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

[_Mary]

Each statement has two sources.. did you see that?

I would have to disagree that you have two sources supporting each statement made by Marion Smith. I looked again at your chronology, in most cases it is just Marion Smith's word. In some cases, you add in a fox news article about the lawsuit, that quotes the lawsuit, which quotes Marion Smith. That's not two sources. In several other cases you have a second link. Of the first two I looked at, one was an obituary of the Dr. that Smith referred to in her quote, another was a link to the hospital, the work location of a person that Smith referred to in a quote.

I stopped there, because while it's helpful, none of those second links would be considered as a second source supporting Marion Smith's statements.

I think you are being unfair Lemmie.

The two sources are Marion Smith and the witness statements by the children and the Mothers 1 and 2 in the lawsuit. That's not one source any way you look at it.

I am interested in why you discount Smith as a source. You have discounted her now on a number of occasions in this thread.

[_Mary]

PS. I was specifically referring to my post above in response to Cinepro.

[_cinepro]

(That timeline is actually very useful if you wanted to use it. I have tried to be scrupulously fair and balanced in dating and linking)

I apologize. It was "a month" of counseling that resulted in the accusations against the Miles.

Again, I can't understand how you don't see the massive problems with how the case developed. It's not like Marion Smith is trying to hide the influence of Snow and the terrible manipulation that was used to get the children to tell stories. She obviously supported it wholeheartedly because she believed it. But this alone shows how off-the-rails things got:

After many appointments, the children had revealed that Janice sometimes brought two teen-age boys to join in her sex play with them. They told of terrible acts. After about two months of therapy, we had a “hero’s” party for our grandchildren. At the party they drew pictures of bad baby sitters hurting children. They tore these up or burned
them in the fireplace. The children received medals for saving other children by telling of their abuse.

So they gave the kids a party and medals for reporting abuse, and then they subsequently reported more abuse? Yeah, that's a shock.

Here's an interesting article that discusses the different studies on the reliability of children's testimony in these situations. They actually conducted studies where kids were asked about contact they had received in (controlled) medical exams.

Reliability and Credibility of Young Children's Reports: From Research to Policy and Practice

And I can't speak for Lemmie, but Marion Smith is extremely unreliable as a narrator because she wholeheartedly believed what was being claimed by the children. Her recounting is still interesting because she was so naïve that she didn't bother to hide all the clues about the methods used to get the children's stories. But a skeptical observer would probably have asked different questions and been more aware of the probability of "contamination" in the children's testimony.

[_Lemmie]

Each statement has two sources.. did you see that?

I would have to disagree that you have two sources supporting each statement made by Marion Smith. I looked again at your chronology, in most cases it is just Marion Smith's word. In some cases, you add in a fox news article about the lawsuit, that quotes the lawsuit, which quotes Marion Smith. That's not two sources. In several other cases you have a second link. Of the first two I looked at, one was an obituary of the Dr. that Smith referred to in her quote, another was a link to the hospital, the work location of a person that Smith referred to in a quote.

I stopped there, because while it's helpful, none of those second links would be considered as a second source supporting Marion Smith's statements.

I think you are being unfair Lemmie.

The two sources are Marion Smith and the witness statements by the children and the Mothers 1 and 2 in the lawsuit. That's not one source any way you look at it.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. I am making a factual statement that the account by Marion Smith and the statements in the lawsuit are so intertwined that they cannot be considered to be two independent sources that corroborate each other.

In the lawsuit, one plaintiff literally states that with the help of Marion Smith they "remembered" the ritual abuse settings. Another plaintiff stated that although they were too young to remember, after conversations with Smith and Snow and others, they "believe" they were abused in ritual sittings. Additionally, the language is virtually identical to Smith's account, which is your first reference. Your two links do not constitute two separate sources.

I am interested in why you discount Smith as a source. You have discounted her now on a number of occasions in this thread.

Cinepro summed up my objections quite succinctly:

Marion Smith is extremely unreliable as a narrator because she wholeheartedly believed what was being claimed by the children. Her recounting is still interesting because she was so naïve that she didn't bother to hide all the clues about the methods used to get the children's stories. But a skeptical observer would probably have asked different questions and been more aware of the probability of "contamination" in the children's testimony

[bolding added]

[_Mary]

In the lawsuit, one plaintiff literally states that with the help of Marion Smith they "remembered" the ritual abuse settings. Another plaintiff stated that although they were too young to remember, after conversations with Smith and Snow and others, they "believe" they were abused in ritual sittings. Additionally, the language is virtually identical to Smith's account, which is your first reference. Your two links do not constitute two separate sources

Call for references please. Otherwise this is mere assertion.

[_Mary]

The two older daughters have made witness statements. The mothers have made witness statements.

[_Mary]

I suppose there could be some grand family conspiracy here and Mother 1 and 2 are lying, but I doubt it.

[_Lemmie]

In the lawsuit, one plaintiff literally states that with the help of Marion Smith they "remembered" the ritual abuse settings. Another plaintiff stated that although they were too young to remember, after conversations with Smith and Snow and others, they "believe" they were abused in ritual sittings. Additionally, the language is virtually identical to Smith's account, which is your first reference. Your two links do not constitute two separate sources

Call for references please. Otherwise this is mere assertion.

Ok, can't do it on my phone but when I get to my computer I will.

In the meantime, here's my full response, which contains my main point, not just the side issue pulled out:

I think you are being unfair Lemmie.

The two sources are Marion Smith and the witness statements by the children and the Mothers 1 and 2 in the lawsuit. That's not one source any way you look at it.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. I am making a factual statement that the account by Marion Smith and the statements in the lawsuit are so intertwined that they cannot be considered to be two independent sources that corroborate each other.

In the lawsuit, one plaintiff literally states that with the help of Marion Smith they "remembered" the ritual abuse settings. Another plaintiff stated that although they were too young to remember, after conversations with Smith and Snow and others, they "believe" they were abused in ritual sittings.

Additionally, the language is virtually identical to Smith's account, which is your first reference. Your two links do not constitute two separate sources.

[_Res Ipsa]

Just to chime in: the problem that I see here is that the information in the affidavits and the information in the Smith paper can't really be verified as independent. We have testimony in other cases that Snow would tell potential victims about what other alleged victims had said. It's also pretty clear that whatever happened has been discussed within the family over and over until we get the narrative that appears in the Smith paper. Personally, given Smith's role as founder of therapy organization and her status as grandmother of the alleged victims, I would consider her a biased source and would be very cautious about accepting her claims without some independent verification. On the other hand, she draws a pretty good roadmap of how the accusations got started and spread throughout the ward.

[_Mary]

Lemmie. You argued that there was only one source that states Jane Does told their mother before they told the therapist. Marion Smith.

I absolutely refute that.

The witness statements by..

1. Mother 1
2. The two eldest Jane Does

State that the children disclosed to their mother first.

Marion Smith, as per the comment Cinepro highlighted, is ambiguous on the matter.

The Miles suit assumes that the children were fed false memories by Barbara Snow.