations. I know the false panic was/has been/is real.

it is not also true that the fact that this was sensationalized and spread that all the victim reports are false.

And it is also not true that when there are similarities between reports, that is evidence that the reports are false. Another explanation for similarities is perpetrators communicating about how to get away with crimes. This stuff is stupid, but it's not something a many perpetrators are going to come up with in a vacuum. It requires knowing how to take advantage of human psychological vulnerabilities. It requires understanding operant conditioning and dissociation.

It doesn't make sense to believe that every predator is working independently or making everything up as they go along.

I only took one introduction to criminology class -- and it was fairly stupid, to be frank -- but I have a hard time believing that people who study criminal behavior have found that criminals always work independently.

[_Lemmie]

I don't necessarily believe Snow praised by saying things like "good boy" when she got the answers she wanted. Most people who work with children regularly are too insightful to do stupid stuff like that.

Is this the basis by which you are disputing the facts stated about her methods? You simply can't believe it could happen? That's ironic.

It sounds like you haven't read the court documents in your chronology. Her behavior in therapy during this time period is well documented and it was atrocious.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I just want to go on record that Rosebud still hasn't sourced any of her assertions, as is customary on this board with a url, copypasta, and a follow-on opinion. She's now posted ~14 times since telling me she was too busy to do so.

Simply posting a link in your sig line and then telling others to go read a book read the contents of the linked page is a diversionary tactic to simply not do your own homework.

- Doc

[Guest]

Good distinction. It would be more accurate to state that it's her reputation that the public is now clinging on to in order to deny the existence of this kind of abuse. And it's more accurate to say that the Miles' seemed to think her reputation was shot enough that bringing her name up would help in their motion to dismiss.

What's your evidence that "the public" is "clinging" to Snow's "reputation?" And what is "this kind" of abuse? You just seem to be assuming that some kind of mass Satanic Ritual Abuse is still occurring. If that's your claim, then where is the evidence?

As someone from behavioral health, I need to see evidence of what Snow really did and said. It makes complete sense to me that children wouldn't report immediately. If this is real, perpetrators told them things like, "If you ever tell anyone, I'll kill your baby brother" in circumstances in which they had every reason to believe the threats were true.

So, how many times should a good therapist badger the children before she concludes that they are truthfully denying that any abuse occurred?

I don't necessarily believe Snow praised by saying things like "good boy" when she got the answers she wanted. Most people who work with children regularly are too insightful to do stupid stuff like that. I could be wrong, of course, i wasn't there. But I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that just because the defense accused her of something it's true. Sheesh.... in legal battles people accuse each other of all sorts of false things.

It's in the court record in State v. Bullock: https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supre ... 70053.html

Scroll down to the dissenting opinion and read. Here are highlights:

The record discloses many instances of overt shaping of testimony. The four boys initially repeatedly denied any instance of sexual abuse of the type charged against the defendant. At first, there were only indications of some sexual activity among two of the accusers and a younger boy. It was only after the four accusers had been interviewed several times by Dr. Snow that they finally began to come up with bits and pieces of the story they eventually told. What each initially "remembered," however, was quite different. Nevertheless, under Dr. Snow's tutelage they eventually came around to "remembering" in a similar fashion one of the incidents in which they were all allegedly involved. This "recollection" was bolstered after they met together with their parents, Dr. Snow, and police personnel to go over the stories together. By the time their testimony was videotaped, the accusers' memories were predictably the same.

At least some of the evidence that convicted the defendant was likely produced by psychologically coercive means. It is of *168 little consequence that no harm was really intended by those using the coercion.[5] Richard told Dr. Ann Tyler, a prosecution witness, in a taped interview, "I made it up *169 [i.e., the story about the defendant] because my dad wouldn't believe me." Richard also said, "Barbara Snow didn't tell me what to say but she told me that it [sex abuse] had happened to me," and "his friends said that the abuse happened and his mom and dad said it happened, so it must have happened." Another boy, Randy, who had been induced by Dr. Snow to disclose child abuse by Bullock, later told his father that in fact there was no abuse. He never testified. Another boy, Steve, could not remember any incident until after two sessions with Dr. Snow, despite "extensive" questioning by his parents prior to Dr. Snow's interviews. Bill denied any abuse when questioned by his parents until after he saw Dr. Snow. Tom said that the first person he told about the incident was Dr. Snow and that the more he talked to her the better his memory became.

Testimony of Bullock's daughter:

Q. Did there come a time in September of 1985 when your mother took you to see Dr. Barbara Snow? Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. You may not remember the day, but do you remember, ahh, you only saw Dr. Snow one time, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And your mother took you to the Center where she worked where you were to be seen by her.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know before you got there why you were going?
A. No.
Q. Did your mother give you any idea or anything, did she tell, what was the reason she gave to you that she was taking you to see Dr. Snow?
A. She didn't give me a reason.
Q. She just said, we are going?
A. Well, she just said that we were going to talk to a counselor.
Q. Okay. And what did you think that would involve?
A. For, ahh, the custody.
Q. For the custody evaluation? And tell us, to the best of your recollection, what, what happened when you went in to talk to Barbara Snow? What she asked you and what the subject was about. Just as best you can recall.
A. She asked me if anybody ever touched me wrong or anything like that. And I told her no.
Q. Is that how she started the interview, or did she tell you why you were there?
A. Umm, yeah, she asked me if I knew why I was there and I told her no. And so then she told me.
Q. What did she say?
A. Ahh —
Q. Why, what did she, what did she say when she told you were there, the best that you can remember?
A. She told me that she was supposed to talk to me about, ahh, if anybody had ever touched me.
Q. Okay. Did she tell you what she meant, if anybody had ever touched you? I mean, did you — go ahead.
A. Ahh, well, I got what she meant, I don't think she —
Q. Okay. You knew she was talking about a sexual touching?
A. Yes.
Q. An inappropriate type of touching, okay. Go ahead, what did she say to you and what did you say to her after that?
A. Umm, she, well, I asked her if, umm, if she had already, she acted like she already thought that somebody had and so I asked her about that and she said, no. And, ahh, she just kept asking me if somebody had and I told her no. But, you know, she just, it seemed like she was trying to get me to say yes. She just kept bugging me to say it.
Q. Okay. Did she tell you some other kids had told her that you had been involved in some sexual touching?
A. Yes.
Q. And did she, did she keep asking you over and over and over whether or not these kids were telling the truth and you had been involved in some sexual touching?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told her all the time no, you had not been?
A. Yes.
Q. Did there come a time when she told you that, if you didn't admit to what had happened —
MR. NAMBA: Your Honor, these questions are leading, I would request that the Court instruct it differently.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Q. Good, did she ever mention at any time, referring to the juvenile authorities?
A. Yes, she said that if I kept lying, that then it would just make a bigger problem and she said something *171 about going to Juvenile Court. Umm, and she just said it would be better if I just admitted it now.
Q. Okay. At any time did she ask you whether or not your father had touched you in a sexual manner?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say to that request?
A. I said no.

Testimony of a defense expert who reviewed audiotapes of the children's interviews with the state's expert:

A. Ahh, [Richard] was probably the most, umm, blatant case of having the information, the information having been contaminated. He said on the tapes, the March 4 tape, that his dad told him that the other kids had been there. That the other kids had talked about Brett Bullock. Ahh, when she asked, Dr. Tyler asked [Richard] who talked to you, he said Dad. He thinks it happened, but I can't remember. Everything that people told me is familiar. Dad said something tells me it happened.
Friends told me it happened. [Steve] and [Bill] said it happened in Farmington, ahh, to them and me at his house. I didn't even know about it until my parents told me.
*173 He said my dad says, "Come here," and talk about it. I know when he's going to talk about it.
[Bill] and [Steve] said Brett threatened to kill my dog, but I don't remember. They said I was lying. Last time when we went to Farmington, didn't feel good that the kids said I was lying.
Dr. Tyler says, are you worried about anything and he said, my dad is on their side, I have been trying to think that it happened. That was just one tape, March 4.
March 14, ahh, Dr. Tyler asked [Richard] what did you tell Barbara? I did lie because Dad started begging me. Daddy said he knew it happened. Umm, Dr. Tyler said, what did you hear from, from your dad and Barbara and [Richard] said that we were touched. And then he listed the names of the people that were touched. First time Barbara told me some of them and then my dad told me the other names.
On the June 6 tape, ahh, where he is now saying that it did happen, ahh, he said, Barbara didn't tell me what to say but she told me what happened to me.
Umm, and the October 10 tape, which is the testimony —
Q. That would be his video tape testimony?
A. Yes. He said Barbara told me the names [Steve] and [Jerry]. Barbara said Mr. Bullock's name first. And that's [Richard].

More from the court:

Prior to Dr. Barbara Snow's involvement in the case, there was no evidence implicating the defendant. Not one accusation against the defendant arose independently of her psychologically coercive interrogations of the boys. Three of the boys had engaged in sexual acts with each other without any adult involvement. Initially, each boy denied to his parents and to Dr. Snow that the defendant was involved, and one boy maintained that position to the very end.[6] Another boy was forced to choose between his allegiance to his father and the truth, as the boy saw it, about the defendant. The boy finally gave in to strong pressure from his father and agreed to tell the accepted story about the defendant. Significantly, both Richard and Randy specifically stated that Dr. Snow first told them the tale of sex abuse that later was charged against defendant. They did not originate the story. Richard's father also pressured Richard to tell "Dr. Snow's story." All four boys who accused the defendant had multiple interviews with Dr. Snow where various forms of pressure were applied.

All the other experts who testified, even the prosecution's own expert, Dr. Ann Tyler, criticized Dr. Snow's techniques on the ground that they were likely to taint and distort the testimony of the children. Not one expert testified that her techniques and methods were accepted techniques in the fields of psychology or social work. Dr. Monica Christy and Dr. Stephen Golding testified that Dr. Snow's methods were coercive and suggestive and were likely to elicit a desired response from the children. They also criticized the absence of adequate record keeping and videotaping procedures to record both the questions and the answers in the interviews with the boys. Even Dr. Tyler, a prosecution witness, criticized Dr. Snow's techniques for their lack of objectivity and their likelihood of eliciting distorted and erroneous answers.

Indeed, Dr. Snow herself admitted that she used interrogation procedures that were not intended to sift truth from error. She forthrightly admitted she was not a neutral interviewer; rather, she was "an ally for the child," "biased," and "not a fact collector like the police." She also testified that it is not her practice to videotape her sessions with children, even though that is the only possible way to evaluate her methods and the reliability of her interrogations. She also testified in effect that there was nothing in her methods that served as a standard for determining the truthfulness of the stories she produced by her interrogation. She admitted as much in answering the following question:

Q. So my question is, how does someone judge your judgment and review your version of what a child has told you?
A. Only on my report of what occurred.

Thus, the sole basis for judging the reliability of the methods Dr. Snow uses, according *175 to her own testimony, is her "own integrity is all you would have." But since she starts an interrogation with the assumption that abuse has occurred, she then proceeds to prove that point. Never before to my knowledge has a court of law allowed an "expert" to testify to such a self-fulfilling prophecy in the guise of an expert opinion. Thus, whatever expertise Dr. Snow demonstrated has to do with obtaining evidence from children to prove an assumption and not to elicit truthful responses.

And from Snow herself:

Q. When you went into that interview with [Susan], umm, you believed in your mind that she had been sexually abused, did you not?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that was based solely on the statement of [Steve]?
A. That is correct.
....
Q. But she denied it to you and you just basically told her you had better go talk to somebody else because I don't believe you.
A. It wasn't that I told her that I don't believe her, she got very upset and she felt like she couldn't work with me there. I didn't tell her that she couldn't work with somebody else because I didn't believe her. I didn't believe any of these kids when they told me it didn't happen. But [Susan] got upset and I felt didn't have much rapport with me. Didn't have much confidence.
....
Q. She did continue counseling with ISAT, did she not?
A. She did.
Q. And all through those counseling sessions which were numerous, she was never, she's always denied molesting anybody or being molested by her father, didn't she?
A. That's my recollection.

And one last bit from the court:

In short, any claim that scientific principles or Dr. Snow's own expertise and experience validate her conclusions and procedures is devastatingly refuted by her own statement, "I didn't believe any of those kids when they told me it didn't happen." On that ultimate point, she was demonstrably wrong — the jury so found on several counts. Curiously, Dr. Snow did not bother to explain why she so unhesitatingly assumed that the children lied only when they denied sexual abuse. There was no physical evidence of abuse, nor was there any other objective evidence of abuse.

Seriously, I feel sick reading this stuff. No wonder she didn't record her interviews with kids.

[_Lemmie]

And it is also not true that when there are similarities between reports, that is evidence that the reports are false. Another explanation for similarities is perpetrators communicating about how to get away with crimes. This stuff is stupid, but it's not something a many perpetrators are going to come up with in a vacuum. It requires knowing how to take advantage of human psychological vulnerabilities. It requires understanding operant conditioning and dissociation.

It doesn't make sense to believe that every predator is working independently or making everything up as they go along.

I only took one introduction to criminology class -- and it was fairly stupid, to be frank -- but I have a hard time believing that people who study criminal behavior have found that criminals always work independently.

I don't think you understand what is being argued about the similarities across cases, and how it relates to Snow's involvement. From the 2002 court case discussed earlier:

The affidavit details the following bizarre factual correlations between those cases and the case resulting in defendant’s trial: (1) they all involve a neighborhood “sex ring” of from three to twenty families; (2) they all involve members of the same church, including a significant number of religious leaders; (3) they all involve Satanic rituals and neighborhood “sex parties”; and (4) in all of the cases, children taken to Barbara Snow at ISAT for counselling have in turn identified other children and adults in the neighborhood. In addition, the affidavit claims that several nearly identical allegations exist in several of these cases. Three of the cases allegedly include prominent reference to playing with, consuming, and bathing in human excrement. Pictures drawn by some of the children in treatment with Barbara Snow in two of the cases are claimed to be identical. Men dressing in women’s clothing and the use of costumes and masks were described by children in two of the cases. In three cases, the children described large groups of adults congregating for the purpose of touching naked children and referred to the use of candles and pentagrams for Satanic rituals. The affidavit further alleges that no known connection exists between any of the cases except for the involvement of Barbara Snow and ISAT in the investigations and the inability of law enforcement to discover any corroborating evidence of the group activities (such as photographs, paraphernalia, etc.).

[_Rosebud]

I just want to go on record that Rosebud still hasn't sourced any of her assertions, as is customary on this board with a url, copypasta, and a follow-on opinion. She's now posted ~14 times since telling me she was too busy to do so.

Simply posting a link in your sig line and then telling others to go read a book read the contents of the linked page is a diversionary tactic to simply not do your own homework.

- Doc

Doc. Look in my signature line. I don't know what else you want after all the sources placed in this thread.

[_Rosebud]

Good distinction. It would be more accurate to state that it's her reputation that the public is now clinging on to in order to deny the existence of this kind of abuse. And it's more accurate to say that the Miles' seemed to think her reputation was shot enough that bringing her name up would help in their motion to dismiss.

What's your evidence that "the public" is "clinging" to Snow's "reputation?" And what is "this kind" of abuse? You just seem to be assuming that some kind of mass Satanic Ritual Abuse is still occurring. If that's your claim, then where is the evidence?

As someone from behavioral health, I need to see evidence of what Snow really did and said. It makes complete sense to me that children wouldn't report immediately. If this is real, perpetrators told them things like, "If you ever tell anyone, I'll kill your baby brother" in circumstances in which they had every reason to believe the threats were true.

So, how many times should a good therapist badger the children before she concludes that they are truthfully denying that any abuse occurred?

I don't necessarily believe Snow praised by saying things like "good boy" when she got the answers she wanted. Most people who work with children regularly are too insightful to do stupid stuff like that. I could be wrong, of course, i wasn't there. But I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that just because the defense accused her of something it's true. Sheesh.... in legal battles people accuse each other of all sorts of false things.

It's in the court record in State v. Bullock: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1 ... v-bullock/

Scroll down to the dissenting opinion and read. Here are highlights:

The record discloses many instances of overt shaping of testimony. The four boys initially repeatedly denied any instance of sexual abuse of the type charged against the defendant. At first, there were only indications of some sexual activity among two of the accusers and a younger boy. It was only after the four accusers had been interviewed several times by Dr. Snow that they finally began to come up with bits and pieces of the story they eventually told. What each initially "remembered," however, was quite different. Nevertheless, under Dr. Snow's tutelage they eventually came around to "remembering" in a similar fashion one of the incidents in which they were all allegedly involved. This "recollection" was bolstered after they met together with their parents, Dr. Snow, and police personnel to go over the stories together. By the time their testimony was videotaped, the accusers' memories were predictably the same.

At least some of the evidence that convicted the defendant was likely produced by psychologically coercive means. It is of *168 little consequence that no harm was really intended by those using the coercion.[5] Richard told Dr. Ann Tyler, a prosecution witness, in a taped interview, "I made it up *169 [i.e., the story about the defendant] because my dad wouldn't believe me." Richard also said, "Barbara Snow didn't tell me what to say but she told me that it [sex abuse] had happened to me," and "his friends said that the abuse happened and his mom and dad said it happened, so it must have happened." Another boy, Randy, who had been induced by Dr. Snow to disclose child abuse by Bullock, later told his father that in fact there was no abuse. He never testified. Another boy, Steve, could not remember any incident until after two sessions with Dr. Snow, despite "extensive" questioning by his parents prior to Dr. Snow's interviews. Bill denied any abuse when questioned by his parents until after he saw Dr. Snow. Tom said that the first person he told about the incident was Dr. Snow and that the more he talked to her the better his memory became.

Testimony of Bullock's daughter:

Q. Did there come a time in September of 1985 when your mother took you to see Dr. Barbara Snow? Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. You may not remember the day, but do you remember, ahh, you only saw Dr. Snow one time, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And your mother took you to the Center where she worked where you were to be seen by her.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know before you got there why you were going?
A. No.
Q. Did your mother give you any idea or anything, did she tell, what was the reason she gave to you that she was taking you to see Dr. Snow?
A. She didn't give me a reason.
Q. She just said, we are going?
A. Well, she just said that we were going to talk to a counselor.
Q. Okay. And what did you think that would involve?
A. For, ahh, the custody.
Q. For the custody evaluation? And tell us, to the best of your recollection, what, what happened when you went in to talk to Barbara Snow? What she asked you and what the subject was about. Just as best you can recall.
A. She asked me if anybody ever touched me wrong or anything like that. And I told her no.
Q. Is that how she started the interview, or did she tell you why you were there?
A. Umm, yeah, she asked me if I knew why I was there and I told her no. And so then she told me.
Q. What did she say?
A. Ahh —
Q. Why, what did she, what did she say when she told you were there, the best that you can remember?
A. She told me that she was supposed to talk to me about, ahh, if anybody had ever touched me.
Q. Okay. Did she tell you what she meant, if anybody had ever touched you? I mean, did you — go ahead.
A. Ahh, well, I got what she meant, I don't think she —
Q. Okay. You knew she was talking about a sexual touching?
A. Yes.
Q. An inappropriate type of touching, okay. Go ahead, what did she say to you and what did you say to her after that?
A. Umm, she, well, I asked her if, umm, if she had already, she acted like she already thought that somebody had and so I asked her about that and she said, no. And, ahh, she just kept asking me if somebody had and I told her no. But, you know, she just, it seemed like she was trying to get me to say yes. She just kept bugging me to say it.
Q. Okay. Did she tell you some other kids had told her that you had been involved in some sexual touching?
A. Yes.
Q. And did she, did she keep asking you over and over and over whether or not these kids were telling the truth and you had been involved in some sexual touching?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told her all the time no, you had not been?
A. Yes.
Q. Did there come a time when she told you that, if you didn't admit to what had happened —
MR. NAMBA: Your Honor, these questions are leading, I would request that the Court instruct it differently.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Q. Good, did she ever mention at any time, referring to the juvenile authorities?
A. Yes, she said that if I kept lying, that then it would just make a bigger problem and she said something *171 about going to Juvenile Court. Umm, and she just said it would be better if I just admitted it now.
Q. Okay. At any time did she ask you whether or not your father had touched you in a sexual manner?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say to that request?
A. I said no.

Testimony of a defense expert who reviewed audiotapes of the children's interviews with the state's expert:

A. Ahh, [Richard] was probably the most, umm, blatant case of having the information, the information having been contaminated. He said on the tapes, the March 4 tape, that his dad told him that the other kids had been there. That the other kids had talked about Brett Bullock. Ahh, when she asked, Dr. Tyler asked [Richard] who talked to you, he said Dad. He thinks it happened, but I can't remember. Everything that people told me is familiar. Dad said something tells me it happened.
Friends told me it happened. [Steve] and [Bill] said it happened in Farmington, ahh, to them and me at his house. I didn't even know about it until my parents told me.
*173 He said my dad says, "Come here," and talk about it. I know when he's going to talk about it.
[Bill] and [Steve] said Brett threatened to kill my dog, but I don't remember. They said I was lying. Last time when we went to Farmington, didn't feel good that the kids said I was lying.
Dr. Tyler says, are you worried about anything and he said, my dad is on their side, I have been trying to think that it happened. That was just one tape, March 4.
March 14, ahh, Dr. Tyler asked [Richard] what did you tell Barbara? I did lie because Dad started begging me. Daddy said he knew it happened. Umm, Dr. Tyler said, what did you hear from, from your dad and Barbara and [Richard] said that we were touched. And then he listed the names of the people that were touched. First time Barbara told me some of them and then my dad told me the other names.
On the June 6 tape, ahh, where he is now saying that it did happen, ahh, he said, Barbara didn't tell me what to say but she told me what happened to me.
Umm, and the October 10 tape, which is the testimony —
Q. That would be his video tape testimony?
A. Yes. He said Barbara told me the names [Steve] and [Jerry]. Barbara said Mr. Bullock's name first. And that's [Richard].

More from the court:

Prior to Dr. Barbara Snow's involvement in the case, there was no evidence implicating the defendant. Not one accusation against the defendant arose independently of her psychologically coercive interrogations of the boys. Three of the boys had engaged in sexual acts with each other without any adult involvement. Initially, each boy denied to his parents and to Dr. Snow that the defendant was involved, and one boy maintained that position to the very end.[6] Another boy was forced to choose between his allegiance to his father and the truth, as the boy saw it, about the defendant. The boy finally gave in to strong pressure from his father and agreed to tell the accepted story about the defendant. Significantly, both Richard and Randy specifically stated that Dr. Snow first told them the tale of sex abuse that later was charged against defendant. They did not originate the story. Richard's father also pressured Richard to tell "Dr. Snow's story." All four boys who accused the defendant had multiple interviews with Dr. Snow where various forms of pressure were applied.

All the other experts who testified, even the prosecution's own expert, Dr. Ann Tyler, criticized Dr. Snow's techniques on the ground that they were likely to taint and distort the testimony of the children. Not one expert testified that her techniques and methods were accepted techniques in the fields of psychology or social work. Dr. Monica Christy and Dr. Stephen Golding testified that Dr. Snow's methods were coercive and suggestive and were likely to elicit a desired response from the children. They also criticized the absence of adequate record keeping and videotaping procedures to record both the questions and the answers in the interviews with the boys. Even Dr. Tyler, a prosecution witness, criticized Dr. Snow's techniques for their lack of objectivity and their likelihood of eliciting distorted and erroneous answers.

Indeed, Dr. Snow herself admitted that she used interrogation procedures that were not intended to sift truth from error. She forthrightly admitted she was not a neutral interviewer; rather, she was "an ally for the child," "biased," and "not a fact collector like the police." She also testified that it is not her practice to videotape her sessions with children, even though that is the only possible way to evaluate her methods and the reliability of her interrogations. She also testified in effect that there was nothing in her methods that served as a standard for determining the truthfulness of the stories she produced by her interrogation. She admitted as much in answering the following question:

Q. So my question is, how does someone judge your judgment and review your version of what a child has told you?
A. Only on my report of what occurred.

Thus, the sole basis for judging the reliability of the methods Dr. Snow uses, according *175 to her own testimony, is her "own integrity is all you would have." But since she starts an interrogation with the assumption that abuse has occurred, she then proceeds to prove that point. Never before to my knowledge has a court of law allowed an "expert" to testify to such a self-fulfilling prophecy in the guise of an expert opinion. Thus, whatever expertise Dr. Snow demonstrated has to do with obtaining evidence from children to prove an assumption and not to elicit truthful responses.

And from Snow herself:

Q. When you went into that interview with [Susan], umm, you believed in your mind that she had been sexually abused, did you not?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that was based solely on the statement of [Steve]?
A. That is correct.
....
Q. But she denied it to you and you just basically told her you had better go talk to somebody else because I don't believe you.
A. It wasn't that I told her that I don't believe her, she got very upset and she felt like she couldn't work with me there. I didn't tell her that she couldn't work with somebody else because I didn't believe her. I didn't believe any of these kids when they told me it didn't happen. But [Susan] got upset and I felt didn't have much rapport with me. Didn't have much confidence.
....
Q. She did continue counseling with ISAT, did she not?
A. She did.
Q. And all through those counseling sessions which were numerous, she was never, she's always denied molesting anybody or being molested by her father, didn't she?
A. That's my recollection.

And one last bit from the court:

In short, any claim that scientific principles or Dr. Snow's own expertise and experience validate her conclusions and procedures is devastatingly refuted by her own statement, "I didn't believe any of those kids when they told me it didn't happen." On that ultimate point, she was demonstrably wrong — the jury so found on several counts. Curiously, Dr. Snow did not bother to explain why she so unhesitatingly assumed that the children lied only when they denied sexual abuse. There was no physical evidence of abuse, nor was there any other objective evidence of abuse.

Seriously, I feel sick reading this stuff. No wonder she didn't record her interviews with kids.

Thank you for finding this Res. This is the dissenting opinion?

Do you have the other opinion, too? I will follow links tomorrow when I get time and read in context.

Why is it that sometimes I'm reading testimony that she didn't record and other times I'm reading testimony that she got witnesses and did record? The latter happened later? Dates and chronology really help.

[_Lemmie]

In short, any claim that scientific principles or Dr. Snow's own expertise and experience validate her conclusions and procedures is devastatingly refuted by her own statement, "I didn't believe any of those kids when they told me it didn't happen." On that ultimate point, she was demonstrably wrong — the jury so found on several counts. Curiously, Dr. Snow did not bother to explain why she so unhesitatingly assumed that the children lied only when they denied sexual abuse. There was no physical evidence of abuse, nor was there any other objective evidence of abuse.

That is horrifying to read. Snow's actions during that time period are indefensible.