I e-mailed the following recently:

I found the article http://www.menweb.org/throop/falsereport/satanic/sandiego.html. Your e-mail was at the end - it wasn't quite clear if you are the contact for    that information or not. Anyway, there are some factual errors:

"The Jury has heard reliable expert testimony that it is a mistake to force a child to relive and keep talking about an alleged traumatic event. Further, there is little evidence that a child will repress a traumatic event. There is good evidence that a traumatic event tends to etch itself indelibly on the mind."

If you read the book Betrayal Trauma by Jennifer Freyd, she cites several reports of repressed memories. For example, one study of women who'd been hospitalised as girls with physical evidence of sexual abuse found that some seemed not to remember the incidents, whereas some who did remember it said for awhile they couldn't remember it.

Also, it has been shown that telling the story of what happened after a trauma reduces the risk of post traumatic stress disorder. Perhaps that is partly why sexual abuse survivors, who typically keep it secret for a long time, have incredibly high rates of PTSD.

Trauma etches itself indelibly in one's mind, even if it is repressed. Repression is not normal forgetting. It is choosing to pretend to yourself that it never happened, and keep pushing it down until it stops coming up. But it still has a big effect on the person's life. One girl who witnessed her father murdering her best friend and repressed that memory kept pulling out her hair at the same spot her friend's skull had been bashed in. However, she is an anomaly, because most of the time single traumas are remembered whereas repeated traumas (especially at the hands of a caregiver) are more often repressed. One woman who contributed to the book Courage to Heal described strange phobias she had which were explained by recovered memories of ritual abuse. She also had physical scars. (Incidentally, her parents claim she has False Memory Syndrome. How can false memories cause physical scars?)

"When an allegation of sexual molest is made, the accused parent's contact with the child is usually terminated. The majority of the psychologists who testified before the Jury maintained strongly that this was not healthy for the child and that the child should at the least have conjoint therapeutic visits with the accused parent. The Jury concurs with that recommendation."

Termination of contact with a parent is an attachment disruption and is indeed not healthy. But if the child is being abused, it is usually a better option than retaining contact. For example, David Peltzer, in his book Lost Child, described how he felt less safe in his foster home when his mother came to visit, as she had threatened him to prevent him from telling. Having her present made him feel she could carry out her threat because she knew where he was. Even though she was not allowed unsupervised contact with him, she could very easily intimidate him without his foster parents noticing. This is not unique to that case either. In fact, one woman described how her father was taking off her bathing suit, in front of other people, and without anyone noticing got his fingers in her vagina.

"Calle was interviewed and reported her daddy touched her. A medical evidentiary was done which showed extensive ongoing molest inconsistent with the child's statement of just touching. The father was contacted in the East. He came to California, hired a lawyer, and began a battle which continues to the present. He subjected himself to polygraphs, penile plethysmographies, psychological profiles, etc. Upon his lawyer's advice he cooperated completely with everyone. The mother was, by all accounts, uncooperative with everyone and had a hard time following through on anything. It was discovered that there were other CPS reports on the mother and her new husband. These included reports of neglect of the children and reports of battery."

It is often easier to acknowlege the less traumatic abuse. One woman, sexually abused by her entire family as well as a babysitter, remembered the babysitter's abuse, which had been the least devastating for her (of course it was still very traumatic), first, and her mother's abuse, which had been the most devastating, last. If the physical signs indicate abuse more severe than the child's account, the most likely conclusion is that the child is only talking about the milder abuse, likely because she finds it less upsetting to discuss.

Secondly, abusers are often good at faking things. I've heard of men considered "pillars of the community" who were abusing their children. My uncle, who sexually abused his children, faked his way through treatment.

Lastly, abusers often prefer to target those who've already been victimised. There are certain psychological characteristics, such as low self esteem and self-blaming, which abusers try to instill in the victim to prevent them from defending themselves. A person who already has those traits requires less work on the part of the abuser. So it is very common for the same people to be victimised repeatedly, and this does not make them any less credible.

"It is also recommended that visitation not be stopped when an allegation of sexual molest is made, but that visitation be continued under therapist supervision. Where a false allegation is suspected, the complaining party should be warned that contamination of the child's relationship with a parent is sufficient grounds for a change of physical custody, and visitation should not be altered while an investigation is occurring."

If you were a child who had been abused by your father, and your father (as abusers tend to do) threatened you - let's say he said "I'll kill you if you tell anyone". Despite this, you work up the courage to tell someone what is going on. They assure you they will protect you, but shortly afterwards, you are back with your father, along with a therapist who you don't know very well and don't trust to protect you. (Abused children typically have first-hand knowlege that someone can promise to protect them yet fail to do so - often unintentionally - and may not make any distinction betwween that nonprotection and the current situation. In facr the only ones who don't have first-hand knowlege of this are those who have never been offered protection.)

"For example, the social study in Alicia W. detailed all of the above indicators in detail. It did not mention that the father's drinking was not a source of a problem in his family. It did not mention the father's superb rating and a history of excellent performance reports and rewards in the Navy. It did not mention a family with extended paternal relatives. It did not mention that the mother managed all of the household finances and was very independent with a day care business in her home. It did not mention that there were no reports of any problems with her day care service. There was no interview of the parents of these children. It did not mention that Alicia was an "A" student who had just won Student of the Month. No one at her school was interviewed. It did not mention an active participation in church and community activities despite a relatively recent transfer to San Diego."

If someone is drinking to excess, it causes problems for everyone who cares about them. Secondly, having a suberb rating in the Navy does not make someone incapable of abusing a child. Also, although some abusers abuse any child they can, others are highly selective, abusing only one or a few children. Also, although some abused children give up on their schoolwork or can't concentrate on it because of the abuse, others use schoolwork to escape unpleasant feelings, and therefore put in quite a lot of effort into schoolwork. I know of one woman who described herself as a good pretender, whose parents insist she had a happy childhood, but who was actually suicidal much of her childhood and wrote about this in her diary.

"Witnesses from DSS and the District Attorney's Child Abuse Unit told the Jury that children rarely lie about abuse and sexual trauma. It was disturbing to the Jury that these same witnesses often concluded that a child was in denial or being protective if they denied abuse by a parent but were never lying when they accused. The Jury examined cases where children made allegations of abuse and then later wanted to retract them. The children said they had lied and were sorry. The same social workers, therapists, prosecutors, and judicial officers who believed the stories of abuse, refused to believe the children when they admitted to a lie."

There is a great deal of pressure on an abused child to keep quiet. They usually love their parents despite the abuse. Also, they are often threatened with horrible things (often empty threats, but the child doesn't know that) if they tell. They may keep quiet or tell but recant for that reason. And if the abusive parent is given contact with the child after they tell, they may pressure the child to say they lied and - as parents can do - make the child feel guilty for it. Those social workers, etc likely know about this dynamic and are aware that it's much harder to make an allegation of abuse - and especially stick to it -than recant it.

"There is evidence and considerable professional testimony that the existence of satanic ritual abuse is a contemporary myth perpetuated by a small number of social workers, therapists, and law enforcement members who have effected an influence which far belies their numbers. These "believers" cannot be dissuaded by a lack of physical evidence."

In the book Courage to Heal mentioned above, they describe a case where a mutilated body of an infant was found. A young boy in that region came forward with a story of ritual abuse involving the murder of that infant - that fit well with the physical facts - but the officials thought up an implausible story about the child having died of illness and the body being mutilated in an unsuccessful attempt to get rid of it. Also, the famous McMaster preschool case, they emphasized how the tunnels the children described hadn't been found. Years after the case, the parents hired an excavator who found the tunnels exactly where the children said they were, having been filled in or something (I'm going from memory here). Who is ignoring physical evidence?

"One "survivor" had memories of sexual abuse on the day she was born. This same survivor reported memories of her mother's attempts to abort her. Another "survivor" told a detailed story of satanic ritual abuse which included a large number of prominent citizens from her hometown."

The first person's description is obviously implausible, but prominant citizens are not immune to being abusers. Many abusers are able to put up quite a disguise.

"Mr. Lanning also stated that the blurring of the diagnosis of dissociative disorder and a resulting logically false conclusion is at least partially responsible. This opinion was confirmed by other expert witnesses. The DSM-III defines Multiple Personality Disorder under Dissociative Disorders. Multiple Personality Disorder is an unusual condition with childhood abuse (often sexual) as a predisposing factor. Therapists who have expanded the parameters of the dissociative disorder diagnosis to include any form of dissociation have fallen prey to the logical fallacy followed that all of these patients also suffered severe childhood trauma. Proponents of this theory believe that with a sympathetic therapist, if any dissociative disorder is found, memories of childhood abuse will follow."

Dissociation is a way of escaping unbearable situations. By definition, therefore, it is due to trauma that a person dissociates. Once they are used to dissociating, they use it to escape flashbacks as well as current trauma, and sometimes to help in denial and repression.

"Experts have told the Jury that the first story a young child tells is most likely the true one. Testimony given by very young children after a year in therapy should be treated with great caution. Testimony given by children after a year in therapy with therapists who are "believers" should be treated with deep skepticism."

Not necessarily. A person may say "I was not abused" because they have repressed the memory of abuse, when in fact a doctor saw them at age 5 with signs of vaginal penetration. Later this person may remember the abuse and start talking about it - in or out of therapy. Or they may knowingly lie in denying abuse out of fear of consequences of telling. But later they feel safer and they start talking about what happened.

"The [False Memory Syndrome] Foundation is deeply concerned about the growing phenomenon of false accusations coming out of therapy. The Foundation is concerned that this dangerous phenomenon will ultimately impact the profession's credibility. Already they attribute inappropriate therapy with destroying families and creating abuse in the minds of children and adults."

The FMSF provides a very one-sided view. Also, they have factual innacuracies. One woman described how she recovered memories of abuse and then entered a survivor's group, and her parents, members of FMSF, claimed her survivor's group inplanted the memories even though she recovered the memories before entering that group. In one of the newsletters, the FMSF claimed that the fact that their members were high-class, "respectable" people meant they could not be abusers - when in fact abuse is not limited to any social class.

Ettina