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

[_Rosebud]

(Therapists know kids are easy to influence and that predators influence kids and get kids to lie a lot. It's not likely that Snow really believes kids aren't influenceable and that they never speak things that are untrue. It's more likely, based on her profession, that she believes that it's hard to make kids feel safe enough to tell the truth when they've been threatened that they must lie or face dire consequences and that what she's saying reflects that nuance. But I don't know because all I've seen are phrases pulled out of context to make someone else's point about Snow.)

[_Lemmie]

(Therapists know kids are easy to influence and that predators influence kids and get kids to lie a lot. It's not likely that Snow really believes kids aren't influenceable and that they never speak things that are untrue. It's more likely, based on her profession, that she believes that it's hard to make kids feel safe enough to tell the truth when they've been threatened that they must lie or face dire consequences and that what she's saying reflects that nuance. But I don't know because all I've seen are phrases pulled out of context to make someone else's point about Snow.)

So you still have no actual information on which to base your opinion? The information presented about Snow has not been "phrases pulled out of context," nor has it been sensationalized media accounts. There have been posted pretty specific, detailed, and scathing indictments, mostly based on documented court testimony and judges' opinions, of her methods.

I'm continually urprised that she wasn't eventually charged with something, as in my opinion her behavior was criminal. She apparently facilitated a huge part of Utah's piece of the nationwide 'Satanic panic."

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I mean, Rosebud, you have three, THREE, PhD's testifying under oath that "Dr." Snow is a quack (my words, but c'mon). You seem to keep defaulting to giving this woman the benefit of the doubt. It's mind-boggling.

- She was busted for trying to get kids to say they were abused when they weren't.

- She didn't record her sessions.

- She bullied the kids into their 'recovered memories' or whatever you want to call it.

- She got someone to testify to planted, false, information by the police who suspected her of quackery.

- She got people to testify they ate crap or fed others crap. Literal crap, my friend.

- She got a girl to say she was sewn inside a corpse.

- A babysitter killed herself thanks to "Dr." Snow.

I'm not sure what more you want other than for Mary to keep putting together a timeline spreadsheet? Is it just to have situational awareness for the upcoming legal proceedings?

Whatever the case may be whoever granted her a license to practice social work in this state really ought to investigate her for malpractice.

- Doc

[_Rosebud]

I mean, Rosebud, you have three, THREE, Ph.D.'s testifying under oath that "Dr." Snow is a quack (my words, but c'mon). You seem to keep defaulting to giving this woman the benefit of the doubt. It's mind-boggling.

- She was busted for trying to get kids to say they were abused when they weren't.

- She didn't record her sessions.

- She bullied the kids into their 'recovered memories' or whatever you want to call it.

- She got someone to testify to planted, false, information by the police who suspected her of quackery.

- She got people to testify they ate crap or fed others crap. Literal ____, my friend.

- She got a girl to say she was sewn inside a corpse.

- A babysitter killed herself thanks to "Dr." Snow.

I'm not sure what more you want other than for Mary to keep putting together a timeline spreadsheet? Is it just to have situational awareness for the upcoming legal proceedings?

Whatever the case may be whoever granted her a license to practice social work in this state really ought to investigate her for malpractice.

- Doc

I live in Boston. Almost everybody has a PhD. Most of them are smart enough to not run around and say, "Everything I say is true because I have a PhD." PhDs disagree on a lot of things. They also operate on incentives. I don't assume people are right or are being honest just because they're smart and have degrees.

The kids were abused, sexually. Physical exams were done to prove it. Why is Snow the evil one?

I'm sorry Doc, it's horrifying, but just because something is bizarre, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's also not true that we have proof, as far as I understand, that Snow did get someone to say they were sewn into a corpse.

Plus, I don't how much time you've spent with mentally unwell people, but they say all sorts of very unwell things. Just because they say them, I don't jump to the conclusion that the person they're speaking to is therefore evil. Just this morning I had someone tell me about how the CIA is after him. Does that make me evil? Your logic isn't working Doc.

[_Rosebud]

* okay "almost everybody" is an exaggeration.... what I mean is that PhDs are a dime a dozen in my life.

[_Lemmie]

The kids were abused, sexually. Physical exams were done to prove it. Why is Snow the evil one?

really? some kids were, some weren't. But you still have no actual evidence to present about Snow, right?

Why are you conflating that issue with Snow's documented behavior, as though the existence or nonexistence of abuse has any bearing on the assessment of her methods? Regardless of what happened, she responded in the most unprofessional manner possible.

[_Mary]

The kids were abused, sexually. Physical exams were done to prove it. Why is Snow the evil one?

really? some kids were, some weren't. But you still have no actual evidence to present about Snow, right?

Why are you conflating that issue with Snow's documented behavior, as though the existence or nonexistence of abuse has any bearing on the assessment of her methods? Regardless of what happened, she responded in the most unprofessional manner possible.

I think, the issue is one of primary and secondary sources. You have what people said about her, and then you have what Snow said about herself. I wish I had access to her article on the subject. It's in the timeline.

[Guest]

The kids were abused, sexually. Physical exams were done to prove it. Why is Snow the evil one?

really? some kids were, some weren't. But you still have no actual evidence to present about Snow, right?

Why are you conflating that issue with Snow's documented behavior, as though the existence or nonexistence of abuse has any bearing on the assessment of her methods? Regardless of what happened, she responded in the most unprofessional manner possible.

I think, the issue is one of primary and secondary sources. You have what people said about her, and then you have what Snow said about herself. I wish I had access to her article on the subject. It's in the timeline.

What does that have to do with rosebud's conflation of abuse and Snow's documented unprofessional behavior, as though existence of one excuses the other?

Are you suggesting you don't believe the various court documents, quoted testimony and judge's opinions about her behavior, because you assume, apparently, that something you don't have access to will outweigh all of those documented, quoted references?

Not one single piece of evidence has been presented in support of Snow's approach, while multiple pieces of evidence have documented about her unprofessional behavior.

[_cinepro]

This is interesting.

The University of Michigan law school tracks information on exonerations, and you can see a list of people who were convicted but exonerated from the Ritual Abuse panic of the 1980s:

National Registry of Exonerations - Child Sex Abuse Hysteria

They count 58 cases. Five of them had "false confessions", and they all are classified as "Perjury/False Accusation" and "Official Misconduct".

Reading through them, it's crazy how similar the stories are. But there are some interesting notes.

For example, in Beauchamp:

The CBS investigation revealed that each of the children had been questioned more than 80 times before trial. At one point, one of the children identified the trial judge as his molester.

Jack Broam:

In 1998, Broam’s son–by then 17 years old–recanted his testimony and said that the abuse had never happened. He said that his mother, who had divorced Broam shortly before the accusations surfaced, had locked him up and starved him until he testified against Broam and Manning.

Daniel and Frances Keller:

The more [the accuser] was questioned by her counselor, Donna David-Campbell, the more bizarre the claims became. Among them:

--She rode with the Kellers in an airplane and talked about cemeteries, dirt, and snakes in the cemeteries. They flew to Mexico where military officers assaulted the girl.

--She was forced to smoke a cigarette and given Kool-Aid mixed with blood.

--Tigers licked the children at the day care center and then the tigers were killed.

--The Kellers came to her house and cut the girl’s dog’s vagina with a chainsaw. Another child from the center was present, so the Kellers cut her vagina with the chainsaw.

--The Kellers shot Easter bunnies.

--She saw a baby crying as it was dismembered, and the baby stopped crying when its head was cut off.

--Babies were cut up and put into a hole, and then the Kellers drove over them.

--The Kellers put a baby in a bag and stuffed it in a trashcan.

--She recounted multiple tales of abuse of cats and dogs and threats to kill a horse.

--She said she was “shot in the arm and leg with a gun, that Dan and Fran dressed up like pumpkins and would wear white robes when they hurt her.”

--A baby named Rachel was killed and Daniel Keller dug a hole and buried the baby.

--She was taken to a cemetery where a coffin, babies, and adults were dug up. A person dressed like a policeman was there. When someone walked by and saw then, the officer shoved the person into the hole, and Daniel Keller shot the person and cut him up with a chainsaw.

Karen Knox, a social worker who worked for the Travis County Sheriff’s Office, videotaped three separate interviews with the girl. During the first two, the girl was distracted and unable to verbalize. In the third, Knox began by asking open-ended questions, but ultimately asked leading questions. At one point, Knox asked her what Daniel Keller did to her and the girl replied, “You tell me.”

Regarding physical evidence, in the Ramirez case a doctor insistently and confidently testified that there was evidence of physical abuse:

Dr. Nancy Kellogg, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, testified that she examined the girls and saw evidence of a healed scar on the older girl’s hymen. Kellogg testified this scar was physical evidence of sexual molestation. In her notes, Kellogg speculated that the acts were “Satanic related.” Although Kellogg admitted on cross-examination that she could not tell how old the scar was or whether it was the result of an accident, Kellogg insisted the scar indicated sexual abuse.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
In both trials, prosecutors won convictions by discounting the many inconsistencies in the girls’ testimonies and argued that the inconsistencies were outweighed by the scientific testimony of the pediatrician. That theme was repeated by the appellate court in affirming the convictions on direct appeal.

Years later, when the case was being looked into:

Attorney Mike Ware, executive director of the Innocence Project of Texas, spent two years reinvestigating the case. During that time, Ware consulted with Astrid Heger, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine and an expert in the evaluation of child abuse. Through the cooperation of the Bexar County District Attorney’s office, Ware obtained copies of the original photographs taken of the girls during their 1994 sexual assault examinations by Kellogg. Hager examined the photographs and concluded that there was no physical evidence of any trauma. Confronted with Heger’s findings, Kellogg signed a sworn affidavit saying that, had she known then what she subsequently learned about sexual-abuse forensics, she would not have testified that the evidence showed any physical signs that the girls had been molested.

[_Mary]

With regard to the way *children* tell, I have found a copy of Snow and Sorensen's article online, which I have added to the timeline. Many of Snow's assumptions have been corroborated through more recent analysis of the way children behave and tell, and who have definitely been abused.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20206999

Abstract

"Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
The present study investigated 27 sexually abused children's reports about abuse given in the context of police interviews. All abuse cases had been verified (with, e.g., photographs or video films), proving that abuse had occurred.

METHOD:
The interviews with the children were analyzed regarding amount and type of information reported, and the frequency of denial and avoidance. Furthermore, children's reporting on different interview occasions was investigated.

RESULTS:
Children reported significantly more neutral information from the abusive acts per se than sexual information. The children were also highly avoidant and, on several occasions, denied that (documented) sexual acts had occurred. Furthermore, the second and third interviews generated twice as many (new) sexual details as the first interview. The children also produced more denials and avoidances at the first interview compared to subsequent interviews.

CONCLUSIONS:
The present study indicates that sexually abused children may be highly resistant to reporting about the abuse in police interviews, and that two or three interviews may be needed to enable children to give complete and informative reports. It is of vital importance that professionals within the legal system be aware of this problem when conducting child interviews and when evaluating the reliability of child sexual abuse reports."