Thursday, May 08, 2015, multimillionaire Manhattan socialite, Gigi Jordan, was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the manslaughter of her eight-year old autistic son, Jude Michael Mirra.  

Jordan never denied that she had intended to kill her child by way of forced pill overdose five years previous in a New York City hotel. To her troubled mind, the forced pill overdose was a “mercy killing”, preserving the child from the inevitable horrors he was to suffer at the hands of an unseen, yet omnipresent, Satanic cult conspiracy.

Warning signs of Jordan’s dangerous state-of-mind had been clear for years. Jordan expressed deeply paranoid, irrational fears that the cult was actively tracking her every activity while ritually abusing Jude into a state of trauma-induced cognitive disability (he was, in fact, severely autistic).

Jude Michael Mirra

Many questioned what, if anything, was true in Jordan’s suspicious, delusional allegations. However, few questioned the competence of the therapists and other experts whom Jordan had consulted, who failed to recognize Jordan’s dangerously delusional state, failed to balance her fantastical beliefs with critical inquiries, and even apparently encouraged and cultivated her most deranged and deadly convictions. Oddly, even when reporting on the trial, journalists seemed entirely blind to evidence of professional incompetence, the influence that sanctioned pseudoscience seems to have played in Ms. Jordan’s destructive beliefs.

A Delusion of Conspiracy  

Ms. Jordan contacted the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation in 2008 with a bizarre, sprawling and disjointed tale of Ritual Abuse and constant, unshakeable surveillance. She was detained, on an emergency basis, for a mental health evaluation. Jude was taken into custody.

“I couldn’t make sense of what she was saying,” special agent Bruce Dexter would later testify, “She was jumping around to different topics, different areas. It was a very convoluted story.”[1]

The stories Ms. Jordan would tell of her son’s suffering at the hands of a Satanic conspiracy were indeed convoluted. By her own telling, she never left the boy’s side, yet she would report that Jude communicated to her (not that she witnessed) that he had been made to receive electric shocks to his genitals, forced “to drink blood, kill animals and have sex with several babysitters and close relatives.”[2]

Before arriving in Wyoming, specifically for the purpose of reporting the Satanic cult crimes to the investigators, Jordan travelled with Jude to various locations across the nation, staying in hotels, relocating at a moment’s notice in an attempt to throw Jude’s pursuers from their trail. Having contacted the Wyoming office in advance, Ms. Jordan was met by Law Enforcement at the airport. Jude, the agents noted, was without socks or underwear on his person, nor did Jordan’s luggage contain any fresh clothes for the boy. The agents were further alarmed by the copious amounts of unlabeled medications Jordan carried for Jude’s seemingly ad hoc “treatment” regimen.

Physical examination would yield “no evidence of sexual assault of any kind”[3]. More discrediting to Jordan’s claims, however, was the fact that Jude, the alleged source of the abuse allegations, appeared to have very little verbal skills with which to communicate the allegations at all.

Against medical advice, Ms. Jordan was released “of her own recognizance” after her emergency mental health evaluation, following which the Court considered evidence indicating that Jordan presented an imminent danger to her son. Clearly not at all convinced of Ms. Jordan’s sanity, or Jude’s safety in her care, the Court also didn’t feel that the legal burden of evidence was met to justify placing Jude in foster care.

“I’m sure the time will come when recriminations are made saying somebody in authority should have seen this coming and acted to prevent it,” the District Court Judge in Wyoming stated presciently when remitting the child back to his mother’s care. “That’s what’s on everybody’s minds here. That’s the elephant in the room that nobody talks about.”

Citing “improper” criticisms directed toward those who failed to prevent the Virginia Tech mass shooting, perpetrated by an openly disturbed student, the Court preemptively apologized for Jude Michael Mirra’s murder, stating, “Our system doesn’t work that way. You don’t go arrest somebody because you’re afraid they might do something. Those are made after the fact looking back, and I think we’re dealing with a situation like that here.”[4]

Just under two years later, on February 03, 2010, Ms. Jordan checked into the Peninsula Hotel in Manhattan with Jude, after hours of aimless cab rides throughout New York City. Late at night, while the boy slept, Jordan crushed about 20 Xanax pills and 40 Ambiens into a mixture of vodka and orange juice that she then forced down the 8-year old’s throat while sitting atop him “using enough force to bruise that boy on the face, the nose, the chest,” according to the prosecution.[5]

Media reporting on the case almost universally focused on the superficial narrative: the shocking tragedy of a millionaire mother, desperate and delusional, driven to the most unthinkable act of crime. Ms. Jordan had, some 20 years previous, started a successful home health care service upon which her affluence was built. The recriminations against “somebody in authority”, fearfully predicted by the Wyoming District Court, never manifested. Troublingly, nobody asked, following the murder, why Jordan’s dangerous mental state, so obvious to Law Enforcement untrained in Psychology, could have seemingly escaped the notice of the mental health care professionals whose services Ms. Jordan had retained.

Facilitated Communication

Jude was 7 years old when Florida-based “trauma therapist” Carol Crow diagnosed him with Multiple Personality Disorder (more recently known as Dissociative Identity Disorder [DID]). It’s a diagnosis that is problematic even in ideal therapeutic settings, as the condition enjoys no scientific validation and is largely viewed as discredited. In Jude’s case, however, such a diagnosis is further complicated in that it was arrived at by analysis of the boy’s own self-reports — reports he was clearly unable to convey in reality, but that were manufactured in his name via “facilitated communication”.

Facilitated Communication (FC) is defined by Oxford’s Dictionary of Psychology [6] as “A teaching method and therapeutic technique in which facilitators or partners help people with severe developmental disabilities to communicate by providing sufficient manual guidance to enable them to convey messages through a keyboard, a picture board, or a speech synthesizer.” This method “often appears to reveal unexpected literacy and a far higher level of intellectual functioning than the person was believed to possess, but single-blind studies and double-blind studies have revealed that disabled people are unable to respond intelligently to stimuli that are unseen by their facilitators and that the facilitators unwittingly control the responses.”

Over 20 years ago, scientific debate concerning FC was already quite settled. In 1995, the journal American Psychologist published a paper titled A History of Facilitated Communication [7] noting that, “Controlled research using single and double blind procedures in laboratory and natural settings with a range of clinical populations with which FC is used have determined that, not only are the people with disabilities unable to respond accurately to label or describe stimuli unseen by their assistants, but that the responses are controlled by the assistants.” The authors were blunt in their conclusion: “FC is a pseudoscientific procedure serving antiscientific ends.”

Convinced that her child’s apparent autism was actually a grossly improbable psychophysiological response to traumatic sexual abuse, Ms. Jordan believed she could facilitate Jude’s articulate cries for help. Helping guide Jude’s hand over a computer keyboard or Blackberry device, Jordan would “assist” him in producing typed conversations. As one witness testified, a nurse and forensic interviewer attempted communication with Jude and determined that his alleged typed responses were fully attributable to Jordan, and “not at all in any way, shape, or form Jude.”

“[Jude] was, basically, very lethargic and not even looking or paying attention to what was going on, and Miss Jordan was guiding his hand on the buttons to push on the laptop computer.”[8]

Multiple Personality Disorder

The theory behind Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), now rebranded as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), is that some traumas, particularly childhood sexual traumas, are so horrific and incomprehensible that memories of their occurrence are “repressed”, relegated to some dark corner of the mind, outside of immediate consciousness where they develop new, alternate, or “alter” personalities of their own. Intuitive as this might now sound in a culture wherein this premise has served as a well-worn dramatic plot device, none of it stands up to scientific scrutiny. While proponents of DID theory currently like to claim that the condition lies somewhere on a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) spectrum, Dr. Richard McNally, Professor and Director of Clinical Training at Harvard University’s Department of Psychology, points out, “[t]he hallmark of PTSD is involuntary, intrusive recollection of traumatic experiences,” [9] not selective, protective amnesia.

And while evidence for the existence of “repressed” traumas — often alleged to stem from long-term episodic extreme childhood abuse — is dubious at best, there is still no reliable evidence that DID even results from childhood trauma. [10] [11] The “evidence” cited to support the claims of DID’s relationship to child abuse comes primarily from self reports of the DID-diagnosed.

But if the memories of abuse have been “repressed”, how can one report upon something that they have entirely redacted from their minds? Often, hypnosis and other memory retrieval techniques are employed to draw forth what is presumed to be accessible in the subconscious mind. Unfortunately, this digging about for “repressed memories” can serve to create false memories that almost always conform to the assumptions held by the therapist. (With this in mind, Dr. Numan Gharaibeh, staff psychiatrist at Danbury Hospital, CT, suggests that “a DID diagnosis causes memories of childhood sexual abuse,” [12] rather than the other way round.) False memories can be cultivated into deeply-held convictions, even when those memories are extremely bizarre and improbable. Hypnotism has been employed to “regress” subjects into “remembering” their own births, or even confabulated past lives. It is primarily recovered memory narratives that are responsible for the modern folklore of alien abduction. (“Abductees’” false memories, in fact, are measurably as traumatic as memories of real, corroborated traumas, which gives some idea of the gross, unforgivable incompetence that therapists employing suggestive memory retrieval techniques in search of childhood sexual abuse are party to.) [13]

It was, in large part, the recovered memory testimonials of individuals being treated for Multiple Personality Disorder that sustained an embarrassing modern witch hunt known to sociologists today as the “Satanic Panic”. Spanning a period beginning in 1980 and declining into obscurity after the mid-90s, this bizarre moral uproar saw a temporary mainstreaming of hysterical conspiracist claims related to Satanic Ritual Abuse and cultic criminal networks secretly working toward the destruction of all societal moral order. Daytime talk show hosts, from Oprah Winfrey to Geraldo Rivera, regularly, and entirely uncritically, aired Satanic abuse “survivor” stories, despite a complete absence of corroborating evidence. It was a literal witch-hunt. Lives were ruined, families torn apart, decades of innocent lives wasted away in prison cells, and much of this, beyond any sensible doubt, was urged forward by incompetent therapists hypnotically probing their clients for revelations of repressed abuse.

The obvious parallel to the Salem witch trials has often been noted, but as one recent historical account points out, “[a]fter the panic died down in Salem, however, there were apologies and reparations,” […] “[n]o such apologies followed [the Satanic Panic], and there hasn’t been much in the way of reparations either. […] Of the many hundreds of people who were investigated [during the panic], some 190 were formally charged with crimes, leading to at least 83 convictions. Undoing these convictions proved to be a slow, halting, and very painful process.” [14] 

Despite being thoroughly and completely discredited by law enforcement, scientists, and journalists, the conspiracy theory of Satanic Ritual Abuse as an intentional, DID-creating trauma-based mind-control program, still holds currency among certain professionals in mental health care, and many of the mental health professionals who were instrumental in fomenting panic in the 80s still hold strong to their methods and theories today.

Though the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) is carefully presented as a scientifically sanctioned “professional association organized to develop and promote comprehensive, clinically effective and empirically based resources and responses to trauma and dissociation,” [15] it remains the final, largest refuge for conspiracist mental health professionals still invested in DID theory and irrational, absurd, fully debunked notions of Satanic mind-control plots. [16]

While most of what the ISSTD publicly presents attempts to defend “recovered memories” and seeks to legitimate dissociative multipicity as a naturally-occurring response to trauma, the organization also maintains a “Ritual-Abuse/Mind-Control Special Interest Group (RA/MC SIG)” dedicated to furthering “dialogue, knowledge, research, and training on the etiology, evaluation, and effective treatment of trauma and dissociation in clients reporting histories of ritual abuse or mind control.” [17]

The first of three contacts listed for the ISSTD’s “RA/MC SIG” is one Ellen Lacter, a San Diego-based Clinical Psychologist with bizarre beliefs in Satanic conspiracies and government mind-control.

It was to Ellen Lacter that Gigi Jordan took Jude in search of validation for her delusional and paranoid fears. Unsurprisingly, it appears she found it.

Ellen Lacter

In 2008, Ellen Lacter filed a Suspected Child Abuse Report [18] to the Child Welfare Services agency in Santa Barbara, California. The report was dated April 02, only one day after the Emergency Shelter Hearing had taken place. In the report, she stated:

“Gigi Jordan, mother of a boy, Jude Jordan (DOB: 07/13/2001), reports that Jude has recently (since early, 2008) disclosed to her that Emile Tzekov (Jude’s biological father who has relinquished his parental rights) abused him (Jude), including penetration, anal penetration (unknown if digital or penile), forced ingestion of feces, putting needles under his fingernails and in the webs between his fingers, choking him, and needle-pricking his chest and legs. Jude has suffered developmental delays and medical conditions that may be a direct effect of this alleged abuse.”

In a follow-up correspondence with the agency, Lacter noted, “The police questioned Ms. Jordan and did not believe her disclosures. They placed her on a 72-hour hold in Cheyenne Regional Medical Center Behavioral Unit, and placed her son with Family Services.” However, “the hospital released Ms. Jordan on her own recognizance prior to her scheduled hearing of 4/1/2008, apparently having assessed her as credible and sane.”

In reality, Ms. Jordan had been released against medical advice, nor was she adjudged either credible or sane. As shown above, the Court very explicitly expressed grave concern for Jude’s safety in his mother’s care, while explaining, seemingly apologetically, that they did not meet the legal burden necessary to take Jude from her custody. A psychologist and licensed forensic examiner who assessed Ms. Jordan stated at the hearing that Jordan seemed to hold “a fixated focus that presented itself as almost delusional that had a paranoid realm to it,” [19] and he expressed concern for Ms. Jordan’s degeneration into a “full-blown delusional system with paranoid ideation.” [20]

Ms. Lacter, however, seemed to see none of Ms. Jordan’s apparently obvious delusional paranoia, even as Ms. Jordan spoke of an omnipresent Satanic cult conspiracy. How is this possible?

Lacter explained in her report, “Ms. Jordan first contacted me, having found me through my website on ritual abuse (www.endritualabuse.org), concerned that ritual abuse might explain her son’s behaviors and the disclosures he had begun to make, Jude’s behaviors and disclosures, reported by Ms. Jordan, were consistent with that of other victims of ritual abuse. Ms. Jordan retained me to provide her with consultation to help her to keep her son safe and to help him psychologically.”

Screenshot from Ellen Lacter’s website

A look at Ellen Lacter’s website clearly reveals that she would be the last person to disabuse anybody of paranoid delusions related to Satanic conspiracies.

On the homepage of endritualabuse.org, one finds a wealth of information related to “mind control”, “ritual abuse”, Satanic cults and “Witchcraft Abuse”. Her recommended reading list contains such heady titles as, Other Altars: Roots and Realities of Cultic and Satanic Ritual Abuse and Multiple Personality Disorder; and apocalyptic titles such as, Mind Control, World Control. Her site also includes instructions for ordering a book titled, Thanks for the Memories, The Truth Has Set Me Free, by Brice Taylor, one of the most outrageous tales of conspiracist delusion ever penned. Both Ellen Lacter and Brice Taylor have presented at annual conferences for an organization known as S.M.A.R.T. (Stop Mind-control And Ritual abuse Today). S.M.A.R.T. conferences discus such pressing current mental health issues as dissociative disorders brought on by Freemason, Illuminati, and Satanist ritual abuse activities, as well as government mind-control plots. When I attended a S.M.A.R.T. conference in 2009, I noted a sales booth offering a “more advanced species of tinfoil hat,” [21] baseball caps lined with a metallic fiber weave meant to block electromagnetic transmissions. I also observed a speaker by the name of “Royal”, at all of about forty years of age claim that she was a personal slave to nazi doctor Josef Mengele.

“My experience with Mengele”, Royal explained in a lecture (the gist of which was that Satan uses abortion as a means of traumatic mind-control), “involved much of the trauma-based mind control involving core programming (such as End-Time programming) that is connected to the global take over. He used the Psychic/Spiritual dimensions using, what I have come to call ‘demonic harmonics’, which involves using musical tones and quantum physics to open up portals into the spiritual realms. I also have core programs set up that were created using abortions as a means to develop them and more.” (It’s also worth noting that a current member the ISSTD’s Board of Directors, Adah Sachs, was presenting at this carnival of lunacy.) [22]

In Thanks for the Memories, Brice Taylor claims to have recovered memories, following an automobile accident, which revealed to her a hidden past of government mind-control in which she was programmed to act as a sex slave for distinguished people of power. According to Taylor, the late comedian Bob Hope acted as her primary keeper during her enslavement, in which time she was made to provide carnal comforts to world leaders and famous entertainers, from Elvis Presley to Neil Diamond. Among Taylor’s rambling list of absurd claims is the charge that she was made to participate in the filming of dolphin porn directed by Sylvester Stallone, for the amusement of then-president Ronald Reagan:

“Another auxiliary project, one that brought in proceeds, was dolphin pornography. Dolphin porn was filmed in Malibu and in the dolphin tanks at Point Mugu. It was convenient because they had cages already built and so the dolphins could be housed there for use almost anytime. [Ronald] Reagan really loved the dolphin stuff. He watched a porn video of [my daughter] Kelly and I with a couple of dolphins. During the viewing he smiled, patted my leg and said, “I’ll be with you later.” He wasn’t into sex with children and didn’t have sex with my daughter. When the film was over he said, “Watching you do underwater ballet is beautiful, but seeing you with the dolphin is out of this world!” He laughed and looked up, like he was seeing a missile or shuttle launch. Lots of dolphin porn was filmed. I believe Bob [Hope] gave copies of it to Prince Charles, Prince Phillip and Margaret Thatcher, who is a lesbian.” [23]

 

But if one were to conclude that Ms. Lacter were a New World Order conspiracist, she points out, in one interview, that she doesn’t believe in the lunatic theory of some single, all-powerful force of evil conspiring to rule the world: “I believe that there are a number of different organized groups that all have the agenda of ruling the world. There’s the Satanic network, and I don’t believe that that is all networked, there’s the witchcraft network,” etc. [24] In fact, “They” are everywhere, and they are all masters of trauma-based mind-control.

By Lacter’s reckoning, “there’s probably well over a thousand children being abused horribly in cult practices here [in San Diego] and I don’t think San Diego is worse than any place else.” [25]

Naturally, these cults revel in infant sacrifice, sometimes going after babies that are in utero to satiate their bloodlust: “[…] they’ll force the delivery early so seven or eight months gestation and that baby will be sacrificed and then that person will be programmed [by way of mind-control] to believe that she just had a miscarriage,” [26] however, Lacter continues, “a lot of the children who are sacrificed in rituals are brought in from third world countries.” This, apparently, explains the lack of evidential corroboration for Lacter’s outsized claims of ritual sacrifice activity.

In fact, there is no credible evidence for Lacter’s claims at all, only the “recovered memories” of mistreated clients in DID therapy, and the lunatic claims of her associates, like Brice Taylor. But the absence of evidence, according to Lacter’s extremely deluded narrative, is merely evidence of the insidious power these cults wield. Having established themselves at every level of society, They secretly manipulate the unwitting public to prevent the truth of their existence from surfacing: “Most of the perpetrators of the most organized abuse never get arrested and they raise their kids to have jobs in law enforcement. They raise their kids to have jobs in child protective services and the District Attorney’s offices, etc. So they have their own network established in the institutions to erase records to disbelieve these reports. They have a very organized never-let-it-come-out campaign.” [27] Naturally, the media has been infiltrated as well: “The most organized groups have raised some of their children to be reporters who definitely write articles saying none of this is true, these therapists are crazy, these survivors are victims of their therapists putting memories in their minds. So the media is very influential and is one of their main ways of keeping the truth from being exposed.” [28]

Perusing Lacter’s material, one gets the distinct sense that she has never been approached with a claim too deranged or schizophrenic for her to doubt the teller’s sanity: “Ritualistically abused children and adults are usually misdiagnosed for years as psychotic and delusional, due to their reports of hearing voices and extreme state of fear. The voices belong to dissociated personalities and to spirits and demons they perceive as having been attached to them during ritual ceremonies.”

This is the therapist that Gigi Jordan sought for consultation when apparently at the height of her paranoid delusions of Satanic cult persecution; Ellen Lacter, who, acting under licensed professional mental health sanction, purveys conspiracist notions to the potentially mentally vulnerable. Had Gigi Jordan put her trust into a sane, rational, mental health professional at this critical time in this tragic story, perhaps Jude might still be alive today.

And it gets worse, the shame upon the mental health profession is more profound still; Ellen Lacter can occasionally be found speaking at professional conferences for mental health professionals in which her convoluted conspiracism enjoys peer acceptance. She is but one in a fringe community of therapists, social workers, and counselors, who presume to see evidence of Satanic mind-control in their susceptible clients. It is not uncommon that such conspiracy-based conferences, purveying theories of Satanic abuse, government mind-control, and recovered memory therapies, offer Continuing Education Units to licensed attendees in the field of mental health care.

Lacter is very guarded about her practice, and she did not reply to my inquiries regarding the services she provided in keeping Jude “safe” and “helping him psychologically.” It is my contention, however, that the very licensure of one as flagrantly deranged, mentally incompetent, and in obvious need of psychiatric care as Ellen Lacter is herself, is indicative of a system of mental health care that is in desperate need of massive reform.

Frank Putnam

A psychologist and licensed forensic examiner for district court at United Medical Center Behavioral Health Services testifying at the 2008 Emergency Shelter Hearing described the Facilitated Communication Jordan used with Jude. “I guess [Jude] has an arm that is somewhat flaccid, and [Jordan] was able to [facilitate his typing], and he was able to point to certain things on the keyboard, and she was able to piece together some potential [responses].” [29] A doctor from a Children’s Clinic who examined Jude in 2008 didn’t equivocate when asked whether or not Jude was capable of cohering the complex thoughts required in relaying the narrative of sadistic Satanic abuse being attributed to him: “No. He cannot respond to direct questions.” [30]  

During the 2014 trial of Gigi Jordan for the murder of Jude, prosecutors also pointed to the extreme unlikelihood that an 8-year old boy (much less an autistic boy with communication deficiencies) could possibly possess the vocabulary and spelling abilities that were present in his alleged communiques; words like “aggressively” and “sadistic”. [31]

There was, in fact, no question at all that “Jude’s” statements, including the narrative of victimization at the hands of a Satanic cult conspiracy, were derived from Facilitated Communication. Nonetheless, an expert witness for the defense, Frank Putnam, MD, a Professor of Pediatrics and Child Psychiatry from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center,

University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, submitted an Expert Witness Report to Jordan’s counsel that directly contradicted the established facts. According to Putnam, “There are a number of statements in therapists’ records and affidavits attesting to the witnessing of Jude’s independent use of a texting device to communicate with others.” [32][Emphasis added]

In an appearance on the Dr. Phil Show, Putnam went further. “Jude was able to communicate what had happened to him using the texting. I’ve seen this kind of texting with a number of children now. I’m quite struck. Even though they may not be able to speak and many people assume they must be in some ways mentally retarded or challenged that they often can text at very high levels of language.” [33]

But what exactly is Putnam talking about? What does he mean when he refers to “this kind of texting”? Is he referring to “facilitated” texting and, if so, why does he claim Jude could text independently? And why is it that Putnam failed to mention the element of Facilitated Communication at all? Does he deny that FC was being used at all, or is he claiming that there were occasional instances of independent texting?

I asked Dr. Putnam some time ago, via email, if he could elaborate upon his comments related to Jude’s alleged independent typing, but he never replied. I also posed another poignant line of inquiry within the same email asking if he didn’t feel that Ms. Jordan’s “perception that her son was being abused by a Satanic conspiracy helped motivate her to kill him?” And, if so, “would it not be accurate to say that a medical professional who failed to realize and relay to Ms. Jordan that her perception of her communication with her son was inaccurate (and thus allowed her to create a delusion of Satanic abuse allegations) is complicit (by way of incompetence) in the murder itself?”

Of course, Putnam could only be considered something of an accessory after the fact, as he provided his mystifying analysis of Jude’s alleged communications after the murder took place. But, if Putnam was looking to obfuscate the facts of the crime, he was likely at least as motivated to defend the diagnosis of DID and its narrative of extreme abuse as he was motivated to keep Jordan out of prison. In his report, Putnam describes himself as an “authority on child and adolescent dissociative disorders,” and under “professional organizations” on his CV, we see listed the ISSTD. Putnam was the ISSTD’s recipient of their annual Cornelia Wilbur award in 1990 “for outstanding clinical contributions to the treatment of dissociative disorders.” (Cornelia Wilbur was the psychiatrist who we now know conspired to manufacture a false narrative of Multiple Personality Disorder for her famed client known as “Sybil”.) [34] In 2013, Putnam was recipient of the ISSTD’s “Lifetime Achievement Award.”

With no physical medical evidence to support the claims of Jude’s sadistic sufferings, Putnam attempted to match the self-reports allegedly typed by Jude to possible psychological symptoms of traumatic abuse. This necessitated that Putnam both reject Jude’s diagnosis of autism — attributing his cognitive difficulties instead to psychological trauma — and accepting the alleged self-reports attributed to Jude as legitimate communications from the boy. In rejecting the autism diagnosis, Putnam pointed to atypical features in Jude’s autism symptoms concluding, “it is highly probable that some of Jude’s unexplained and unusual medical problems were unrecognized injuries from physical and sexual abuse.” However, as another doctor noted, in recognition of Jude’s positive response to steroid treatments, “most cases of autism are not immune-mediated. There are however, rare cases of autism, variants of autism that are immune-mediated.” [35] Jude, it seemed, was one of those cases, nor could any idiosyncrasies in Jude’s symptoms change the unlikelihood that he’d suffered the tortures claimed, for which he remained physically un-scarred.

Apparently desperate for at least the appearance of some type of physical corroboration to support the extreme abuse claims, Putnam embarrassingly noted dental abscesses Jude had received treatment for in 2004, stating that they “could well have been the result of being made to eat feces, an abuse Jude that [sic] reported to several individuals […]”

A Need for Reform

Another regular ISSTD annual conference presenter, Bessel van der Kolk, submitted expert testimony intended to describe how trauma could manifest itself in ways that could look like autism. The court excluded his testimony, but there is a certain audacity to a man like van der Kolk submitting expert testimony at all. Back in 1996, while being deposed as an expert, defending recovered memory veracity and legitimacy, van der Kolk’s testimony was excluded after attorney Christopher Barden revealed severe problems in a research paper van der Kolk used to support his position. A graduate student, who had collected van der Kolk’s data, had been expelled for scientific dishonesty in falsifying data. Merely removing the student’s name from the list of co-authors, van der Kolk’s paper remained otherwise unrevised.

However, as Barden pointed out,

“The questions that eliminated van der Kolk were not so much questions about his old researchers or testimony in the Hungerford case but rather his shocking ignorance of his own profession. It is amazing to me that van der Kolk had been deposed and cross examined by dozens of lawyers over many years and not one ever asked him to specify the limitations on the testimony of experts included in the AMA and ethics codes. Not one lawyer ever asked him to discuss the differences between the concepts of reliability and validity. Not one lawyer asked him to discuss the actuarial prediction vs. clinical prediction research. Not one lawyer assessed his knowledge of testing, psychological measurement, the cross-cultural history of “dissociative phenomena” or other relevant matters (note for example, van der Kolk’s stunning errors in discussing Greek literature). Not one of these attorneys engaged him in a dialogue about his own research methods including how he assessed the reliability and validity of his own measures and procedures. Not one of these attorneys apparently asked him about the Coping and Resiliency research literatures and not one even discovered that his old mentor was Bruno Bettleheim — new believed to be one of the great frauds in psychology in the 20th Century. Van der Kolk’s failure to answer these basic and critical professional questions about science, methodology and history doomed his credibility as an “expert” in this field and he knew it the moment those questions were asked.” [36]

 

The Satanic Temple’s Grey Faction is dedicated to fighting professional mental health pseudoscience and Satanic Panic hysteria

It is exasperatingly disappointing that in all this time nothing has changed. Harmful and discredited theories are being put forward by the same unwavering individuals, to the detriment of mental health care consumers, to the detriment of the mental health care profession, and with occasional tragic consequences. Indeed, given the consensus among scientists, it would appear that only a “shocking ignorance” of advances in memory research and cognitive science could account for the dogged persistence of discredited DID therapies and repressed memory retrieval techniques. It is an outrage that a pseudoscience-based organization such as the ISSTD (much less an organization like S.M.A.R.T.) can offer Continuing Education Units while propagating conspiracy theory. Fully debunked by empirical studies, the use of Facilitated Communication by a licensed therapist to arrive at a psychiatric diagnosis should, at the very least, cause for revocation of professional licensure. Obvious public displays of paranoid delusion, such as those expressed by Ellen Lacter, should, at the very least, cause for revocation of professional licensure and mandatory psychiatric evaluation. The fact that Ms. Jordan, harboring paranoid delusions, could have her delusions supported and affirmed by licensed mental health professional is a monstrous mental health scandal.   

The facts are these: an 8-year old autistic boy was diagnosed with a debunked psychiatric disorder. The diagnosis was arrived at by discredited methods. The professional pseudoscientific assumptions surrounding the boy’s “treatment” likely contributed to paranoid delusions in his openly disturbed mother, who ultimately killed the boy in order to spare him from the horrors of a nonexistent threat. While the boy’s mother now serves a prison term for her crime, the worse-than-incompetent “professionals” who not only failed to prevent her from committing the murder, but may have actively fed the paranoid delusions that acted as her rationale for the deed, remain unapologetic and without censure. It is my contention that proper professional mental health intervention may well have prevented this woman from murdering her son. The fact that her filicidal delusions could be reinforced by mental health professionals should be cause for outrage and reform.

Please consider signing and sharing this petition to have Ellen Lacter’s Psychology license reviewed by the state of California: https://www.change.org/p/california-department-of-consumer-affairs-board-of-psychology-petition-california-to-properly-investigate-the-death-of-8-year-old-jude-miira

Footnotes:

1. Exhibit P, page 9
2. McKinley, James C. At Murder Trial, Gigi Jordan Testifies About Abuse She Believed Son Suffered. New York Times, 15 Oct. 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/nyregion/at-murder-trial-gigi-jordan-testifies-about-sons-accusations-of-sexual-abuse.html?_r=0
3. Exhibit P, page 16
4. Exhibit P page 73
5. Nazaryan, Alexander. Autism, Murder and a Women on the Ledge. Newsweek.com 14 Oct 2014 http://www.newsweek.com/did-sons-autism-drive-woman-murder-278389
6. A Dictionary of Psychology (Oxford Quick Reference), Oxford University Press; 3 edition (April 1, 2009)
7. Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1995). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience. American Psychologist, 50, 750-765.
8. Exhibit P page 17 -18
9. McNally, Richard J (2003). Recovering Memories of Trauma: A View From the Laboratory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 32-35.
10. Piper A, Merskey H. The persistence of folly: a critical examination of dissociative identity disorder. Part I. The excesses of an improbable concept. Can J Psychiatry. 2004;49(9):592-600.
11. Piper A, Merskey H. The persistence of folly: critical examination of dissociative identity disorder. Part II. The defense and decline of multiple personality or dissociative identity disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 2004;49(10):678-683.
12. Gharaibeh N: Dissociative identity disorder: time to remove it from DSM-V? Curr Psychiatry 2009;31:30–36.
13. McNally, R.J., Lasko, N.B., Clancy, S.A., Macklin, M.L., Pitman, R.K., and Orr, S.P. 2004. Psychophysiological responding during script-driven imagery in people reporting abduction by space aliens. Psychol. Sci. 15:493 -497.
14. Beck, Richard. We Believe the Children: A Moral Panic in the 1980s. Public Affairs, 2015 (pg. xxi)
15. Website for the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD), http://www.isst-d.org/default.asp?contentID=9 (retrieved 20 Jan, 2016)
16. Mesner, Douglas; Rivera, Sarah Ponto. Where the Witch-hunters are: Satanic Panic and Mental Health Malpractice. 2015, www.process.org, (https://process.org/discept/2015/01/06/where-the-witch-hunters-are-satanic-panic-and-mental-health-malpractice/)
17. Website for the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD), http://www.isst-d.org/default.asp?contentID=183 (retrieved 20 Jan, 2016)
18. Exhibit N
19. Exhibit p page 61
20. Exhibit p page 64
21. Mesner, Douglas, Report from the S.M.A.R.T. Ritual Abuse/Mind-Control Conference 2009, Part 1  https://process.org/discept/2009/08/25/report-from-the-s-m-a-r-t-ritual-abusemind-control-conference-2009/
22. ISSTD Board of Directors, 2015, http://www.isst-d.org/default.asp?contentID=38 (retrieved 20 Jan, 2016)
23. Taylor, Brice. Thanks For The Memories … The Truth Has Set Me Free! The Memoirs of Bob Hope’s and Henry Kissinger’s Mind-Controlled Slave. Brice Taylor Trust, 1999
24. Dr. Ellen Lacter on Ritual Abuse and Helping the Victims & Survivors – Interview With Vyzygoth, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXN33qB_mSk (2:15)
25. ibid (1:37)
26. ibid (50:30)
27. ibid (26:34)
28. ibid (27:27)
29. exhibit p page 58
30. exhibit p page 42
31. Sanchez, Ray; Remizowski, Leigh. New York businesswoman guilty of manslaughter in son’s death. CNN. 05 Nov. 2014. http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/05/justice/new-york-autistic-death-trial/
32. Exhibit S page 5
33. Dr. Phil Show. Death on 5th Avenue: Millionaire Mom Accused of Murdering Son Speaks from Rikers Island. CBS, aired 31 Oct, 2014
34. Nathan, Debbie. Sybil Exposed: The Extraordinary Story Behind the Multiple Personality Case. Free Press, 2012
35. Exhibit E page 2
36. Mesner, Douglas. Bessel van der Kolk, Scientific Dishonesty & the Mysterious Disappearing Coauthor. archive.org, https://ia600804.us.archive.org/25/items/BesselVanDerKolkScientificDishonestyTheMysteriousDisappearing/VanDerKolk.pdf

I feel it important to make note of his dubious beginnings so one might recognize that this tin-foil hat Torquemada never, at any point in his professional career, seems to have become unhinged… he never exhibited a firm grasp of reality to begin with. Thus, when reading the barrage of lunacy attributed to “Little Knob” below, the question isn’t: where did this professor of Clinical Psychology at Alliant University go wrong?, instead, the question should be: how is it that this man ever became a professor of Clinical Psychology at all? And, worse, How is it that his testimony, as a man of Science, was considered favorably in a situation where personal liberties were at stake?

In 1992, at the height of a social hysteria now commonly referred to as “the Satanic Panic”, Dr. Noblitt — believing he could disentangle the coercive subliminal sounds of secret demonic code within popular music, as well as decrypt the hidden meanings behind seemingly mundane occurrences — testified for the prosecution, as an “expert” in the field of “ritual abuse”, against one Fran and Dan Keller, a couple accused of engaging in child abuse at their home-based day care center. With no physical evidence to support the accusations (which included claims of graveyard rituals and medically undetected limb transplants) the couple was convicted on the most dubious of testimony. The children themselves — ignored when they claimed they were not abused at all (as happened even in testimony) — were led by coercive and incompetent interrogations to produce claims of abuse which are nearly impossible to credit [see footage and analysis of one such interrogation embedded below]. Noblitt’s own fantastical testimony, of course, was no more credible than Noblitt himself.

21 years later, the Kellers still sit in prison, their case on appeal.

Dr. Evan Harrington, Associate Professor at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, wrote the below letter [following the embedded videos] — on behalf of the Kellers’ recent appeal — to the 14th District Court in Travis County, Texas, outlining the absurdities, shoddy methods, and scientific ignorance demonstrated by Dr. Randy Noblitt, concluding, “His opinions have been scientifically discredited, and are not shared by the vast majority of clinicians and researchers within the field of psychology.” The letter, bearing signatures of support from various esteemed social and behavioral scientists, reveals a disturbing portrait of Dr. Noblitt as a delusional man obstinately oblivious to any and all facts that serve to disconfirm his paranoid theories. The letter is a damning indictment against the institutions that would recognize such a clearly problematic character for an “expert”. The letter further raises grave doubts regarding the credibility of Alliant University, where Dr. Noblitt serves on faculty, still purveying the irrational narrative of a long discredited, thoroughly debunked hysteria.

The Power of Suggestion: Video interviews of Frances Keller and psychology professor James Wood, by The Austin Chronicle

Dr. Randy Noblitt explaining in a flat humdrum tone (while occasionally giggling) how Satanists utilize music in their mind control tactics.

[Note: The following letter has been altered from the original in that — although the information is relatively easily found elsewhere — I decided to remove the telephone numbers and email addresses of the signatories.]

***********************************

In Regards to the Expert Witness Testimony and Qualifications of Randy Noblitt, Ph.D.

Evan Harrington, Ph.D.

 Dr. Randy Noblitt’s expert testimony was instrumental in securing the convictions of Fran and Dan Keller at their criminal trial in 1992. Specifically, Dr. Noblitt gave credence and claimed empirical support for the children’s involvement in such hard-to-hide activities as murders and dismemberments, grave robbing, airplane flights, and kidnappings. Dr. Noblitt testified that these were typical behaviors associated with so-called cult ritual abuse. With the promise of empirical support, Noblitt’s expert testimony encouraged jurors to believe the accusations despite the many outlandish elements associated with the actual charges.

The signers of this document present the court with evidence that Randy Noblitt, Ph.D. is not qualified to serve as an expert on the topic of “ritual abuse” or recovered memories and that such testimony lacked any empirical support at that time. This Letter to the Court has been written with the intent of illustrating the reasons why Dr. Noblitt is not qualified. Certainly, the points made below illustrate that it is highly unlikely that any court in the country would today permit Dr. Noblitt to testify today on the topic of “ritual abuse.”

1. The Scientific Status of Theories of Satanic Ritual Abuse. At this point in time, and even in 1992, virtually no mainstream psychologists would accept the theories of ritual abuse that Dr. Noblitt puts forward.

At trial, Dr. Noblitt testified about the existence of cults using ritual abuse and of organized satanic networks engaged in wide-ranging criminal enterprises including child abuse. The picture painted by Dr. Noblitt in his testimony at trial is one where criminal cults are common across the United States, and that these alleged cults typically engage in torture and murder of both adults and children. Furthermore, Dr. Noblitt opined that these cults are experts in a form of mind control or brainwashing in which victims are so heavily traumatized that they develop total and complete amnesia until the victim enters therapy and recovers the memory. His descriptions of these cults involved rape, murder, torture, grave robbing, and ceremonial animal and human sacrifice.

Furthermore, he alleged that these activities took place at churches, involved police officers and other professional individuals. Lurid media coverage of this issue at the time additionally invoked the specter of widespread cannibalism. In order to explain the lack of physical evidence for these outrageous crimes, Dr. Noblitt explained to the jury that these cults will frequently lead their victims to believe in something preposterous, so that if they ever told of their tortures the stories would involve elements that would be so far-fetched that the victims would necessarily be disbelieved. This, according to Dr. Noblitt, was done intentionally by the cults as part of the mind control programming in order to discredit their victims.

In an interview shortly after the trial in a local newspaper, Dr. Noblitt was described as having been the prosecution expert witness in many ritual abuse cases, including the Keller case (Dickinson, 1993). He stated in that interview that Dan Keller, while in court, used a mysterious hand signal to mind-control people within the courtroom. Further, he asserted that cults use severe torture on victims and that all memory of the torture is repressed. In a direct quote from this news article, Dr. Noblitt stated: “I believe they use a technique of mind control unknown in legitimate psychology. It’s akin to hypnosis, created through abuse…the state of shock is so severe that it sends the victim into a deep trance state. Then cult members use different signals or triggers…” to control the victims.

In his 1995 book, Dr. Noblitt went into more detail regarding Dan Keller’s mysterious hand signal: A reporter had given Dr. Noblitt a videotape of Mr. Keller appearing in court, where Mr. Keller appeared to hold his fingers briefly in the form of a letter “C”. When interviewed by the reporter, Dr. Noblitt opined for the television audience that Mr. Keller had attempted to use mind control in the courtroom in an attempt at jury nullification, just in case any secret Satanists were on jury (see Noblitt & Perskin, 1995, pp. 150-152). Relatedly, in 1996 I heard Dr. Noblitt speak at another conference. In his presentation, Dr. Noblitt stated that he uses the MMPI test to diagnose ritual abuse (the MMPI is a standardized test that has never been approved for this use), and stated that in his clinical practice he has uncovered “secret cult handshakes” and that he uses these special handshakes with his patients in order to “access” buried cult-mind-control-programming. He uses the information gleaned in this way as evidence for the existence of ritual abuse cults. Furthermore, he stated that he “strokes people’s faces to access the ritual abuse victim’s [memories] and make them dissociate”. At this point, he said, “if they give you a different name, this is scientific evidence for dissociation.” In summary, the world portrayed by Dr. Noblitt is one in which thousands of cult abusers have infiltrated respectable society, and specifically daycare centers, in order to operate a clandestine subculture engaged in massive levels of felonious criminality, all based on mind control triggered by secret handshakes and hand signals.

To be clear, at the time of the trial the hypothesis outlined above was considered to be a fringe belief held by a small number of clinicians, who believed these things solely because of the statements of their patients – not because of any physical evidence that had surfaced. By the time of the trial there had been highly skeptical journalistic essays about ritual abuse (e.g., Nathan, 1990,1991; Rabinowitz, 1990), criminologists had written articles debunking the ritual abuse hypothesis (e.g., Jenkins & Maier-Katkin, 1991), social anthropologists had traced causal pathways explaining the issue as a social panic purveyed by moral entrepreneurs (e.g., Mulhern, 1991; Victor, 1991). In summary, outside of a small band of psychologists interested in multiple personality disorder, the field of psychology was at that time generally dismissive of claims of ritual abuse.

Prior to 1992, psychologists had offered skeptical accounts of certain types of memory claims, and certainly had offered viable alternative explanations of memory errors that could explain ritual abuse allegations. The breadth of coverage by experimental psychologists is beyond the scope of this Letter, but it is fair to say that by 1992 a substantial body of published research existed regarding errors in adult memory (e.g., Loftus & Ketchum, 1991) and with regard to the suggestibility of children (e.g., Ceci, Ross, & Toglia, 1987; Ceci, Toglia, & Ross, 1990).

In a study I recently conducted (Harrington, Stone, & Guss, 2011), I collected a sample of 118 abnormal psychology textbooks spanning the years 1886 to 2011. Abnormal psychology textbooks are very useful in gauging the level of acceptance within the field of psychology for any issue related to mental health, and they serve as a training instrument which all new members of the profession must be exposed to within their required college courses. This sample of textbooks included 29 texts dating from 1980 (the beginning of the ritual abuse panic) to 1992 (the time of the Keller trial). Of these 29 texts, not one contained a reference to ritual abuse. In contrast, all of the texts covered the topic of multiple personality, and 97% covered the topic of child sexual abuse. This definitively illustrates the fact that “ritual abuse” or “satanic ritual abuse” was NOT accepted within the mainstream psychological community at the time of the trial of Fran and Dan Keller. Had it been accepted, it would have been covered in abnormal psychology textbooks.

Perhaps most importantly, at the time of the trial the 43-page report on ritual abuse by FBI Special Agent Kenneth Lanning was available, having been released in January, 1992 (see also Lanning, 1989, 1991). Lanning, a member of the Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI, served as a consultant in numerous cases of alleged ritual abuse. The “Lanning Report” described his detailed review of hundreds of such cases. The cases described by Lanning involved human sacrifices and cannibalism, and seemed to come directly from Dr. Noblitt’s repertoire of ritual cult concepts. As Lanning described it, believers in the ritual cult hypothesis asserted that satanic ritual cults murder some 50,000 people each year in the United States, yet leave no evidence of the crimes because of their advanced expertise and organizational skills. However, unlike Noblitt, Lanning ultimately concluded that there was no legal-level evidence for the alleged ritual cult abuse claims. Lanning suggested that it is up to the mental health community to determine why these individuals believe in things that have not happened. As Lanning stated: “For at least eight years American law enforcement has been aggressively investigating the allegations of victims of ritual abuse. There is little or no evidence for the portion of their allegations that deals with large-scale baby breeding, human sacrifice, and organized satanic conspiracies. Now it is up to mental health professionals, not law enforcement, to explain why victims are alleging things that don’t seem to have happened” (Lanning, 1992, January, p. 40). Lanning’s conclusions were widely available within the field at the time, as they were published in multiple locations, including the journal Child Abuse & Neglect. Any psychologist interested in the topic of ritual abuse at the time of the Keller trial would have been aware of Special Agent Lanning’s failure to find any corroboration for ritual abuse claims. An explanation for Dr. Noblitt’s failure to reference this important work in his trial testimony perhaps stems from the fact that believers in satanic ritual abuse had concluded that FBI Special Agent Lanning was himself a satanic high priest (Bottoms & Davis, 1997; Lanning, 1992), in part because the report had a red cover.

In light of the critiques regarding ritual abuse accusations that were available in 1992, coming from multiple disciplines (including law enforcement), and in light of the lack of general acceptance within the field of psychology proper (as shown by the total absence of the topic in abnormal psychology textbooks), it is bewildering why Dr. Noblitt opined at trial that there was little controversy regarding ritual abuse (p. 147 of his testimony).

Further, at pages 158-159 of his testimony, Dr. Noblitt described attending a conference where most attendees raised their hands in belief at the existence of ritual abuse, which he used as evidence of general acceptance of his ideas. The problem with this scenario is that the conference described by Dr. Noblitt was one that specialized on the very issue he was polling. A similar result could be obtained if a political pollster went to a rally for candidate X and asked how many people supported candidate X – it would not be surprising if everyone raised their hands, and an honest pollster would refrain from using this as evidence that the majority of eligible voters also supported candidate X.

Another area of knowledge that was available at the time of the Keller’s 1992 trial involved the relationship of multiple personality disorder and ritualistic abuse. For example, Nicholas Spanos (1996), a highly respected researcher in the field of hypnosis and memory, argued strenuously that multiple personality was a social construction, and that claims of satanic ritual abuse could be entirely explained through the ordinary mechanisms of social influence and cognitive psychology. Much of the research cited Spanos was available in journal articles prior to 1992. His book lists 74 published articles where he was first author; 58 of these articles were available before 1992, and this body of research clearly called into question the veracity of claims of multiple personality, demon possession, hypnotism, and ritual abuse as well as providing a plausible alternative explanation for these wild claims.

In conclusion, Dr. Noblitt stated in testimony at trial that there is little controversy about his descriptions of ritual abuse. This statement was not factually true in 1992, and is less true today. Dr. Noblitt’s expert testimony did not represent any type of consensus within the field of psychology, but rather represented a fringe group of therapists who specialized in treating patients who believed they had been ritually abused. This is reflected in a survey that was conducted contemporaneously with the trial, but which was not published until later (Bottoms & Davis, 1997; Bottoms, Shaver, & Goodman, 1996), in which the researchers surveyed clinicians who were members of the American Psychological Association regarding clinical experiences with patients who believed they had experienced ritual abuse. Only 13% of the sample had “seen” an adult case of ritual abuse, but a far more telling statistic was that the overwhelming majority of ritual abuse cases were seen by only 2% of their respondents, who averaged hundreds of such cases. When asked about actual evidence in any of their clients’ cases, in only a handful of cases did the clinicians report that evidence existed to support the allegations, and in these instances the “evidence” was “usually ‘scars’…one respondent wrote ‘scars on right hand’” (Bottoms, Shaver, & Goodman, 1996, p.23). The authors of this study concluded that a small minority of therapists were involved in massive numbers of ritual abuse cases, and that there was an overwhelming lack of evidence to support these claims. These data strongly support the view that, in the early 1990s, although psychologists tended to believe their clients’ ritual abuse claims when they encountered them, psychologists’ activities in treating ritual abuse was relegated to a fringe, and that therapists’ belief in ritual abuse was based primarily on stories provided by patients in therapy.

In order to provide additional evidence about the unscientific and unaccepted views of Dr. Noblitt, I described a conference hosted by Noblitt in 1995 (see Harrington, 1996) for a full description. This article has been submitted in full to the court by Keith S. Hampton, Esq. The conference took place in March, 1995, and I attended this conference as a participant observer in order to learn about the beliefs of the individuals within the ritual abuse psychotherapeutic community.

The major impression after leaving the conference was that the entire event is best characterized as having been anti-scientific. Normally, at academic conferences, presenters give different views about issues and provide data, which are interpreted. In the behavioral sciences, this is accomplished through experimentation and debate over the meanings of results of those experiments. The scientific enterprise proceeds largely through attempts to discredit hypotheses (see, e.g., Daubert v Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993), and in this way we see which hypotheses can withstand the test of skeptical scrutiny. Then, with sufficient replication and variation in tests and methods, a hypothesis or theoretical perspective may be endorsed by the relevant scientific community at large. Much of this scaffold of the scientific enterprise was described by Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, which dates to 1935. In spite of epistemological differences between philosophers, this outline has remained quite useful, and forms a portion of the logic behind the Daubert ruling. Contrary to this scientific approach, the milieu at the conference hosted by Dr. Noblitt can best be described as paranoid and anti-scientific. At no point did the conference presenters attempt to seriously engage with their critics, but rather they simply resorted to ad hominem attacks on all who disagreed with the ritual abuse perspective. Dr. Noblitt went to great lengths to accommodate the holocaust deniers, representatives of the American militia movement, and charlatans who claimed that they had been mind-controlled (as described in the self-published books they were selling). However, at no point during this entire conference was there any effort to critically and scientifically address the very real and very numerous criticisms of the ritual abuse hypothesis that had accumulated by 1995. All manner of preposterous claims regarding ritual abuse were permitted, and any skepticism, no matter how bland, was met with a clearly aggressive social response (see my 1996 article for details). Far from being a scientific conference, this was a conference at which zealots and true believers pushed their views on others. To me, the most disturbing aspect was certainly the fact that mental health patients were encouraged to attend and learn of the threat posed by satanic ritual cults, cults that were in fact nonexistent.

2. Since 1992, there is an enormous scientific literature to explore the generation of beliefs and statements about ritualistic abuse. In the intervening years, literally hundreds of professional journal articles and books have been published either criticizing the ritual abuse hypothesis (as exemplified by Dr. Noblitt), or exploring how false memories may be generated in adults and children. It is fair to say that at the current time, belief in ritual abuse within the psychological community is at an all-time low. Abnormal psychology textbooks today sometimes cover the topic, but they do so in a skeptical light as an example of false memory (e.g., Alloy, Riskind, & Manos, 2005, who incredulously described a woman who alleged attending 850 satanic ceremonies involving crimes such as infanticide). The research by highly regarded psychologists Gail Goodman and Bette Bottoms was instrumental in stemming the satanic panic within the professional psychological community. After conducting several surveys, which were funded by a grant from the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, their research team concluded that religion-related abuse (such as deprivation of medication on religious grounds, or injury during exorcism) was an important issue for society to face (Bottoms, Shaver, & Goodman, 1996), but that virtually no legal-standard evidence existed for claims of ritual abuse, and such claims were likely the result of false memories (Bottoms & Davis, 1997). Furthermore, Bottoms and Davis (1997) argued that conferences (of the type hosted by Dr. Noblitt) were a likely vector or pathway in the genesis of these false memories (cf., Mulhern, 1991). At the time, the research team was considered impartial in the sense that they had no stake in the ritual abuse controversy and they had extensive experience in research on child abuse.

Other very notable scientists have also critiqued the concept of ritualistic abuse, by presenting empirical evidence. For example, Harvard psychologist Richard McNally opines that the evidence that some people develop false memories is overwhelming, and “the strongest evidence comes from the strange saga of satanic ritual abuse” (2003, p. 259), which he also describes as “extravagant” (p. 258). The work of Elizabeth Loftus, a cognitive psychologist at UC Irvine, is equally impressive. Rather than exploring the quality of memories of traumatized individuals as McNally does, Loftus produces in the laboratory false memories in her participants for a variety of life events, some of which are highly incredible. A number of developmental psychologists (e.g., Bruck & Ceci, 1995; Poole & Lindsay, 1995) have shown how commonly-used interview techniques can bring children to make very bizarre statements that sometimes seem ritualistic in nature. In conclusion, it is fair to say that the scientific psychological community today does not endorse the types of beliefs about ritual abuse expressed by Dr. Noblitt.

3. Dr. Noblitt’s belief in ritualistic abuse continues into the 21st Century. Dr. Noblitt’s staunch beliefs expressed in 1992 were not abated by the tide of history and science. This reflects the possibly that his testimony was based on an unchangeable belief that was immune to arguments of logic and science. This does not make for a reliable expert witness.

In an article written by Noblitt, dated 2007, located on an internet web site (http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/articles/an-empirical-look-at-the-ritual-abuse-controversy-randynoblitt-phd/) (downloaded January 31, 2013), Dr. Noblitt offered an expanded version of a paper he presented in 1998. An examination of this article reveals that Noblitt fails to be aware of or to acknowledge many important scientific advances in understanding of the nature of recovered memories or ritual abuse accusations. His article contains a lengthy list of convictions obtained in ritual abuse cases, many of which involved accusations by children in day care settings. Although the cases are not identified by name, but rather by location, many of the cases can easily be matched to the high-profile trials at those locales. For example, the Kelly Michaels trial is readily identifiable within the list. Although the conviction in the Kelly Michaels case was reversed (in part for testimony similar to that given by Dr. Noblitt in the Keller case – testimony regarding using behavioral indicators as diagnostic of abuse), the case is retained in Noblitt’s analysis as a true ritual abuse case. He additionally fails to note the amicus brief of concerned social scientists, describing the suggestibility of children, that had been entered on behalf of Kelly Michaels, and which was subsequently published as a journal article in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (Bruck & Ceci, 1995). The amicus brief was prepared by developmental psychologists Maggie Bruck and Stephen Ceci, and signed by 45 social scientists, representing the fields of developmental, social, experimental, and clinical psychology. In fact, while Dr. Noblitt goes to some length in describing child victims of ritual abuse cults, he does not cite a single critic regarding the suggestibility of children.

In the same article by Noblitt (2007), he stated: “it has never been shown that people who report ritual abuse are particularly suggestible.” In contradistinction to this assertion, individuals with recovered memories of child abuse have been found to be more suggestible (Clancy, Schacter, McNally, & Pitman, 2000; Geraerts, Smeets, Jelicic, van Heerden, & Merckleback, 2005) and to exhibit a tendency for poor source monitoring of information (McNally, Clancy, Barrett, & Parker, 2005). This illustrates a misreading or ignorance of recent research on clinical characteristics of those with recovered memories.

To cover one last example, again from the same paper, Dr. Noblitt cites a journal article by Dr. Bette Bottoms and her colleagues (described earlier in this document), with regard to the prevalence rates for clinicians believing their patients’ accounts of ritual abuse. As is typical of believers in ritual abuse, Dr. Noblitt selectively uses the information obtained by Bottoms and her colleagues by citing only the parts of their work related to prevalence of clinical encounters with alleged ritual abuse victims. Dr. Noblitt failed to mention that the paper specifically highlighted: (1) the lack of evidence for ritual abuse allegations, (2) the importance of social transmission of these concepts from therapist to client, (3) the general lack of skepticism evidenced by clinicians who encountered ritual abuse cases, and (4) the research team’s general conclusion that there is an overall lack of support for ritual abuse claims. Interestingly, Dr. Noblitt has self-published an edited volume (Noblitt & Noblitt, 2008) in which this same error is made by four different contributors: They cite the work of Dr. Bottoms and her colleagues as support for the existence of ritual abuse, when in fact their research demonstrated lack of support for ritual abuse. In this Topsy-Turvey world of pseudoscience, anything goes.

In 2007, Dr. Noblitt made a presentation at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, titled Use of Sodium Amytal in Psychological Diagnosis and Treatment. In a text accompanying the presentation, Dr. Noblitt describes “my own clinical experience conducting over 200 sodium amytal interviews” with patients who had been diagnosed with dissociative identity disorders. The use of sodium amytal as a memory retrieval tool is highly controversial. As far back as 1994, Piper reviewed twelve published studies on the use of sodium amytal interviews, and concluded that there was substantial evidence of memory distortion, sometimes involving gross distortions of factual material. Furthermore, evidence exists that sodium amytal is highly suggestive (and addictive). In a number of court cases, memories refreshed by amytal were found inadmissible (e.g., Ramona v. Ramona, 1997) because it contaminates memory. The fact that Dr. Noblitt has frequently used a technique that is considered dangerous in both medical and legal circles, and that he has apparently used it on individuals suffering from dissociative identity disorder, is deeply disconcerting. This may very well fall into the purview of psychological treatments that cause harm (Lilienfeld, 2007).

In conclusion, Dr. Noblitt has demonstrated that: (1) he is uncritical of anyone whose views coincide with his own, (2) he is dismissive of “gold standard” scientific research that disconfirms his views, and (3) he misrepresents the scientific findings of others in an effort to advance his own agenda. These three points constitute an approach that is antithetical to the scientific accumulation of knowledge. Aspects of his clinical practice illustrated here further demonstrate that his beliefs and therapies fall far outside the mainstream of psychology and may have harmful effects for patients and others whom he considers to be victims of cult ritual abuse. His views are fringe views which only impede the efforts of the trier of fact, and may actually be overly prejudicial if presented to a jury.

Evan Harrington, Ph.D. March 18, 2013

Associate Professor

Research Ethics (IRB) Committee Chair, Chicago Campus

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Please refer to following pages for the list of social scientists in agreement with this Letter

We, the undersigned list of concerned social and behavioral scientists, agree that Dr. Noblitt’s views regarding ritual abuse, as illustrated in his trial testimony as well as his writings and speeches, as represented in this letter, are deeply problematic for the reasons outlined above. His opinions have been scientifically discredited, and are not shared by the vast majority of clinicians and researchers within the field of psychology.

 
David F. Bjorklund, Ph.D.
Professor
Editor, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
http://ees.elsevier.com/jecp
Department of Psychology
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, FL 33431
 
Maggie Bruck, Ph.D.
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
550 North Broadway Suite 204
Baltimore, MD 21205
 
Terence W. Campbell, Ph.D., ABPP
Diplomate in Forensic Psychology
Private Practice
 
Stephen J. Ceci, Ph.D.
H. L. Carr Professor of Developmental Psychology
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
 
Frederick Crews, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of English
University of California at Berkeley
636 Vincente Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94707
Author of The Memory Wars (1995)
 
Mary deYoung Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Grand Valley State University
Allendale, MI 49401
 
Elke Geraerts, associate professor
Institute for psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences,
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Burg Oudlaan 50
Rotterdam, the Netherlands
 
David S. Holmes, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
University of Kansas, Lawrence
Lawrence, KS 66045-7556
 
Mark L. Howe, Ph.D., CPsychol, FBPsS
Professor
Associate Editor, Developmental Review
Editor: Memory
Chair in Cognitive Science
Department of Psychology
City University, London
Northampton Square
London, EC1V 0HB United Kingdom
 
Professor Michael E. Lamb Ph.D
Department of Psychology
University of Cambridge Free School Lane
Cambridge CB2 3RQ, United Kingdom
Editor, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
 
Richard A. Leo, Ph.D., J.D.
Professor of Law and
Dean’s Circle Research Scholar
University of San Francisco
15 Ashbury Terrace
San Francisco, CA 94117
 
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Psychology
Emory University
Associate Editor, Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Psychology and Interdisciplinary Sciences Building
36 Eagle Row
Atlanta, GA 30322
 
D. Stephen Lindsay, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Psychology
University of Victoria
P.O. Box 3050 STN CSC
Victoria, B.C. V8W 3P5
 
Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Psychology & Social Behavior
Criminology, Law & Society
Cognitive Sciences
School of Law
University of California, Irvine
2393 Social Ecology II
Irvine, Calif. 92697-7080 USA
 
Kamala London, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Toledo
2801 W Bancroft St Toledo, OH 43606
 
Steven Jay Lynn, Ph.D., ABPP (Clinical, Forensic)
Distinguished Professor, State University of New York
Inaugural Editor: Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and
Practice (APA)
Psychology Department
Binghamton University
Binghamton, NY 13902
 
Bradley D. McAuliff, J.D., Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
California State University, Northridge
18111 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91330-8255
Associate Editor, Law and Human Behavior, journal of the American Psychology-Law
Society
 
Richard J. McNally, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
Harvard University
1230 William James Hall
33 Kirkland Street
Cambridge, MA 02138-2044
Web: http://mcnallylab.com
 
Amina Memon C Psychol FBPsS
Professor of Psychology
Royal Holloway University of London
Egham Hill
Surrey TW20 0EX
 
Harald Merckelbach, Ph. D.
Professor
Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience
Maastricht University, Maastricht
PO Box 616 6200 MD The Netherlands
 
Timothy E. Moore, PhD, C Psych
Associate Editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice
Professor and Chair Department of Psychology
York University
Glendon College, York University
2275 Bayview Ave.
Toronto, Ontario Canada M4N 3M6
 
Debbie Nathan
Investigatory Journalist
Co-author (with Michael Snedekor) of Satan’s Silence
680 W. 204th St. #5B
New York, NY 10034
 
Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Socoiology
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-1980
 
Yael Orbach, Ph.D
Adjunct Scientist
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD)
 
Loren Pankratz, Ph.D.
Clinical Professor
Department of Psychiatry
Oregon Health Science University
 
Kristine A. Peace, Ph.D.
Experimental Forensic Psychology
Assistant Professor and Honours Advisor
Department of Psychology
Grant MacEwan University
City Centre Campus, Rm 6-329H, 10700 – 104 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4S2
 
Harrison G. Pope Jr., M.D.
Professor of Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School
Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory
McLean Hospital
Belmont, MA 02478
 
Russ Powell, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology
Grant MacEwan University
City Centre Campus, Rm 6-329H, 10700 – 104 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4S2
 
J. Don Read, Ph.D.
Professor
Director, Law and Forensic Psychology Program
Law and Psychology Area Coordinator
Simon Fraser University
RCB 5246-8888 University Drive
Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6
 
James T. Richardson, J.D., Ph.D.
Foundation Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies
Director, Grant Sawyer Center for Justice Studies
Director, Judicial Studies Program
Mail Stop 311
University of Nevada, Reno
Reno, NV 89557
 
Susan P. Robbins, Ph.D., LCSW
Associate Professor
University of Houston
Graduate College of Social Work
110HA Social Work Building Room 201
Houston, TX 77204-4013
 
Nadja Schreiber Compo, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Co-Director Legal Psychology Graduate Program
Florida International University
University Park Campus
DM-288
Miami, FL 33199
 
Matthew H. Scullin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology
The University of Texas at El Paso
500 West University Avenue
El Paso, TX 79968
 
Carol Tavris, Ph.D.
Social psychologist, writer
Co-author (with Elliot Aronson) of Mistakes were made (but not by me)
and (with Carole Wade) of two leading textbooks in psychology
Editorial board, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Association for Psychological Science
1847 Nichols Canyon Road
Los Angeles, CA 9004
 
Jeffrey S. Victor, Ph.D.
Department of Sociology
State University of New York
Jamestown Community College
Jamestown, New York, 14701
 
Elaine F. Walker, Ph. D.
Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience
Editor, Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Department of Psychology
Director, Development and Mental Health Program
36 Eagle Row
Emory University
Atlanta, Ga. 30322
 
Amye Richelle Warren, Ph.D.
Patricia Draper Obear Distinguished Teaching Professor
Department of Psychology
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Chattanooga, TN 37403
 
Charles A. Weaver, III, Ph.D.
Professor Director of Undergraduate Studies
Dept. of Psychology & Neuroscience
Baylor University
One Bear Place 97334
Waco, TX 76798-7334
 
James M. Wood, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology
University of Texas at El Paso
El Paso, TX 79968
 

References

Alloy, L.B., Riskind, J.H., & Manos, M.J. (2005). Abnormal psychology: Current perspectives (9th Ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

 Bottoms, B.L., & Davis, S.L. (1997). The creation of satanic ritual abuse. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 112-132.

Bottoms, B.L., Shaver, P.R., & Goodman, G.S. (1996). An analysis of ritualistic and religion-related child abuse accusations. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 1-34.

Bruck, M., & Ceci, S.J. (1995). Amicus brief for the case of State of New Jersey v. Michaels presented by committee of concerned social scientists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 272-324.

Ceci, S.J., Ross, D.F., & Toglia, M.P. (1987). Age differences in suggestibility: Narrowing the uncertainties. In S.J. Ceci, D.F. Ross, & M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Children’s eyewitness memory (pp.79 – 91). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Ceci, S.J., Toglia, M., & Ross, D. (1990). The suggestibility of preschoolers’€™ recollections: Historical perspectives on current problems. In R. Fivush, & J. Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 285 – 300). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Clancy, S.A., Schacter, D.L., McNally, R.J., & Pitman, R.K. (2000). False recognition in women reporting recovered memories of sexual abuse. Psychological Science, 11, 26-€“31.

Geraerts, E., Smeets, E., Jelicic, M., van Heerden, J., & Merckelbach, H. (2005). Fantasy proneness, but not self-reported trauma is related to DRM performance of women reporting recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 602-€“612.

Harrington, E. (1996). Conspiracy theories and paranoia: Notes from a mind-control conference. Skeptical Inquirer, 20, 35-42.

Harrington, E., Stone, A., & Guss, A. (2011). Sybil, Eve, and Miss Beauchamp: Dissociative identity disorder, recovered memories, and skepticism in abnormal psychology textbooks. Poster presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Miami, FL.

Jenkins, P., & Maier-Katkin, D. (1991). Occult survivors: The making of a myth. In J.T. Richardson, J. Best, & D.G. Bromley (Eds). The Satanism scare (pp. 145 – 174). New York: Aldine DeGruyter.

 Lanning, K.V. (1989, October). Satanic, occult, ritualistic crime: A law enforcement perspective. The Police Chief, 62-83.

Lanning, K.V. (1991). Ritual abuse: A law enforcement view or perspective. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15, 171-173.

 Lanning, K.V. (1992, January). Investigator’s guide to allegations of €œritual child abuse. Quantico, VA: National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, FBI Academy.

Lilienfeld, S.O. (2007). Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 53-70.

Loftus, E., & Ketchum, K. (1991). Witness for the defense: The accused, the eyewitness, and the expert who puts memory on trial. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

McNally, R.J. (2003). Remembering trauma. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

McNally, R.J., Clancy, S.A., Barrett, H.M., & Parker, H.A. (2005). Reality monitoring in adults reporting repressed, recovered, or continuous memories of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 147-152.

Mulhern, S. (1991). Satanism and psychotherapy: A rumor in search of an inquisition. In J.T.

Richardson, J. Best, & D.G. Bromley (Eds). The Satanism scare (pp. 145 – 174). New York: Aldine DeGruyter.

 Nathan, D. (1990, January 12). The ritual sex abuse hoax. The Village Voice.

Nathan, D. (1991). Satanism and child abuse: Constructing the ritual abuse scare. In J.T. Richardson, J. Best, & D.G. Bromley (Eds). The Satanism scare (pp. 75 – 94). New York: Aldine DeGruyter.

Noblitt, R. (2007a). An empirical look at the ritual abuse controversy. Retrieved from: http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/articles/an-empirical-look-at-the-ritual-abuse-controversy22randy-noblitt-phd/

Noblitt, R. (2007b). Use of sodium amytal in psychological diagnosis and treatment. Paper presented at the 115th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Noblitt, R., & Noblitt, P.P. (2008). Ritual abuse in the twenty-first century: Psychological, forensic, social, and political considerations. Bandon, OR: Robert D. Reed Publishers.

Piper, A. (1994). Amytal interviews and “recovered memories” of sexual abuse: A note. IPT Journal, 6. Retrieved from: http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_1_3.htm

Poole, D.A., & Lindsay, S. (1995). Interviewing Preshoolers: Effects of nonsuggestive techniques, parental coaching and leading questions on reports of nonexperienced events, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 129-154.

Rabinowitz, D. (1990, May). From the mouths of bases to a jail cell: Child abuse and the abuse of justice: A case study. Harpers, 280, 52 – 63.

Ramona v. Ramona (1997, 57 Cal.App.4th 107)

Victor, J.S. (1991). The dynamics of rumor-panics about Satanic cults. In J.T. Richardson, J. Best, & D.G. Bromley (Eds). The Satanism scare (pp. 221 – 236). New York: Aldine DeGruyter.

I write this letter to you with little hope of conveying information of which you were previously unaware. Rather, I write this letter so that the general public may be made aware of what you should already be well aware of, in hopes that they may appropriately measure your credibility following your forthcoming broadcast* related to the topic of an alleged satanic cult conspiracy — an episode which promises to be full of misinformation, delusions, harmful false accusations, and lies.

Specifically, it has come to my attention that you will be airing an interview with Judy Byington, author of a book entitled Twenty-Two Faces which purports to be the true story of one Jenny Hill, an alleged victim of the bizarre and controversial psychiatric condition known as Dissociative Identity Disorder [DID] (formerly listed as Multiple Personality Disorder [MPD]).

However dubious the legitimacy of DID, this diagnosis is by far the least of the problems with Byington’s book. Twenty-Two Faces is openly rife with archaic demonologies, and paranoid conspiracy theories being presented as root causes to the disturbances in Ms. Hill’s troubled mind. That Jenny Hill — a former drug addict and prostitute with a history of mental illness — is troubled seems indisputable, but Byington’s book seeks to expose an alleged satanic government plot behind Hill’s mental malaise that is tantamount to speculation upon who, exactly, is beaming voices into the heads of schizophrenics. Such an ignorant approach to therapeutic practice is harmful to mental health consumers, and your endorsement of such can hardly be of any positive value to your viewers.

The broader harm to the public mental health in endorsing a story as laden with paranoid delusion as Twenty-Two Faces — especially insofar as it is a narrative specifically appealing to the mentally vulnerable — should be clear to a doctor of Clinical Psychology like yourself. In fact, as recently as the 1980’s (and extending into the 90s), stories of non-existent satanic cults — upon which Byington has based her unhinged claims — caused a modern witch-hunt now known to sociologists as the “Satanic Panic”. Books foundational to this panic, and thematically identical to Twenty-Two Faces — particularly Michelle Remembers by Lawrence Pazder and Michelle Smith, and Satan’s Underground by Lauren Stratford — were soundly and thoroughly debunked by investigative journalists. Unfortunately, these debunkings only arrived after sensational talk-shows, promoting these books uncritically, helped create a moral panic that ruined families, resulted in false convictions of satanic crimes, and exploited the most irrational fears of countless mental health consumers. Both of these books are listed in Byington’s bibliography, despite their debunkings, and despite the fact the Satan’s Underground was so thoroughly discredited as to be withdrawn from publication… following which the author changed her name and abandoned her story of Satanic Ritual Abuse to instead pose as a childhood victim of the Holocaust.

Among the supernatural claims put forward in Twenty-Two Faces we have:

• Prophecy: The protagonist’s birth is foretold by her uncle in exacting detail. Through some other-worldly messenger he is “told” that “this was a special child who would do important things on this earth.”
• Extra Sensory Perception (ESP): apparently believing that child abuse can prove beneficial to the victim (a position I hope you disagree with), author Judy Byington describes that the protagonist, Jenny Hill, was able to break through certain subliminal barriers, not in spite of, but because of, early humiliations. “In the far reaches of her brain a storehouse of demeaning events evidently opened a door for Extra Sensory Perception experiences to enter.”
• Divine guidance: desperate and in prayer, Jenny Hill hears “a soft, yet thundering voice”, which urges her to “continue to write down your life experiences, for one day a book will be written.”
• Levitation: Byington describes a cult “filled with Black Magic, levitation, seances and chanting people”. Jenny Hill is admonished at one point that “[l]evitation and evil spirits weren’t anything to mess around with and certainly not worth the price it [sic] would extract.”
• Divine intervention: In the midst of a Satanic ceremony in which she is bound to an altar, Jenny Hill is spared from sacrifice by a bare-footed “white-robed male personage, surrounded in a glorious White Light”. (Had this “personage” taken a little effort to arrive just a moment earlier, he could have spared the unlucky girl next to Hill, who is said to have been decapitated… but I’m sure His schedule is as busy as His ways mysterious.)
• Spirit Possession: Making clear that possession isn’t merely a more primitive cultural interpretation of DID, Byington describes that Hill has suffered both DID and spirit possession, the latter being cured by the prayers of LDS church officials.

Any one of these topics would be a bit much for one episode, and each of these remarkable claims demands remarkable evidence. So what evidence does Byington provide? Incredibly, Twenty-Two Faces seems to rely solely on the “memories of [Jenny Hill’s] multiple personalities and their entries in diaries written since childhood”, as Byington describes in the book’s opening disclaimer. These memories were “repressed”, only recalled later in Ms. Hill’s life in the course of re-integrating her various fractured identities. Setting aside the fact that “recovered memories” similarly serve as the “evidentiary” basis for claims of Extraterrestrial abductions and past life regression, is it appropriate — in your professional opinion as a (former) Clinical Psychologist — to accept such extraordinary claims merely on personal testimony? Do you think it’s appropriate, Dr. Phil, to air fear-mongering claims of an anti-human, ubiquitous secret society on the “evidence” of such an unlikely anecdote?

Even looking past the supernatural propositions, Byington’s book is fraught with inconsistencies, among which we find:

• Twenty-Two Faces is said to have been constructed from “memories of [Jenny Hill’s] multiple personalities and their entries in diaries written since childhood”, a claim which makes no sense when considering that Jenny Hill is supposed to have been entirely ignorant of the existence of her multiple personalities until having entered psychiatric therapy in later adulthood. How, then, did she account for various unknown individuals writing their own personal, signed entries in her own private diaries consistently throughout her life?
• Twenty-Two Faces describes that Jenny Hill was oppressed by an unlikely Jewish Nazi who worshipped Satan and was brought to the US from Germany under CIA sponsorship. Ludicrous as this alone is, Byington explains that this over-dramatized villain is careful to conceal his antics from Jenny Hill’s parents — returning her home on-time for supper, making sure her chores are finished before compelling her to return — yet we also learn later that Hill’s parents were in on the whole thing throughout.
• We are made to understand that Hill begins to experience “lost time” at the age of 4, when her abuse is said to have begun. The lost time is accounted for as episodes during which other personalities took over her consciousness so that Hill might not be troubled with the terrors of the abuse she began suffering at that age. Such episodes, starting at such an early age, would establish an expectation of occasionally lost time, or an acceptance on the part of the protagonist that she had never quite grasped what time is. Not so with Ms. Hill. Not only did she fully grasp the cultural context and broad implications of the depravities that are said to have befallen her at age 4, she is also uncannily aware of the dates and times that eluded her at an age when most children are unable to properly read a clock. Does this match with your own knowledge of childhood cognitive development, Dr. Phil?
• Hill learns, by means of “recovered memories” that she was raped by her father. She invites her parents to her psychiatric hospital, where she is an in-patient, so that she may accuse him. Apparently heartbroken and outraged, her father storms out. The inconsistency occurs some pages later when it is reported that Hill was saddened to not be invited over for the following Family Christmas.

You should be aware of serious problems with Byington’s book — the inconsistencies, improbabilities, and supernatural propositions — not least because you should be aware of the book’s contents before you endorse such material on your show, but also because I personally reached out to your producers to warn you of them. Your producers were surely also warned regarding Byington’s problematic narrative when in contact with Jenny Hill’s sister, who was also asked to appear on your show along with Mrs. Byington. Apparently, your producers — doing “entertainment” at the expense of good psychology — chose to ignore us both.

The material above covers some problems that any rational person could pick out merely from reading the book, but there are further problems with Twenty-Two Faces that are apparent to anybody who bothers to do a little research:

• The book carries an endorsement from Robert Kroon, an esteemed former foreign correspondent for Time Magazine. However, Kroon had been dead for over 5 years at the time of Twenty-Two Faces’ publication. Suspiciously, Tate Publishing, the publisher of Twenty-Two Faces, uses a similar endorsement, allegedly from Kroon, on another book published 2 years after his death.
• Judy Byington has not had a license to practice therapy in around 10 years, yet she explicitly describes continuing to conduct therapy sessions with Jenny Hill only months ago (listen to this interview at 15:45: http://kcpw.org/blog/cityviews/2012-08-07/cityviews-8812-one-woman-multiple-personalitiesbullets-and-belles/). Judy Byington also offers “therapy” over the phone or via Skype at $25 per session. Do you, Dr. Phil, endorse this type of unlicensed, not to mention grossly irrational, “therapy”?
• Jenny Hill remains mentally tormented and has a history of bearing false witness. Twenty-Two Faces describes an episode in which Jenny Hill fled from Judy Byington for a time believing that she had observed “the mark of cain” somewhere on Byington, indicated that Byington was involved, somehow, with satanic cults… yet it never seems to have occurred to Byington that any other paranoid claims of Jenny’s may have been rooted in suspicious delusion, rather than fact. In a very telling exchange (that can be read here: http://dysgenicsreport.blogspot.com/2012/10/replies-to-22-faces-claims-hard.html#more) Jenny Hill’s sister questioned Byington regarding why it is Byington unquestioningly believes many of Jenny’s unprovable claims, while knowing that Jenny has made various unfounded claims in apparent fits of panicked paranoia: “Did you believe her when she said your husband was coming on to her sexually? I have heard that allegation too many times about other men to take it seriously. […] [H]ow many times has she called you in the middle of the night to come rescue her from some drama only to find her asleep and not knowing she had called or claiming she was being held hostage and you come with police to find her watching TV[?] …” Judy Byington proved unwilling or unable to answer these questions of Jenny Hill’s sister. Was she able to answer such questions of you? Did you even ask? If not, why not? These facts were available to you before you filmed your interview with Mrs. Byington.

I hardly expect to see that you have asked any difficult, yet terribly obvious, questions of Judy Byington in your soon-to-be-aired interview, as Byington’s own website now proudly displays your endorsement:

“Dear Judy,

Thank you for taking the time to come to our show. I wish you great success with your book documenting the life of Jenny Hill and look forward to working with you in the future. God Bless!

Dr. Phil, Paramount Pictures Hollywood”

That this makes you complicit in purveying a delusional conspiracy theory is unfortunate, but hardly disputable. Judy Byington herself makes clear that she considers Dissociative Identity Disorder/Multiple Personality Disorder synonymous with Satanic Ritual Abuse, and you can hardly talk to her about one without addressing the other. To be clear, when Judy Byington talks of multiplicity and dissociative trauma, she is talking about a debunked conspiracy theory of satanic mind-control plots. That you should give such hysterical claims air-time — allowing a conspiracy theory to be presented as a diagnosis — on your widely viewed show is beyond irresponsible. It makes you a menace to the public mental health.

I have no illusion that you will correct your errors, or that you might pull the episode before it airs. Rather, I am simply posting this time-stamped letter to you here — which I will also send to you directly — so that neither you, nor your producers, may possibly claim ignorance in the near future when Judy Byington meets with the critical assault that will inevitably follow when sensible people see fit to read her work. I want it to be perfectly clear, now and in the future, that all the facts were available to you at all times. It is my feeling that your credibility should greatly suffer, and it is my wish that you should soon find yourself as bankrupt financially as you are ethically.

    Acrimoniously yours,

        Douglas Mesner

        www.process.org

 *Note, original reports stated that this episode would air October 31, 2012. As of October 27, this episode is not on Dr. Phil’s broadcasting schedule. Hopefully, Phil wises up and pulls the interview entirely, however, yesterday Judy Byington left a comment online that the episode should air “soon”. This open letter has been slightly modified to reflect the sudden uncertainty of the broadcast date.

The Apparition by Gustave Moreau

Sound thinking and critical reservations were abruptly cast aside in New Delhi during the early morning hours of September 21st, 1995. Statue idols, it seemed, had taken to drinking milk being fed to them by spoon. By what bizarre urging the first pilgrim to report this phenomenon was compelled to test whether a milk offering would pass the lips of a statue is unclear, but the idea rapidly took hold, devolving into a frenzy. The World Hindu Council hastily declared it a “miracle”, and by noon hopeful herds across North India stampeded to the temples leaving trampled bodies wounded underfoot. Police reinforcements were deployed by necessity to restrain outbreaks among the fevered milk-bearing mobs. Faithful conviction ruled the day.

Some believers may well have been unamused — especially those within the ranks of the afflicted and dying — that the gods had chosen such a valueless display with which to affirm their continued beneficent authority, but it was the science-minded unbelievers who were predictably the least impressed… Nor did it take long to figure out what was really going on. Representatives from India’s Ministry of Science and Technology arrived on-scene to demonstrate that what was being witnessed was simple “capillary action”: The surface tension of the milk created an upward pull upon contact with the surface of the statue before the liquid ran downward in a transparent film, while some was absorbed into the porous stones. To illustrate this, the scientists colored their milk with a dye that remained apparent as it coated the statue. When hysteria regarding milk imbibing statues struck again in 2006, the president of the Indian Rationalist Association, Sanal Edamaruku, was quoted in the press, “Forget deities. I fed a cup of coffee to a statue of Jawaharlal Nehru (India’s first prime minister) right before television cameras,” he said, “Even bricks are drinking milk.”[1]

The 1995 “Milk Miracle” hysteria spread throughout the world within the span of several days and has seen recurrences in the years since, despite the oft-repeated claim that the phenomenon was mysteriously confined within a 24-hour span. Faithful supernaturalists have proved predictably unwilling to abdicate their miracle to non-magical explanations. Nor has the lasting insistence that the Milk Miracle remains a mystery unsolved been confined to willfully credulous Hindus. A widely used college-level World Religions textbook states in its 2011 edition, referencing the 1995 incident: “Scientists suggested explanations such as mass hysteria or capillary action in the stone, but the phenomenon lasted only one day.”[2]

To refer to the statement above as merely misrepresentative may be overly kind. “Scientists suggested explanations” indicates befuddled skeptics groping for generalized answers with which to force the inexplicable into a materialist framework. In fact, scientists did more than “suggest” capillary action, they demonstrated it. And it was never an either/or question between mass hysteria or capillary action — capillary action accounted for the illusion of milk drinking statues, while mass hysteria best described the temple-swarming religious fervor that the misattribution of “miracle” provoked. Both capillary action and mass hysteria were perfectly evident. To state that it could have been either/or further suggests confusion among scientists unable to accept a miracle taking place before their eyes, while also unable to come to a consensus amongst each other as to what might account for what was being witnessed.

More flagrantly misleading still are the countless accounts of the Milk Miracle which claim that scientists dismissed the entire event as a “mass hallucination”. The site milkmiracle.com, maintained by an outspoken Milk Miracle true believer, Philip Mikas, states:

There are many sceptics and scientists who have tried to explain what happened on September 21, 1995 in terms of science. Some have repeatedly said that this so-called “Milk Miracle” was caused by something as simple as capillary action. Some have tried to attribute it to a case of “global scale mass hallucination or hysteria”. To them, I would like to say this – there are many things that we just cannot explain with our present levels of science and technology. Perhaps, we will need to look into our souls and discover the secret spiritual powers that we all have before we can fully explain such phenomena.

Oddly, among a great many of the sites that treat the Milk Miracle as an unexplained or paranormal phenomenon, the phrase “global scale mass hallucination or hysteria” is offered as a summary of the skeptical position, always in quotes, never with attribution.

And so it degenerates… the actual explanation rejected, marginalized, obscured, and ultimately re-written to the point that numerous bloggers now treat the question of the Milk Miracle as one of mass hallucination versus paranormal activity, weighing the merits of — or elaborating the flaws in — an explanation that never was.

Presenting the scientific attempt at a rational explanation as a snobbish dismissal of mass eyewitness testimony certainly has its advantages to those who wish to maintain that something otherworldly was plainly observed, and arguments against the mass hallucination theory can be found anywhere believers in the improbable attempt to make their case. Thus, throughout the vast blogosphere, lengthy essays can be found heaping derision upon this scientific folly in favor of claims ranging from Sasquatch’s existence, to the reality of extraterrestrial visitations, to Satanic cults conspiring to enslave the Globe… to any number of implausible and bizarre ideas believed by a resolute minority. Almost universally lacking in these tirades against the close-minded “scientific establishment” is any direct citation of an actual argument in favor of the mass hallucination theory, nor is mass hallucination explicitly defined, its meaning presumed intuitively clear.

On the face of it, the idea of any specific event being attributed to “mass hallucination” sounds ridiculous. It suggests a large number of people suddenly, simultaneously, and spontaneously experiencing an intense, shared, detailed, false or grossly distorted shared perception of an event or events contrary to the reality surrounding them. At its most crudely literal, this would have us interpreting the Milk Miracle as an event wherein masses of individuals merely perceived milk disappearing from their spoons, while in actuality it did not; Sasquatch as a sudden unprovoked mental phantom shared amongst unwitting forest explorers; UFOs as but internal synchronized specters projected upon the empty skies.

But is this what “mass hallucination” actually means? And has there ever actually been an anomalous event for which mass hallucination was offered as a scientific explanation? Or — as with the Milk Miracle — is the idea of Mass Hallucination merely a straw man argument meant to paint the skeptical position as both improbable and patronizing?

*****

A search for “mass hallucination” in the American Psychological Association’s PsycINFO — “an expansive abstracting and indexing database with more than 3 million records devoted to peer-reviewed literature in the behavioral sciences and mental health […] covering psychology back to its underpinnings in the 17th Century” — yields a total of zero articles. Of course, this does not bode well as an indication of the concept’s interest among serious researchers.

However, the concept of “collective hallucinations” — first expounded by French polymath Gustave Le Bon in his 1895 classic book on Crowd Psychology, La psychologie des foules (translated into english as The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind) — has a minimal  presence in psychology books related to Mob Mentality and psychological anomalies.

In The Crowd, Le Bon described inflated suggestibility as a general characteristic of human herds. “[…] a crowd [is] perpetually hovering on the borderland of unconsciousness, readily yielding to all suggestions, having all the violence of feeling peculiar to beings who cannot appeal to the influence of reason, deprived of all critical faculty, cannot be otherwise than excessively credulous.”[3] This excessive credulity, according to Le Bon, primes the crowd to accept, as fact ,“[t]he first perversion of the truth effected by one of the individuals of the gathering”, which then becomes “the starting point of the contagious suggestion.”[4] Collective hallucinations then, by Le Bon’s definition, are the outcome of perceptual interpretations colored by suggestions delivered to a crowd in its throes of thoughtless zeal.

The concept is further expanded upon in a book titled Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking by Leonard Zusne and Warren H. Jones[5]. There, the authors confront the question of — if an event is presumably hallucinated — how do “2 or 200 people manage to coordinate and synchronize their subjective lives?”

“In collective hallucinations, expectation plays the coordinating role. Although the subjective matter of individual hallucinations has virtually no limits, that of collective hallucinations is limited to certain categories. These categories are determined, first, by the kinds of ideas that a group of people may get excited about as a group, for emotional arousal is a prerequisite of collective hallucinations.”

Collective hallucinations, according to Zusne and Jones, are not spontaneous occurrences, and in accompaniment to “emotional arousal”, there is the prerequisite of “spreading imagery”…

“[…] all participants in the hallucination must be informed beforehand, at least concerning the broad outlines of the phenomenon that will constitute the collective hallucination. This may take the form of a publicly announced prophecy, for example, or someone suddenly looking up and saying, ‘Lo, in the sky!’ or words to that effect.”

And while the imagery preceding the event may only contain the “broad outlines of the phenomenon”, it is important to note that, due to the reconstructive nature of memory, the hallucinations themselves need only be broadly similar…

“Once the general type of hallucination is identified, it is easy to harmonize individual differences in accounts. This may take place during the hallucination or in subsequent discussions.”

*****

As examples of collective hallucinations, Zusne and Jones offer several occasions at various locations in Italy where locals reported “moving and bleeding images of saints”.

Also, in 1981, in Yugoslavia, in a village called Medjugorje, a small group of children reported meeting and speaking with the mythical “Virgin” Mary, whereupon some estimated 11 million pilgrims travelled to the childrens’ village. These pilgrims stared into the sky, toward the sun, looking for Mary’s divine form at an appointed time and place. Interestingly, despite their priming, none of them seemed to manage an actual vision of Mary herself. However, they did report anomalous visions, “such as […] crosses in the sky, double suns”, and some reported “being able to stare at the setting sun without eye damage.”[6]

Similar to the Medjugorje incident, the famous Fatima apparition of 1917 was a mob reaction to reports made by 3 Portuguese children who claimed to have been visited by the ghost of Mary. Here again, reports were less-than-impressive as far as presumably synchronous specific subjective events are concerned. The children, it is claimed, saw the Virgin, while some of the crowd reported seeing the sun “dancing” in the sky, radiant colors, or the sun approaching the Earth… Others still saw nothing at all.

Of course, the sun did not make any aberrant movements that day, as witnessing astronomical observatories could attest. The same sun, visible to much of the world, appeared to be following its daily routine everywhere but where expectations for a miracle found faithful pilgrims looking to the sky in anticipation of something extraordinary.

In both Medjugorje and Fatima, observers were staring into the sunlit sky. Joe Nickell (author and Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry [CSI]) explains, “several eyewitnesses of the October 13, 1917, gathering at Fatima specifically stated they were looking ‘fixedly at the sun’ or ‘tried to look straight at it’ or otherwise made clear they were gazing directly at the actual sun […]. If this is so, the ‘dancing sun’ and other solar phenomena may have been due to optical effects resulting from temporary retinal distortion caused by staring at such an intense light or to the effect of darting the eyes to and fro to avoid fixed gazing (thus combining image, afterimage, and movement).”[7]

If UV-beaten eyes are responsible for reports of Fatima’s dancing sun, Zusne and Jones are unclear as to whether their definition of mass hallucination is meant to describe such illusions for which an organic cause is apparent. In either case, however, the prerequisite conditions of emotional arousal, spreading imagery, as well as the subsequent harmonizing of the narrative from various disparate reports, were clearly extremely influential factors in Medjugorje and Fatima.

*****

 In 2001, Christian apologist Gary Habermas published a paper titled Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: the Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories[8]. Though Habermas explains that he surveyed “over 1,000 critical publications on the resurrection”, he offers no hard numbers with which to qualify his claim of any recent “revival of hallucination theories”. In vague terms, he reports, “more scholars apparently support various naturalistic hypotheses [to account for the biblical claim of Christ’s resurrection] than has been the case in many decades. […] Of those who now prefer hallucination explanations, however, only a few scholars have pursued this approach in detail, while several other scholars simply mention the possibility of, or preference for, the hallucination thesis.”

A preference for “the hallucination thesis” opposed to what, one wonders? Opposed to other “naturalistic hypotheses” (such as the quite obvious explanation that the New Testament is a poor fictional work from the start) mass hallucination weighs in rather weakly; opposed to accepting the resurrection myth at its face value, however, mass hallucination can clearly be assigned a much higher probabilistic value by mere virtue of being a naturalistic hypothesis. Missing this point completely, Habermas asks, “[…] why must a naturalistic, subjective explanation be assumed?”

Though the question is presented rhetorically, there is sound rationale for assuming naturalistic explanations. To begin, while there is ample cross-cultural research demonstrating the human tendency to embrace superstition and to exert self-deceiving confirmation biases, there is no such research at all that satisfactorily demonstrates any supernatural phenomena. For that matter, supernatural forces are, by definition, not observable — they cannot be recorded, transcribed, traced, or measured by scientific procedure. As we can never isolate a mechanistic cause of a supernatural event, we are left with simply no other option than exhaust all naturalistic options first.

Further, history provides hard lessons in the unreliability of even large consensus accounts. The archaic minds of Christian philosophers, from Augustine to Thomas Aquinas, took seriously claims of demonic assaults upon humanity by mere virtue of the claims’ ubiquity, Aquinas even insisting that reports of demonic voices could not have been imaginary as they were reported to be heard to all within earshot.[9] From this logic, prosecutions and brutal purgings of “witches” were deemed sound and fair due to their multiple corroborating witness accounts.

Habermas goes on to contest Zusne and Jones’s description of collective hallucination as it might be applied to the myth of Christ’s resurrection, though he concedes that Zusne and Jones themselves wrote of collective hallucinations “without any application to Jesus’ resurrection”. Further, none of the only three authors from this “revival” of hallucination theories Habermas explores — as examples of those who share a “hallucination theory preference” — invoke Zusne and Jones’s collective hallucination definition to support their positions. Nor are these authors unclear as to what they themselves mean when referring to the resurrection as a hallucination.[10] Of the three authors Habermas disputes, only German theologian Gerd Luedemann advances an explanation directly born of an established collective hallucination theory. Invoking Le Bon, Luedemann describes the appearance of the resurrected Christ to “more than 500 brethren” as “mass ecstasy” stimulated by the “preaching and the recollections” by Peter and the twelve disciples who saw Jesus die on the cross. This proselytizing devotion, according to Luedemann, “led to religious intoxication and an enthusiasm which was experienced as the presence of Jesus[…]”

Summarizing this without offering a direct counterpoint, Habermas goes on to protest against hypotheses published by two more theologians, Jack A. Kent and Michael Goulder. Kent, in his book The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth, proposes that Jesus’s cult individually “experienced grief-related hallucinations or illusions following the traumatic death of their leader”.[11] Kent details the Gospel accounts of “the Easter morning events” and notes that they are “inconsistent, contradictory, and inconclusive”, though he argues that “Mary Magdalene and the disciples did see what they believed were ‘appearances’ of Jesus but those ‘appearances’ were grief-related hallucinations or illusions.”

Likewise, Goulder, in his essay The Baseless Fabric of a Vision[12], describes Peter’s vision of the resurrected Christ as a personal vision — a conversion vision — which he likens to violent conversions reported throughout history wherein the convert typically describes visions accompanying an intense feeling of revelation. As an example, Goulder cites Manson Family murderer Susan Atkins’ prison conversion, which she described in visual terms, with Christ personally appearing to her offering consolation and forgiveness.

The appearances of Christ to the apostles or the 500 brethren, however, are seen as a collective delusion by Goulder, which he likens to today’s Bigfoot phenomenon. With both Bigfoot and Jesus expectation and popular enthusiasm precipitated sightings. “If you sighted Bigfoot, you were the centre of attention; people spoke about you; the press sought you out. If you sighted Jesus, you confirmed the Church’s hopes, and your own.”

Despite these descriptions of purely personal hallucinations acting to precipitate group delusions of resurrection, Habermas — after breezily under-summarizing each author’s actual position — disingenuously states: “One of the central issues in this entire discussion concerns whether a group of people can witness the same hallucination.” In fact, this appears only to be the central point that Habermas was predetermined to argue, while his survey of “over 1,000 critical publications” seems to have yielded little to indicate that this was ever at issue.

*****

From the few academic descriptions available, authored by Le Bon and Zusne and Jones, we see that collective hallucinations are not intended to describe spontaneous herd occurrences of perfectly matched phantasmagoria. Nor is it irrelevant to emphasize the difference in terminology: collective hallucination, as opposed to the often-invoked mass hallucination which, while subtle, further reinforces the suspicion that those arguing against mass hallucination theory (in favor of their cherished chosen implausibility) are in fact inveighing against an imaginary opposition.

While “collective hallucinations” find a negligible presence in psychological literature, “mass hallucination theory” is disproportionately invoked as the primary — if not only — explanation offered to counter extraordinary claims for which there are (presumably) multiple corroborating witnesses. So long as this position is maintained, arguments for paranormal events are presented as less incredible than the alleged scientific alternative: that a mass of people all at once spontaneously shared a detailed mental vision, much like a group of people watching a film, and collectively mistook this shared vision for an external physical reality.

When “mass hallucination” is said to be the scientific counterpoint to any claim, it is worth asking, By which scientists? Where? What other explanations have been proposed? and, of course, “Mass hallucination” meaning what, exactly? Upon inspection, we find that the idea of mass hallucination as the fall-back end-all “scientific” position toward the inexplicable is, in itself, nothing more than a desperately crafted mass delusion… a bullshit argument — attributed to rational arguments against bullshit — that is meant to make said rational arguments look like bullshit.

Western Missouri Condemns Without Trial

By J. Bean (A Skeptic in Kansas City)

March 2010

“[For law enforcement officers] the level of proof necessary for taking action on allegations of criminal acts must be more than simply the victim alleged it and it is possible…. We need to be concerned about the distribution and publication of unsubstantiated allegations of bizarre sexual abuse.” – Kenneth Lanning, FBI

Dressed in orange jumpsuits and shackled at their wrists, ankles, and waists, six members of the Mohler family shuffle past local television news cameras and into a courtroom. Tethered together, they resemble fish on a stringer with the proud authorities displaying their catch.  On-the-spot reporters read the charges against them,“Forcible rape of a child; Deviate sexual assault; Use of a child in a sexual performance…”  Newspaper accounts are perhaps even more harsh: The men’s booking photos are posted beneath headlines such as “Incest Allegations Shatter Public image of Church-Going Clan”, [1] or “Child-Raping Missouri Family May Have Bodies in Yard”. [2 ] Posted on the internet  beneath these stories  are reader  comments reminiscent of 1692; judgments of guilt  and cries for harsh punishment along with suspicions cast upon any who question the charges dominate the boards.

The men are 76 year old Burrell Mohler Sr., his four sons, Burrell “Ed” Jr., David, Jared, and Roland, and Burrell Sr.’s 72 year old brother, Darryl Mohler. The arrests were made in November 2009, by Lafayette County, Missouri authorities based on accusations of ritualistic crimes against Ed Mohler’s (now adult) children from 1988 to 1995. The charges against the men involve numerous alleged child rapes, sodomies, and bestiality. They are also publicly accused of kidnapping, various murders, producing child pornography, breeding then slaughtering babies, performing forced abortions on minors, and holding an unwilling sex-slave for years in the family basement, although there have been no charges filed for those allegations.

“A hallucination is a fact, not an error; what is erroneous is a judgment based upon it.” – Bertrand Russell

The case against the Mohler men first came to Lafayette County authorities in August 2009, when Ed Mohler’s 26 year old daughter (T.A.) contacted a western Missouri detective.   According to the probable cause statements: (T.A.) had “suppressed many of the memories” until recently. She “identified 8 specific memories of abuse and a 9th that was perpetrated on her brother”.  “She has many memories of abuse” but some occurred in other jurisdictions.  “She became pregnant and was made to have an abortion at age 11 ½.  She doesn’t remember any sexual abuse after that date.”[3]

Even if the word “suppressed” had not been used, the pointed use of the word “memories” in the report is indicative of repressed memory accusations. Generally when people report past events they do not do so under the context of “identifying memories”.

After those initial accusations in August, authorities made contact with, and began to question the other five siblings. On October 7th, three of the siblings (T.A.), (A.J.), and (E.M.) provided authorities with a 36 page collaborative report detailing several murders they witnessed spanning two Missouri counties. They were able to lead authorities to the approximate spot they say they helped to bury one of the murder victims. On October 29th, (T.A.) again spoke with the detective; this time alleging that she recalled her grandfather keeping a female child in his basement crawlspace. The siblings also told authorities that as they were being abused, the men told them to write down what was happening to them. These notes were placed in mason jars then buried.  The siblings say their abusers told them that if they buried these notes, their memories would also become buried. [4][5]

A fourth sibling (E.W.) told police that he had once unearthed some of those jars as a child, but reburied them at the request of his sisters.[4] Based on these statements, a search warrant was issued for the farm previously owned by Burrell Mohler Sr. to search for bodies, other evidence of murder, items from the crawlspace, and the mason jars. [6]

On November 10, 2009, as authorities swarmed the Bate City farmhouse with backhoes and shovels, detectives from Lafayette and various other counties were dispatched to arrest Burrell Sr. and his sons.

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” – Winston Churchill

As the arrests were made public, lead investigator, Sheriff Kerrick Alumbaugh, held a press conference. The stated purpose for the conference was to urge other possible victims to come forward. Specifically, investigators wished to locate the girl said to have been held captive in the basement crawlspace.

There were, however, other remarks of interest made during that press conference. One comment in particular gives further reason to suspect that all of the accusers are engaged in the recovering of repressed memories: Q: “How does the time factor complicate the case?” A: “Time factor always complicates a case. But when memories of this come out with the victims, as you talk about it, as you investigate it, more comes out.” [7]

Alumbaugh also defended the large amounts of county resources used to investigate the case, insisting the expenditures are important for protecting children: “You can read the probable cause statements as we leave and understand that this is money well spent of the tax payer’s dollars to bring these people to justice” …“They’ve had a threat to cut investigators…So, I mean, these are things that are really impacting our budgets and are very worthwhile to do because of the children.”[7]

Possibly most important, were the personal motivations Sheriff Alumbaugh expressed: “You personally attach it to yourself. You have children at home. You think about your children, you think about children that you know. Our biggest concern right now are those victims and those children that are out there that are potential victims. So, each one of us takes this very personally.”[7]

“All wrong-doing is done in the sincere belief that it is the best thing to do” – Arnold Bennet

Perhaps Sheriff Alumbaugh was thinking of a 5 year old girl he met in 2006, and hoping that, through aggressively pursuing the Mohler men, he could begin to repair his part in that child’s tragedy:

In 2006, the nude, battered body of 41 year old Marsha Spicer was found in a shallow grave in Lafayette County. Lorie Dunfield, a friend of Spicer’s, reported to authorities that she believed Spicer may have been involved with a man named Richard Davis. Dunfield reported that Richard Davis had recently asked her to assist him in videotaping the torture and murder of other women during three-way sex. “He wanted me to help him kill women and get rid of the bodies.” Dunfield said.[8]  Lorie Dunfield managed to get away from Davis, but believed that her friend, Marsh Spicer, may have later hooked up with him. Sheriff Alumbaugh and his deputies were called to interview Richard Davis and his girlfriend, Dena Riley, in regard to the Spicer homicide.

Richard Davis was already being sought by his parole officer after serving 16 years for raping and sodomizing a woman at knife point. His parole officer had been unable to contact him for a drug screening. Upon arriving at Davis’ apartment, investigators noted a video camera trained on the bed, an open journal with notations about choking and sex, and marijuana on a table. During that initial interview, Davis’ girlfriend Dena Riley admitted that Davis was into violent sex.

Rather than detain Davis, Sheriff Alumbaugh told Richard Davis and Dena Riley to leave the premises while he applied for a search warrant. Alumbaugh and his deputies returned hours later. The investigators viewed the tape currently in the VCR next to Davis’ bed. It was a “snuff video” of the rape, beating, and strangulation of Marsha Spicer. It appeared that the couple may have been watching the video just prior to the Sheriff and deputies’ arrival. Regrettably, since Alumbaugh had not detained Davis and Riley, they had fled the city. It was eight days before a nationwide manhunt managed to locate the couple for arrest. During this time, Richard Davis kidnapped and raped a 5 year old girl. The child’s injuries were so severe; she had to be airlifted to a hospital.

Police Chief Fred Mills defended Alumbaugh’s decision, “You can spin the facts any way you want. But we had no probable cause to arrest them. What you need for an arrest warrant is a lot more than you need for a search warrant.” Alumbaugh said, “We just didn’t have enough (evidence). We weren’t ready to do hard questioning on them.”

None-the-less, Alumbaugh arrested the six Mohler men with only accusations from the alleged victims. These men had no parole violations, no drugs on their nightstands, and no past convictions for violent rapes. In fact they had no criminal histories at all. There were no bodies recently discovered in shallow graves, neither were the men holed up in shabby apartments with meth-addicted girlfriends. The Mohler men were arrested while at home with their wives or working for their longtime employers, to be charged with crimes allegedly occurring decades ago.

Newly appointed prosecutor, Kellie Ritchie filed the charges. It was while working as assistant DA in Buchanan County that Ritchie began concentrating on sexual assault cases. Four years out of law school, Ritchie was ready for greater responsibility at the same time that her boss wished to have one prosecutor handle all sexual abuse cases.[9] Ritchie readily accepted that challenge and helped to open a children’s advocacy center. Since her February, 2009 appointment to the Lafayette County office, Ritchie has continued her dedication to assisting victims of rape, raising awareness through a county Denim Day, [10] and promising the vigorous prosecution of any in possession of child pornography. [11] While these are all commendable pursuits; could this focus have clouded the prosecutor’s judgment in filing charges based on dubious repressed memory accusations?

“An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation” – Mahatma Gandhi

The Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI has assisted in investigations of hundreds of cases in which adults begin to report that they were victims of extreme abuses as children. Allegations involve multiple victims and multiple offenders and often include insertion of foreign objects, witnessing mutilations, as well as sexual acts and murders being filmed or photographed. In several of these cases, women claim to have had babies that were turned over for human sacrifice. Such accusations are most common in rural or suburban communities with high concentrations of religiously conservative people. According to Behavioral Science Unit Supervisory Agent Kenneth Lanning, “In none of the multidimensional child sex ring cases of which I am aware have bodies of the murder victims been found – in spite of major excavations where the abuse victims claim the bodies were located. …Not only are no bodies found, but also, more importantly, there is no physical evidence that a murder took place. Many of those not in law enforcement do not understand that, while it is possible to get rid of a body, it is even more difficult to get rid of the physical evidence that a murder took place.” – Kenneth Lanning, FBI [12]

In 1994, the US Government funded a study by The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Researchers found more than 12,000 accusations of group cult sexual abuse, but none were able to be substantiated. The principle investigator in that study, Dr. Gail Goodman, commented, “While you would not expect to find corroborating evidence in many sexual abuse cases, you would expect it when people claim the rituals involved murders, and the reported cases come from district attorneys or police…If there is anyone out there with solid evidence… we would like to know about it.”[13][14] Large scale government funded investigations were also conducted in the states of Michigan, Utah, and Virginia with the same empty-handed results.

If Lafayette County officials were familiar with any of these reports, they should not have been surprised to find only one broken jar (no note), a bone fragment (unknown type), some broken eyeglasses, half a credit card, and a shoe sole in their excavation of the Bates City farm.[15]

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.  It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. – Mark Twain

The Sheriff’s press conference proved more fruitful than the farm excavation. The following day, a woman came forward claiming to have been held in the basement’s crawlspace for several years as a child. “She recalls becoming pregnant twice while in captivity.   Burrell Sr. and Burrell Ed Jr. put the first infant in a box and buried it in the dirt floor under the window. Days later, the floor was covered in concrete.”[16] Ground penetrating radar was used to locate a “box-like” area under the concrete and a new search warrant issued. Detectives returned to the farmhouse, broke open the concrete floor, but found only dirt.  Samples of the dirt were removed for analysis.[17] Announcements of basement sex-slave and her murdered infant made for more sensational headlines, although no charges were ever filed in regard to her. Three weeks later, Sheriff Alumbaugh said that the woman “is longer part of this investigation.”[18] This proclamation has not been widely reported.

In addition to the basement captive, a local man whose ex-wife had once been married to Ed Mohler came forward following the press conference. Mark Young and Pamela Young divorced in 1993 with Pamela gaining custody of their son. Pamela then married Ed Mohler in 1999. Mr. Young has interviewed on several television news programs, as well as with print media, claiming that Ed’s ex-wife (mother of the accusers), Jeanette Mohler (Cyr) had come to him in January 2000 alleging that Ed was abusing Mark and Pamela’s son. Mr. Young says that he then filed complaints and won custody of the boy in an emergency hearing. Public records show, however, that Mark Young did not file for custody of his son until 2002.[19]  His ex-wife had already divorced Ed Mohler nearly a year prior, in the spring of 2001.[20]

The siblings’ mother, Jeanette Mohler, told investigators that she knew about, or suspected the abuse at the time it was happening. “At the time, complaints by the mother were taken to the head of the church rather than law enforcement”. [21] Bishop Tonga, now retired, recalls Jeanette’s complaints to him. Tonga says he interviewed both Ed and the siblings and they all denied the mother’s accusations. No further action was taken by the mother or by Mr. Tonga. Only Ed, Jeanette, and their children were members of Mr. Tonga’s congregation. No complaints were taken to any member of the other men’s churches.

The statements made by Jeanette Mohler are puzzling. Just as the original accusations have expanded to include bestiality, kidnappings, and murders, they have also expanded in time, now encompassing twelve years, from 1983 to 1995. Jeanette remained married to Ed throughout this time, not filing for divorce until 1997. During their divorce, both Ed and Jeanette continued to attend the Independence Missouri Mormon Church. It’s more probable that it was during this period that the mother began leveling these complaints against her husband to her church, and to her six children.

“There are people so prone to exaggeration that they can’t tell the truth without lying”. – Josh Billings

Defendant Burrell Mohler Sr. has been the most maligned in the media due to the finding of “incest pornography” at his home. On the day of his arrest, his wife, Sandra Mohler, voluntarily allowed investigators into all common areas of the house.  (Some areas were excluded as they are private quarters for an unrelated boarder). According to the investigator’s affidavit, Mrs. Mohler explained to Jackson County Detective Cathy Covey that she and her husband had arranged for separate bedrooms “after she had discovered he was viewing magazines and videos depicting persons involved in sexual activity”.[21]  (This statement has been consistently misquoted in the press). Mrs. Mohler reported that although they had begun to sleep separately, both had full access to all areas of the residence. She indicated that her husband commonly used the computer in her room because he had never set-up internet access for the computer in his basement bedroom.

Mrs. Mohler also “had full permission to enter his sleeping area downstairs”.[22] She stated that on two occasions she had looked in hidden areas of her husband’s bedroom to find his pornography. She told Detective Covey that she had taken away the magazines she found most objectionable and locked them in her file cabinet. Mrs. Mohler voluntarily supplied the investigators with the key to that filing cabinet. The magazines she had locked away included 5 digest style magazines which showed photos of adult models, engaged in sexual activity, with narratives depicting incestuous relationships.[22] “Incest is, in fact, sexual relations between individuals of any age too closely related to marry. It need not necessarily involve an adult and a child”.[12] Those 5 magazines are the most widely reported finding to imply the guilt of all six men, although none of them involve children or even models who appear to be children. The primary stash of pornography, later found in Burrell Sr.’s sleeping quarters, consisted of at least 65 more magazines, movies, and books – none of which were incest related.[23] In fact, many of these were specifically about and for senior citizens. One dvd has the words “Grandma and Grandpa” in the title and has been falsely reported as “incest porn” when in fact it is only about sexuality between aging partners.[24]

Many observers have noted that the search inventories included many unmarked or hand labeled videos. It’s been speculated that those tapes may contain child pornography but the information has not been released to the public. In fact, some articles on the case have falsely reported that illegal pornography was seized. Possession of child porn in the state of Missouri is a felony carrying up to a 10 year sentence. None of the men have been charged with this or any other offense resulting from the searches. Despite the wide assortment of accusations, the men are charged only with the crimes in which no physical evidence would necessarily be expected.

“They were distinguished for ignorance for they had just one idea and that was wrong.” – Benjamin Disraeli

When asked where the accusing Mohler siblings reside, Sheriff Alumbaugh states that they are “from all over right now”.[7] While this is true, the primary accuser resides in the college town of Provo, Utah and two other siblings show previous addresses in Provo. Provo, Utah is home to the Brigham Young University, run by the LDS Church. For a city of only 42 square miles, it has seen more than its share of repressed memory scandals. “Following a single article in the Provo weekly paper [about the FMS Foundation], in three days, over 150 families in this single geographical area called to report their experience.” Institute for Psychological Therapies, 1992

The student Counseling Center at BYU offers therapy to students for abuse issues. The Center’s website asserts, “Some individuals have little or no memory of being sexually abused and its impact upon them until adulthood.” [25] The Center also recommends books by repressed-memory therapists, Lynn Finney, Beverly Engel, and Noemi Mattis, as suggested reading. “The authors of these books all rely on the one another’s work as supporting evidence for their work; they all endorse and recommend one another’s books to their readers. If one of them comes up with a concocted statistic — such as ‘more than half of all women are victims of childhood sexual trauma’ — the numbers are traded like baseball cards, reprinted in every book and eventually enshrined as fact. Thus the cycle of misinformation, faulty statistics and invalidated assertions maintains itself….” -Carol Tavris

Lynn Finney is known for her promotion of self-hypnosis to recover memories of abuse, and for her belief that fully one-third of all women have been victims. In fact, Finney’s one-third statistic leads BYU Counseling Center’s website page for students seeking therapy.[25] One of Finney’s former patients, Martha Beck, authored the 2005 book Leaving the Saints. Beck is a Provo native, a therapist, and past professor of Sociology at BYU. It was while teaching at BYU, that Beck recovered memories of ritual abuse. In her book, Beck brags of her cruel confrontation with her 90 year old ailing father, “I grin, but my father is not amused. He looks longingly toward the hotel room door, apparently realizing I’m not about to let him leave.” [26] All seven of Beck’s siblings have expressed outrage and condemned these allegations.

Beverly Engel espouses, “If you still have a hard time believing a survivor…look at your own history for signs that you yourself may have been abused and are in denial” Engel gives a list of symptoms to assist the reader in determining if they have been abused and are in denial. Those symptoms include:  feeling ugly; a tendency to apologize; feeling helpless; or problems in relationships.[27]

Also recommended by the BYU Counseling Center is the 1993 publication Confronting Abuse.[25][28] Compiled by three Brigham Young University professors, Confronting Abuse is a collection of essays on ritual and sexual abuse. In it, repressed-memory practitioner, Neomi Mattis, describes the abuse she’s helped her patients to uncover: “In addition to all combinations of sexual intercourse genital, anal, and oral between child and adult or child and child (forced), victims are penetrated genitally or rectally with all kinds of objects, and are forced to submit to sexual activity with animals”. “They are forced to participate in all of the crimes, including sacrifice of animals; the torture and sometimes murder of babies, including in some cases the infants of young girls required to bear children specifically for sacrifice; the torture and sometimes murder of adults; and the systematic disposal of bodies.” Mattis explains why evidence of these crimes is never found, despite in-depth investigations: “Cultists include professionals, such as morticians and butchers, who are skilled at disposing of evidence.” She goes on to explain why many of the reports are verifiably false, “The victims are programmed to dissociate, so that they do not recognize or remember parts of their own experience or personality. They are trained to deny accusations, tell conflicting stories and retract their own reports”.  As for the seemingly normal, often charitable, outward lives of the accused in these child-rapes, breedings, murders, and torture, Mattis offers this, “[The Perpetrators are also]dissociative and thus unaware of their other cult-involved selves.” [29] (*See footnote) By this logic, any one of us could be not only victims, but also perpetrators of these crimes and never know it.

Just eight miles outside of Provo, the infamous “Greenbaum” [30] lecturer, Corydon Hammond operates a therapy office. In 2004, Hammond, along with Bennett Braun and Roberta Sachs of Chicago, settled a malpractice lawsuit against them by retracting repressed-memory patient Elizabeth Gale.  Hammond paid $175,000 of that $7.5M settlement.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” – Albert Einstein

It seems to be the perfect storm: A divorce with bitter custodial parent; the repressed-memory pied pipers of Provo; a lead investigator with an agenda; a newly appointed prosecutor who has specialized in sexual abuse cases; and regular sensationalist misinformation distributed in the media. Having made the allegations so public and over-extending county monies on the investigation, the likelihood that the charges will be dropped due to the lack of hard evidence is greatly lessened.

An entire generation has come up since the hysteria of the 1980’s and early 1990’s. We saw then how easily the hysteria spreads from one sibling to the next, to investigators, prosecutors, child services, the media, and to the public. Each points to the other as evidence that their beliefs are reasonable. At that time, it was daytime talk shows like Sally Jesse Raphael or Phil Donahue that disseminated these shocking tales to gullible audiences. Today, the internet has taken the place of those talk shows and it seems that audiences are just as gullible.

*Footnote:
A 1995 study found that in cases of alleged abuse with no claims of repression or amnesia by the accusers, only 22% of accused passed polygraphs.  In cases where accusers claimed a period of amnesia, 91% of accused passed polygraphs. [29]

References:

1. Bradley, D. (2009, November 23) Incest Allegations Shatter Public image of Church-Going Clan.  Kansas City Star.
2. Marttinez, E. (2009, November  12)  Child-Raping Missouri Family May Have Bodies in Yard. CBS NEWS
3. Schroer, Det. C. (2009 November 3).  Mohler Probable Cause, Lafayette Co., MO
4. Schroer, Det. C. (2009 November 9).  Mohler Probable Cause, Lafayette Co., MO
5. Reported by Sgt. Collin Stosberg , Missouri Highway Patrol
6. Bates City farm Search Warrant Authorization 11/9/09; Judge Frerking
7. Alumbaugh, K. Sheriff (2009, November 11). Press Conference. http://www.kmbc.com/video/21586514/index.html
8. Krajicek, D. (2005) Serial Killers: Partners in Crime: Ricky and Dena.  http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/partners/richard_dean_davis/1_index.html
9. Cooper, R. (2009, November 29) Former Local Attorney Involved in Huge Case. St. Joseph News Press.
10. Parmon, J. (2009, April 29) Rally Shows Support for Victims of Rape.  The Lexington News
11. Ritchie, K.W. (2010, January 25) First Year Report.
12. Lanning, K. (1992) Investigators Guide to Allegations of Ritual Child Abuse.  Behavioral Science Unit & National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.
13. Goleman, D.  (1994, October 31) Proof Lacking for Ritual Abuse. New York Times
14. Goodman, G., et al (1994) Characteristics & Sources of Allegations of Ritual Child Abuse.  Clearing House on Child Abuse & Neglect Information
15. Burns, Det. Ray (2009, November 10) Return and Inventory.   Lafayette Co., MO
16. Schroer, C. (2009, November 12) Affidavit.  Lafayette Co., MO
17. Burns, Det. Ray (2009, November 13) Return and Inventory.  Lafayette Co., MO
18. Kelleher, M.  (2009, December 12) Jared Mohler Returns to Court.  Fox 4 News
19. Pamela Young-Robinson-Mohler v Mark Young MO Case #7CV193002524 (1993-2006)
20. Burrell Edward Mohler v Pamela Robinson-Mohler  MO Case #01FC204320 (2001)
21. Lederle, Officer M.  (2009, November 10)  Affidavit.  Boone Co., MO
22. Wilson, Sgt. A.  (2009, November 10) Affidavit/ Inventory.  Jackson Co., MO
23. Cole, Det. P. & Kelley, Det. A. (2009, November 20)Return and Inventory.  Jackson Co., MO
24. http://www.over40videos.com/video/Detailed/132.shtml (WARNING – Explicit material)
25. BYU  Career and Counseling Center:  http://ccc.byu.edu/childhood-abuse
26. Beck, M. (2005) Leaving the Saints. Crown Publishing.
27. Engel, B.  (1989). The Right to Innocence. Ivy Books.
28. Horton, A.L., Harrison, B.K., & Johnson, B.L. (1993) Confronting Abuse. Desert Book Co.
29. Abrams, S. & Abrams, J.  (1995) False Memory Syndrome vs. Total Repression.  Journal of Psychiatry and Law
30. Hammond, C. (1992, June 25). “Greenbaum Speech “originally known as “Hypnosis and MPD: Ritual Abuse” Presented at the Fourth Annual Eastern Regional Conference on Abuse and Multiple Personality.  Washington DC.

Cartoon courtesy of Martha Churchill

Not Exonerated Quite Yet: An update on Missouri Mohler case
by J. Bean (A skeptic in KC)

The arrests in the fall of 2009 of Burrell Mohler Sr., his brother, and his four sons stunned Western Missouri residents.   On Friday, February 17, 2012, the community was again taken off-guard as Burrell Sr.’s impossibly high bond was reduced, then waved, releasing him from jail to  await a trial, still many months away.

On November 11, 2009 Lafayette County Sheriff Kerrick Alumbaugh, along with prosecutor Kellie Ritchie-Campbell, held a press conference, announcing the arrests of the Mohler men on charges that they had repeatedly sexually assaulted several young relatives during the 1980’s.   In the weeks following that press conference, information and speculations from authorities continued to be shared with the media.

Then, as suddenly as it had begun, the media frenzy came to a halt.  Questions as to why no charges were filed on any of the allegations which should have produced physical evidence went unanswered, as were questions as to why it’s taken over 20 years for the victims to come forward.   Now, the community is left with another mystery:  What has happened in the cases which would cause a judge to release the accused without posting bond?

Since his arrest, the legal wranglings in the case of Burrell Mohler Sr. have all centered around discovery – specifically the production of diaries and medical/therapy records.  The state’s primary justification for not producing these in the past two years has been that the alleged victims were stunned and terrified due to “unexpected” media attention.  The defense has pointed out that the only media attention the case received was immediately following the state’s calling of a press conference.   As soon as defense counsel was retained, the media blitz stopped.

In December 2011, a special appointed discovery judge issued a 30 day final deadline for the lists of physician names to be provided for subpoena.   Still nothing happened.   Burrell’s attorney filed a motion for sanctions, to be heard on Feb 17th.

In the weeks following the filing of that motion, there was a sudden flurry of activity, the accusers finally providing names of physicians and other materials.  On Wednesday, Feb 15th, the alleged victims made a statement to the Associated Press, which read in part:  “After four years of cooperating with the prosecution, we believe that a just and speedy trial can be reached without further compromising our privacy and safety”.   Due to this announcement, several media outlets noted the motion to be heard on Friday.

Friday at 10am there was a packed courtroom, as usual, on the side of the defense.  For the first time in over two years, there were also a few seats occupied on the side of the state – not supporters of the state, but members of the press.

Oral arguments began with Attorney Kim Benjamin reviewing the two years of attempts in obtaining necessary discovery.   She told of the original complaint having been brought to and investigated by neighboring Jackson County, with no charges filed.  The complaint was then taken to Lafayette County and the men immediately arrested and charged based on the victim statements alone. Only then did that county begin its investigation.

Attorney Benjamin showed color glossy photos of the original press conference, with the DA herself standing next to a chart which clearly identified the alleged victims as the children of Ed Mohler. Ms. Benjamin told of the allegations, made but not charged, of satanic rituals, severed heads floating down rivers, child prostitution as preschoolers, and live births at the ages of ten or eleven.  She said the state had denied this was a case of repressed memory, then read a quote from one of the first communications ever given to authorities, in which one of the accusers asserts she was the first of the siblings “to have adult memories of our childhood abuse”, only a few years ago. She explained how easily the defense was able to connect the accusers with a group of pet psychics and massage therapists who claim to be able to bring hidden memories out of your body cells.

The prosecutor admitted that it is a case of repressed and recently recovered memories, saying she’d never told attorneys differently.  She said she did not have control over the press conference, and spoke of the re-victimization of rape victims by having to hand over personal records.   She stressed that many records have been provided in the past couple of weeks.   The discovery judge, Hon. Michael Maloney, confirmed that he had recently received several thousand pages of materials.   In proceedings later in the day, he took the bench, and expressed some dismay that it is the defense, rather than the prosecution, seeking these and other records, as the state should have sought them in order to prove its case noting, “The results of the alleged abuse would certainly have required critical care”.

Burrell Sr.’s attorney reiterated that the appropriate time for the state’s investigation should have been prior to the arrests, rather than arrest first, and now attempting to gather the required evidence two and a half years later.  She argued that it’s not a matter of “what have you done for me lately”, but a matter of her client rotting in jail, while counsel has still not received a single page of this discovery.

Judge Harmon denied the motion for sanctions or dismissal.  Then, without it having even been asked, ordered Burrell Sr. released on his own recognizance.  The state asked there be a condition that he cannot be around children under the age of 17, which the court rejected.

Burrell’s hearing aid wasn’t working, so he had no reaction.  As the family broke into tears of joy and relief, Ms. Benjamin penned him a note saying, “You’re going home.”

Father of the accusers, Ed Mohler, awaits in jail in another county.  No similar motions have yet been filed by his public defender.

Burrell’s brother, defendant Darrel Mohler passed away in October, and thus will never hear of his accusers’ announcement that they are now ready to provide him a just and speedy trial.

]]> https://process.org/discept/2012/02/28/reminiscent-of-1692-a-modern-missouri-witch-hunt/feed/ 9 https://process.org/discept/2011/11/17/draco-death-to-the-virus/ https://process.org/discept/2011/11/17/draco-death-to-the-virus/#comments Fri, 18 Nov 2011 02:14:02 +0000 https://process.org/discept/?p=841

In a paper published 27 July [1], researchers from MIT reported successful tests in mice with a new drug that holds the promise of being a cure to all viruses. The drug, DRACO (Double-stranded RNA Activated Caspase Oligomerizer), works as a “broad-spectrum” antiviral, killing virus-hijacked cells by targeting double-stranded RNA produced in the viral replication process. DRACO proved successful against all 15 viruses tested “including rhinoviruses that cause the common cold, H1N1 influenza, a stomach virus, a polio virus, dengue fever and several other types of hemorrhagic fever.” [2]

We may expect results from cell trials against AIDS within the next 12 months.

DRACO is but one broad-spectrum therapeutic being developed as part of a project called PANACEA (Pharmacological Augmentation of Nonspecific Anti-pathogen Cellular Enzymes and Activities) headed by Dr. Todd Rider, senior staff scientist in MIT Lincoln Laboratory’s Chemical, Biological, and Nanoscale Technologies Group.

I met with Dr. Rider in the food court of the MIT co-op bookstore early on a weekday. He had already finished tending to his mice and, after we chatted, he rose to declare that he was off to do “real work”… writing grant proposals to keep his research alive.

Could you give us a broad overview of the Panacea project?

Sure. We’ve come up with a broad-spectrum antiviral that we call DRACO, Double-stranded RNA Activated Caspase Oligomerizer (I love acronyms), and it’s basically designed to detect any long double stranded RNA, so we’ve created chimeric proteins where one end will detect the chimeric RNA — the double-stranded RNA — and then the other end will trigger apoptosis, or cell suicide. So the net effect is that these DRACO molecules can go inside all the cells in your body, or at this moment, inside all the cells in a mouse, and if they don’t find anything, then they don’t do anything. But if they find a viral infection, if they find a viral double-stranded RNA, then that will activate the back ends to trigger cell suicide, and that will kill the infected cell. That terminates the infection.

So there wouldn’t be a difference between DNA Viruses and RNA Viruses?

It works with both. We’ve tested it on both. All known viruses make double-stranded RNA, and that’s true from the literature and also true from our experiments. So here (indicating illustration) the viruses we tested included a couple DNA viruses, and it worked quite nicely against those. Others in the literature are also known to make quite a bit of double-stranded RNA. Other DNA viruses, like pox viruses and herpes viruses, also make double-stranded RNA.

Has it been tested on each family of virus?

It’s been tested on these families of viruses so far (indicating paper). There are a gazillion viruses, so we’re working our way through them as quickly as we can. It’s been tested on several very different families so far.

My understanding is that viruses usually kill the cell anyway, but retroviruses usually do not. I don’t know how viruses cluster. Are there any odds at all that there would be a retrovirus that clusters too tightly in a certain organ where it [triggered cell death by DRACO] would cause a lesion?

Virtually all viruses will kill the host cell on the way out. Of the hand-full that don’t, your own immune system will try to kill those infected cells. So we’re really not killing any more cells with our appraoch than we already have been. It’s just that we’re killing them at an early enough stage before they infect and ultimately kill more cells. So if anything this limits the amount of cell death.

So that’s not really a legitimate fear.

It shouldn’t be.

How far along are you and how far away are you from human trials?

Unfortunately quite a long way. We’ve done a number of tests in mice. We need to do more testing in mice. Of course, MIT is not a pharmaceutical company. There’s only so far we can take it at MIT. We’re hoping to license it to some pharmaceutical company, and they would carry to larger-scale animal trials. Usually the FDA wants to see a lot of mouse trials, which we’ve done already; and then a lot of trials in, say, rabbits or guinea pigs, and then trials in monkeys before they approve human trials. So, if a licensee takes this, if we have funding for it, it still might take a decade or so before it really is available for humans.

So how’s the funding working now?

We have funding from NIH [National Institutes of Health].

And can you take it up to monkey here [at MIT]?

We may be able to take it into further animal models here, but mice are the easiest thing to use. We have a lot of mice. We’re also limited by funding. We only haved NIH funding at the moment, and we only have enough funding for about 1 person, and we have 4 people total, counting me, working at the moment, so we’ve split the funding four different ways…

Has anybody reached out to you?

Nope. Not so far.

When I first read about this I thought this was an amazing story, that this would be front-page news in a couple of hours. Weeks later, I was thinking this must not have been a true story. That’s when I looked it up again and saw that it was indeed on the MIT site. What’s the relative lack of interest. There haved been articles, but I feel this is definitely front-page material.

Well thank you. On the funding front, I think there’s a ton of funding for very basic research — not applied research, trying to cure something, but basic research — Let’s go study this virus, see how this virus works in a little more detail. There’s a ton of NIH funding for that. On the applied front, if you are ready for human trials — so you’re 10 years more advanced than we are now — then there are government agencies and companies that will take it and take it to that final step. But in that long gap in between there’s very very little funding out there. So we’ve been struggling for all of 11 years now just working to get funding, and at the moment we’re just barely limping along.

This is a subset of PANACEA, right? Can you describe PANACEA?

PANACEA is a family of broad-spectrum anti-pathogen treatments. We’ve tested some others, we’ve tried to get funding for others. This [DRACO] is the one that is furthest along.

What are some of the others that look promising?

We have a number of others. [DRACO] is a broad-spectrum antiviral. We have other broad-spectrum antivirals. We also have other PANACEA treatments that we’ve adapted to go after other things. Like for bacteria. And of course there are antibiotics, but for bacteria that are resistant to existing antibiotics, such as tuberculosis, malaria… so we can adapt this to pathogens other than viruses. We’ve done some initial experiments, we just can’t get funding for that so far.

Do you foresee any potential wild-cards in the human trials?

It’s always difficult to tell what will happen. I hope that there won’t be. We’re always concerned that there will be some toxicity or other unforeseen problems. We’ve been very pleased every step of the way in the cell testing. We’ve tested in a number of different human cell types representing many different organs; human lung cells, human liver cells, all kinds of different human cells, as well as a variety of animal cells. We haven’t seen any toxicity or any other strange effects in any of those cell types. In the mice we were again very concerned about toxicity, and we haven’t seen any toxicity in the mice. We inject the mice with very high doses of the stuff daily for a number of days, and they seem fine. We let them move for a while, eventually we dissected them, looked at the tissues. All the tissues were fine, there’s no organ damage or anything. It’s always possible something unexpected could come up further down the road in monkies or in humans. We certainly hope not. But I think there is enough flexibility in the concept that even if there were a problem, there are ways to redesign the constructs that we have to overcome any potential problems.

That might also speak to the production cost. Is it fairly low production cost if, say, it was to be mass-produced in the future?

These are produced in bacteria, and at the moment I really don’t know what the ultimate production cost would be. We produce on a very small scale, barely enough for our mice. Of course cells eat a lot less DRACO than mice do. So if we’re producing for cells, that’s a very small quantity, but just a few flasks of bacteria will produce enough to last us for a while. But once you scale this up to a large-scale production large-scale animal trials or human trials, hopefully the cost would go down. I don’t know exactly what the cost would be.

Do you envision the final end-plan to be people with DRACO in their medicine cabinet, or more like penicillin today?

If it’s safe I’d like to see it used as much as possible for as many different things as possible. I would guess that if it were approved for human use by the FDA, initially they would be conservative enough that they would only want to see it used in very dire cases, just in case there are interesting side-effects or something, and it’s only to people with ebola or HIV that’s become resistant to other drugs who would get this. If this proved to be safe in those cases, then I would hope that they’d approve it for wider use against more common pathogens, perhaps all the way down to the common cold. And if it really is safe, then maybe you’d just pop a DRACO pill any time you felt a cold coming on.

How long does it stay in the system? It’s obviously not a vaccine —

Right. In cells it lasts at least for a couple of weeks, possibly longer. In the mice it lasts for at least 2 days. We have a lot of data in the paper showing it will persist in mice for at least 48 hours at fairly high doses in the tissues. This is really about trying to optimize that. There are a lot of tricks we can use to try to make it last longer if necessary. And if this stuff is truly completely safe, then you can give it prophylactically. You could even concievably give someone the gene for the DRACO so that their cells would just permanently produce the DRACO, and they would naturally be resistant to almost everything.

Oh, wow. That’s an amazing idea.

Thanks.

I feel like this is something that should be fast-tracked. We have all this planning in regards to epidemics. There is all kinds of scare that we’re ripe for an epidemic.

Perhaps we will be [approached with funding offers] in the future, but so far we haven’t been. We’ve really struggled along for the past 11 years, barely getting enough funding to stay alive.

So this has been on the table, at least as an idea, for 11 years?

Right. We just got good data from the mouse trials and published that, but 11 years ago we started engineering the DRACOs. Genetic engineering was a bit more primative in those days, so it took us a while to actually produce these things. Then it took us a while to produce and test them in cells. We ultimately tested against 15 different viruses in cells. As I said, we were kind of limping along for funding for much of that time, so we could only work on it when we had funding to work on it. For some fraction of our time, we had funding to work on it. Eventually, we were able to test against the 15 different viruses in cells in 11 different cell types. And then we had funding to do some mouse trials, got data, and then we got published.

If you get a cold this winter… are you going to be tempted?

I’m not tempted by colds. I’ve had very bad stomach viruses and I’ve been tempted to give myself the stuff to see what would happen.

You don’t think you’ll do that, though?

It wouldn’t be enough anyway. We only produce enough for mice, and for a human you require a much larger dose than for a 20 gram mouse.

*********

1. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022572
2. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html

If by “attack” he means “directly confront them with their own incredible narratives, question their defense of such narratives when told by others, while asking clarification on where the demarcation between recovered memories and delusions can be found (unless we are to unquestioningly accept all stories of satanic conspiracy, alien abduction, and past-life regression)”, then this fear is well-founded.  But if these people, this “everyone”, within Brick’s “field” agree with his notions of Satanic Ritual Abuse and Mind-Control, and if they feel that this is a position that is evidence-based and rational, then my scrutiny should not be an object of fear.  It should be welcomed, and the answers to any such questions should be forthcoming.  If instead, they choose to distance themselves from Neil Brick only to conceal a position that is not supported by evidence, can not be justified by facts, only so that they may hide their delusions behind the professional veneer afforded to repressed memory theory by way of poor retrospective surveys and bad data… then they are a craven lot indeed, and would be fully deserving of Neil Brick’s scorn…

If only he’d acted any differently himself…Ironically, this all stemmed from

Having entered the hotel slightly after the opening speaker of S.M.A.R.T.’s twelfth annual Ritual Abuse, Secretive Organizations, and Mind-Control conference began, I was told by a large woman sitting behind the registration table that I would have to wait until I could be properly registered before entering. I took a seat just outside the open door of the conference room where I could observe the full proceedings within. Brick stood at the podium. As I described him later in my subsequent “defamatory” report, he is a “small man in his 50s with a greasy dark curly comb-over, large thick glasses, and a voice that sounds exacly like Elmer Fudd (without the impediment of pronouncing his Rs as Ws).”

He was delivering the opening remarks. He was wearing a button-up shirt at least two sizes too large for his diminutive frame.  (This physical description is important when you consider his claim to have been a type of super-soldier for Black Ops military.)  Reading directly from his notes in a mechanical word-by-word monotone, without once looking up, he emotionlessly railed against skeptics who have sought to discredit ritual abuse as well as the validity of “recovered memories”.

“There is overwhelming scientific evidence that recovered memory exists as a phenomenon”, he asserted. He began to quote at length from sources that agree with this position.

A belief in the historical accuracy of recovered memories, as I had already discerned from their website, is vital to S.M.A.R.T.’s belief in a conspiracy of satanic cults and government mind-control. The theory espoused by recovered memory proponents (and well known in popular culture), is that traumatic memories of abuse may be repressed – relegated to some dark corner of the mind – where they unfailingly metastasize into some type of chronic negative emotions, compulsions, confusion, even physical ailments. Preserved in high-definition, and unerring detail, these oppressive unconscious memories must be drawn out, retrieved, relived, confronted, and reconciled within the conscious mind, before the victim can lead a happy and productive life.

Almost all of the self-proclaimed victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse have recovered their memories of victimization while undergoing some type of psychotherapy. For the most part, these memories are the only type of “evidence” they attempt to present in support of the claim that such victimization ever occurred.

The process of digging for repressed traumatic memories through hypnosis or other techniques is most often employed in treatment of the diagnosis of Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), now re-labeled as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Due to their almost total reliance upon recovered memory evidence, purveyors of satanic cult stories are often also defenders of the controversial multiple personality diagnosis, a condition that itself is dismissed by some psychiatrists and psychologists as a “behavioral artifact… generated by suggestion in vulnerable people.” (See below: Concerned Psychiatrists’ and Psychologists’ letter to the APA’s DSM-V Task Force.)

Critics of Recovered Memory Therapy point out that the act of digging for memories assumed to be repressed can have a subtly coercive effect on clients who – knowing what they are supposed to be “remembering” – are at least as prone to confabulating false memories as they are to recalling anything with historical accuracy. Given that such critics of recovered memory therapy often point directly to highly improbable claims of satanic cult abuse as evidence of false memories, it was no surprise that Neil Brick breezily dismissed skeptics as conspirators: “There is […] a lot of evidence that those attacking the theory of recovered memory may have ulterior motives. For example, they may have been accused of child abuse crimes or may have been connected to mind control research in the past.”

Using “child abuse” interchangeably with “ritual abuse”, Brick attempted to further bolster a position that those who doubt the existence of an international brain-washing coven simply despise tykes: “The media turned on child abuse survivors in the early and mid 1990′s and began to in essence support those that has [sic] perpetrated crimes against children, believing unfounded stories about so called ‘miscarriages of justice.’ Due to the extreme nature of ritual abuse crimes and the psychological need for the public denial of these crimes, it became an easy sell to spin these crimes against children for the public to believe the misstatements about falsely accused perpetrators. After ritual abuse was discredited, then other child abuse crimes could be more easily discredited.”

There you have it. You’re either with Neil Brick, or you’re with the Satanists. You either believe every outrageous claim of demonic doings, or you’re part of the cover-up. At best, you’re simply in “denial”.

Suddenly, the woman at the registration table, who had also been watching Neil Brick through the open door, began to lightly sob. She grabbed a nearby tissue, dried her eyes, and blew her nose.

I stared uncomfortably down at the program in my hands. I came looking for the reasons, the so-called evidence that compels this continued belief in satanic cult crimes… of mind control… to see the self-proclaimed byproducts of the brutal puppet masters said to control the highest reaches of the world governments with an inhuman disdain for life and liberty. Instead – with scheduled lectures entitled “Dissociation and Time Management” and “The DID RA [Ritual Abuse] Family: An Attachment Perspective on a Forensic Relationship” – this conference appeared to be primarily adapted toward defending the DID diagnosis.

According to his biographical synopsis on the program, Neil Brick describes himself as a “survivor of alleged Masonic Ritual Abuse and MK-ULTRA [the CIA’s covert mind-control and chemical interrogation project of 1950s – 60s]“. The disclaimer of the word “alleged” in his own biographical description is perplexing…

I mulled over this as Brick eventually concluded his labored lecture. What did it mean?

Brick came out to the registration table during the break following his presentation gripping a briefcase. He scrutinized me momentarily.

I checked out. Given the nod, my attendance was then officially approved.

I stationed myself anonymously in the second to last occupied row at the far left side of the room.

Never, it occurred to me, have I heard anybody describe oneself as an “alleged victim of a mugging”, nor would I expect one to tell me, “I was allegedly harassed by a drunkard last night”. Considering this, I wondered if perhaps Neil Brick himself is uncertain as to whether or not he was a victim of the CIA or Masonic abuse. In fact, despite a veneer of confident assurance that the satanic conspiracy is an unquestionable item of fact, the conference was rife with inconsistency and an undercurrent of doubt…

Anyway, it was the inconsistent, and wildly incredible, content of the conference that I focused on in my writing. And this was no mere point-and-laugh tactic for the amusement of those who cultivate an air of superiority with smug disbelief toward any outside notion. The conference wasn’t merely absurd, I saw it as harmful and exploitative to the attendees — many of whom seemed to imagine it as therapeutic — as well as some of the speakers… some of whom are unfortunately licensed therapists.

It is natural to laugh at absurdity. It would have been difficult to write about the sales booth within the conference room hawking electromagnetic transmission blocking hats without sounding humorous. But I was outright horrified when a 78 year-old woman, who referred to herself as Julaine, sat before the attendees — unable to stand for any extended time — to explain that she had suffered some type of negative diabetic reaction earlier that day, and that her rheumatoid arthritis was causing her no small amount of discomfort. She attributed both of these conditions to a conspiracy of evil. Rheumatoid arthritis and Satanic Ritual Abuse, Julaine posited, are “almost partners”.

Clearly, this woman needed real medical attention. To allow her to delude herself — or worse, actively feed her the delusion — that her ill health is a side-effect, and evidence of, satanic conspiracy is beyond irresponsible. Worse, these delusions have apparently encouraged the aged and infirm Julaine to sever ties with the family members who may have been most willing to help her now… You see, Julaine’s family, she believes, is a multi-generational satanic cult. “My sister thinks I’m bi-polar”, she explained. This, of course, is seen as mere denial. “She is lost”.

That Julaine is highly impressionable seemed apparent at the conference, but it was after the conference that this became quite clear.

I was perusing the website of another speaker, deJoly LaBrier, when I came across the transcripts of a lecture she had given at a much earlier S.M.A.R.T. gathering. In it, she told a familiar tale: “[My father] would draw a dot on the wall, and [my siblings and I] would stand at attention with our nose on the dot on the wall, until he told us that we could leave.”

I clearly remembered hearing the story at the conference I had attended, for it struck me as odd… Rotten though this nose-to-the-wall experience would be for any child, I couldn’t help but feel such punishments would be quite over-shadowed by the compulsory initiation into sadistic cult rituals and child prostitution that LaBrier claimed had also taken place… So much so that being made to stand in a fixed position felt rather unworthy of mention.

But it wasn’t LaBrier who told this tale at the 2009 conference. It was Julaine.

Had it occurred to Neil Brick (who is a licensed and practicing “Mental Health Counselor” in Massachusetts), or any other attending therapist, that Julaine may not in fact have been victim to “Moriah, Illuminati… whatever you want to call it” (as she referred to “Them” in her lecture), but rather an incredibly suggestible and vulnerable old woman who has difficulty distinguishing stories she has heard from her own autobiographical memory?

Apparently not.

To allow any such questions to encroach on any one of the delusive narratives told would cast doubt on them all… and they all had their own ludicrous tales to defend with nothing more than shallow assertions of recovered memory accuracy.

For this reason, not even the most impossible of claims were met with so much as a raised eye-brow or embarrassed cough. Nobody showed a hint of doubt when a speaker going by the name of “Royal”, at all of about forty years of age, stood before us to claim that she was a personal slave to nazi doctor Josef Mengele. “My experience with Mengele”, Royal explained in a lecture (the gist of which was that Satan uses abortion as a means of traumatic mind-control), “involved much of the trauma-based mind control involving core programming (such as End-Time programming) that is connected to the global take over. He used the Psychic/Spiritual dimensions using, what I have come to call ‘demonic harmonics’, which involves using musical tones and quantum physics to open up portals into the spiritual realms. I also have core programs set up that were created using abortions as a means to develop them and more.”

Following the publication of the report, Brick went all to pieces, leaving angry comments, penning a “rebuttal”. Oddly enough though, none of his objections confronted my outrage at the absurdity of the very conspiracy theory that underlies the entire narrative framework of the conference, and of S.M.A.R.T., itself. Though claiming I misrepresented the entire affair, he failed to explain how. He failed to answer any questions regarding his own experiences as an “alleged” victim of “Masonic Ritual Abuse and MK-ULTRA”. He failed to answer any questions directly aimed at elaboration upon his belief in a massive satanic conspiracy. He failed to confront any questions regarding the content of the conference to instead assert, again and again, supported with lists of journal article citations supporting the view, that recovered memories are a real phenomenon.

 

* * * * * * * * *

Concerned Psychiatrists and Psychologists Letter to the DSM-V Committee

A Group of Concerned Psychiatrists and Psychologists

c/o Dr. Paul McHugh, MD

Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry

Johns Hopkins University

April 11, 2009

Dr. David J. Kupfer, MD

Chair of DSM-V Committee,

Dr. Thomas Detre Professor and Chair, Department of Psychiatry

Professor of Neuroscience, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic

5811 O’Hara Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15215

RE: Dissociative Identity Disorder and DSM-V

Dear Dr. Kupfer:

We are writing to you to express concern with respect to the continuation of Dissociative Identity Disorder as an approved diagnosis within the forthcoming DSM-V. We believe that the identification of Multiple Personality Disorder, and later its name change as Dissociative Identity Disorder, has been harmful to the good sense and reputation of psychiatry, not to mention the cause of grave ill-effects to large numbers of patients and their families. In the attached document we maintain that the diagnosis should be removed from DSM-V and we provide the basis for our request. If either the Task Force or Council is unable to agree on removing DID completely from the 5th Edition we suggest that at the very least it should be placed in Appendix B as an experimental criterion set requiring further investigation.

Respectfully,

Signatories

(Please see Appendix A)

Attachments

To: DSM-V Task Force &

Work Group on Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum,

Posttraumatic & Dissociative Disorders

Statement on:

The need to remove Dissociative Identity Disorder from DSM-V or place it in Appendix B

The evidence supporting this diagnosis as a distinct mental disorder is modest whereas much suggests it to be a behavioral artifact equivalent in nature to pseudo-epilepsy generated by suggestion in vulnerable people. Its identification as a special, separate diagnostic entity in DSM has harmed the practice of psychiatry and undermined its scientific credibility. Although it is important for us to provide evidence to support these statements, we wish to avoid excessive detail, given that such evidence has been documented widely in the published literature.

Origins

The notion of dual personalities was founded upon cases of bipolar illness (1) and was followed by the idea of extra personalities. This expansion first occurred with the hypnotically-induced introduction of a second personality and the deliberate naming of those personalities as if they were separate entities (1).

Prevalence

Taylor and Martin (2) recognized a total of 76 cases occurring between 1816 and 1944—slightly more than one every two years; they thought a similar number might be unreported. In 1954 Thigpen and Cleckley (3) reported their case, which was published as “The Three Faces of Eve” in 1957. After a film was made of this case, the numbers of reported cases increased steadily; there was a further dramatic leap after the film of “Sybil”. By 1990 thousands of cases were being diagnosed; some authors identified more cases in their personal practices than had been described in the literature over an entire century.

Twentieth Century Suggestion

As is well known, Sybil, a patient of Dr. Cornelia Wilbur, was fully aware that her therapist wanted her to create extra personalities (4). In 1973, Dr. Wilbur gave tape recordings of Sybil’s interviews to Schreiber [the journalist who reported Sybil as a case of multiple personality disorder (5)]. Schreiber made the recordings available to Ronald Rieber, a professor of psychology, who amassed evidence showing that at least some of the personalities were artifacts overtly created in treatment (6).

Etiology

Dissociative Identity Disorder is often alleged to result from repressing an experience of childhood sexual abuse. This claim has not received adequate scientific validation. For example, Piper and Merskey (7) reviewed all the studies that claimed to corroborate DID patients’ abuse recollections. These authors concluded that “no evidence supports the claim that DID patients as a group have actually experienced the traumas asserted by the disorder’s proponents” (7).

Proponents of the DID diagnosis assert that horrific, repeated childhood physical and sexual abuse is the primary cause of DID. Victims supposedly develop their multiple personalities as repositories for traumatic memories that the “host” personality is unable to tolerate consciously. The DID diagnosis thus relies on the concept of traumatic Dissociative Amnesia (DA or “repression”): the notion that the mind protects itself by banishing terrifying memories from awareness, rendering them inaccessible until the person feels psychologically safe to recall them, often years later. There is no convincing evidence that victims can become incapable of recalling genuinely traumatic experiences, as the trauma theory of DID requires (8). Indeed, an extensive survey of the historical literature, including both fictional and non-fictional written works in multiple languages, found no written example of “dissociative amnesia” prior to 1786 (9). Thus the notion of “repressing” a memory itself, like DID, appears to represent a recent culture-bound phenomenon, rather than a naturally occurring human psychological process.

In a comprehensive analysis of studies of people with documented trauma histories, not a single mention of spontaneous amnesia for the traumatic event was found—unless the forgetting was attributable to either organic amnesia or childhood amnesia (10). Finally, an examination of Freud’s original work gives reason to think that the evidence from psychoanalysis for repression is also very unsatisfactory (11, 12).

Harmful Effects

Due to the assumption that trauma is a primary etiological factor, the DID diagnosis has resulted in wrongful accusations of sexual abuse on the basis of recovered memories, not only in North America but throughout the developed world (references). DID has caused mockery of psychiatry, and, for patients, has led to misdiagnosis (13), mismanagement (14) and inadequate treatment of depression (15).

Lack of Consensus

Canadian and American psychiatrists show little consensus regarding the diagnostic status and scientific validity of DID. In surveys of board-certified psychiatrists in the United States (16) and Canada (17) fewer than one-third of Canadian psychiatrists and 35% of American psychiatrists replied that DA & DID should be included without reservations in the DSM-IV; fewer than 1 in 7 Canadian psychiatrists and only 21-23% of American psychiatrists replied that there was “strong evidence of validity” for these disorders. French- and English-speaking Canadians had similar opinions.

Conclusions

There are overwhelming reasons to question the validity of Dissociative Identity Disorder. We respectfully urge you as members of the Work Group and the Task Force to drop the category of dissociative disorders from the upcoming DSM-V: it is harmful to patients and their families, scientifically unjustified, and undermining the credibility of psychiatry.

Signatories

Please see Appendix A.

REFERENCES

1. Merskey, H. (1992a). The manufacture of personalities. The production of multiple personality disorder. Brit. J. Psychiat., 160:327-340.

2. Taylor W.F. & Martin M.F. (1944) Multiple personality. J. Abnormal & Soc. Psychol., 39:281-330.

3. Thigpen, C.H. & Cleckley, H.M. (1957). The Three Faces of Eve. New York: McGraw-Hill.

4. Spiegel, H. (1993) Mistaken Identities: Toronto. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Fifth Estate, 9 November 1993.

5. Schreiber, F.R. (1973) Sybil. Chicago: Henry Regnery.

6. Rieber, R.W. (2006) The Bifurcation of the Self. The History and Theory of Dissociation and Its Disorders. New York: Springer Science.

7. Piper, A., Merskey, H., (2004). The persistence of folly: a critical examination of dissociative identity disorder. Part I. The excesses of an improbable concept. Can J Psychiatry 49 (9): 592-600.

8. McNally, R. J. (2003) Remembering Trauma. Belknap Press/Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

9. Pope, H.G. Jr., Poliakoff, M.B., Parker, M.P., Boynes, M.D., & Hudson, J.I. (2007) Is dissociative amnesia a culture-bound syndrome? Findings from a survey of historical literature. Psychol. Med., 37(2):225-233.

10. Pope, H. G. Jr., Oliva, P., Hudson, J.I.: (2005) Repressed memories. The scientific status of research on repressed memories, in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony—Social and Behavioral Science, 2005-2006 Edition. Edited by Faigman D, Kaye D, Saks M, Sanders J. Eagen, MN, West Group, pp 408-447.

11. Esterson, A. (1993) Seductive Mirage. Open Court: Chicago.

12. Crews, F. (1998) Unauthorized Freud: Doubters Confront a Legend. New York: Viking.

13. Freeland, A., Manchanda, R., Chiu, S., et al. (1993) Four cases of supposed multiple personality disorder: evidence of unjustified diagnoses. Can. J. Psychiat., 23: 245-247.

14. McHugh, Paul R. (2008) Try to Remember: Psychiatry’s Clash over Meaning, Memory, and Mind. Chapters 4 &5. Dana Press.

15. Fetkewicz, J., Sharma, V. & Merskey, H. (2000) A note on suicidal deterioration with recovered memory, treatment. J. Affect. Dis., 58:155-159.

16. Pope, H.G., Jr., Oliva, P.S., Hudson, J.I., Bodkin, J.A. & Gruber, A.J. (1999) Attitudes toward DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders Diagnoses among Board-Certified American Psychiatrists. Am. J. Psychiat., 2000; 157:1179-1180.

17. Lalonde, J.K., Hudson, J.I., Gigante, R.A. & Pope, H.G. Jr. (2001) Canadian and American psychiatrists’ attitudes toward Dissociative Disorders diagnoses. Can. J. Psychiat., 46(5): 407-412.

Appendix A

List of Signatories

1. Paul R. McHugh, M.D. Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University.

2. Harrison Pope, Jr., MD, MPH, Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory, McLean Hospital, Belmont Massachusetts

3. James Hudson, MD, ScD, Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory, McLean Hospital, Belmont Massachusetts

4. Elizabeth Loftus, PhD, Distinguished Professor, University of California-Irvine.

5. Richard J. McNally, Ph.D., Professor and Director of Clinical Training, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

6. Harold Merskey, FRCPsych., Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario

7. Joel Paris, M.D. Professor of Psychiatry, McGill University, SMBD-Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec H3T1E4, Canada.

8. August Piper, M.D., Independent practice of psychiatry, Seattle, WA.

9. Numan Gharaibeh, MD (MB, BCh), Danbury, CT.

10. Pamela Freyd, Ph.D.

11. Eduard Vieta, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.

12. Philip G. Janicak, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Rush University, Chicago, Il.

13. Gerald M. Rosen, Ph.D., Private practice, Seattle, Clinical Professor, University of Washington.

14. Steven Jay Lynn, Ph.D., ABPP, Professor, Binghamton University (SUNY) Binghamton, NY.

15. Sally Satel, MD, resident scholar American Enterprise Institute; staff psychiatry Oasis Clinic, Washington DC; lecturer, Yale University School of Medicine.

16. James M. Wood, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso.

]]> https://process.org/discept/2010/11/07/in-defense-of-neil-brick-psychotherapist/feed/ 0 https://process.org/discept/2010/10/18/among-the-abducted/ https://process.org/discept/2010/10/18/among-the-abducted/#comments Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:33:19 +0000 https://process.org/discept/?p=730 This is the first report of my experiences with individuals who feel that they have had personal contact with extraterrestrials.  More are forthcoming.  Where appropriate, names have been changed…

out-sized forehead, black almond-shaped eyes

Laughlin, Nevada is the kind of place where vegetarianism is deviant. Even the lentil soup comes served with large chunks of sausage in it… Thick, greasy, lips-and-asshole chorizo sausage. Even when picked out, it befouls the rest of the soup with its putrid flavor.

I have to send it back. “This has sausage in it”, I tell the waitress.

“Yes”, the waitress says, nonplussed, “you ordered the lentil soup”.

The atmosphere has abruptly changed. My effeminate coastal dietary peculiarities have made my presence suddenly unwelcome. I feel a wave of panic fill the room. At surrounding tables, the bloated men in cowboy hats are, I imagine, wishing that they were thirty years younger, so that they might rise up to knock some sense into my goddamn skull. To the people of Laughlin, it appears, there is nothing particularly bizarre about a group of UFO seekers holding a conference in their town, but a man who doesn’t eat meat is truly a freakish thought. Christ, it’s already noon and I don’t even have a beer in my hand. To the generally upper middle-aged, beer-bellied, cigarette-sallowed gamblers of this obscure poor-man’s alternative to Reno, I am an interloper.

I feel more at ease among the ET enthusiasts. My initial impression is that they display nothing of the unwelcoming, bitter homogeneity of the Ritual Abuse crowd. Among them are Science Fiction fans and writers, Fortean chroniclers of anomalous events, students of the paranormal, and the mere curious.

The diversity is an unexpected relief. The two-hour shuttle ride from the Vegas airport to Laughlin gave grim indications that the conference would be strictly populated by elderly New Agers.

Earlier that day, I was among the first to be shuffled aboard the small bus just outside the baggage claim. Freshly acquainted geriatric galactic citizens bemoaned the horrifying quality of in-flight meals between refined excoriations against the blind ignorance of the mainstream masses who, despite overwhelming evidence, remain skeptical to the fact that Earth is being regularly visited by extraterrestrial intelligences. They were all warming up for the conference, taking full advantage of this opportunity to preach to a captive choir. Self proclaimed “intuitives”, aura readers, psychics, and UFOlogists all began climbing aboard to contribute to an increasing din of metaphysical philosophies, conspiracy theories, and Aquarian Age wisdom. Full groups spoke to each other simultaneously, without a single member listening. The driver announced that we would be leaving in five minutes, precisely on the hour, no exceptions, at which a strained looking old fellow took immediate leave. “I’ll be right back,” he assured the driver.

Ten minutes after the hour, the impatient passengers abandoned their peaceful transcendent pretensions and began to suggest with undisguised agitation that we should move on without our missing comrade. A man volunteered to look for him. He came back and reported something in confidence to the driver who then announced, “Two more minutes!” and started the engine. Our fact-finder sat back down across from me. “He’s taking a shit”, he muttered ruefully to the passenger next to him.

Soon enough our man returned, sullen and shamed, head low.

We’re away even before he’s seated.

The responsible chronicler in me wanted that I should I mingle with the other passengers, at least listen to what they were talking about, despite a fatigue-induced disinterest. Somebody was talking about media misinformation, another about how the UFO deniers are “asleep”.

Good enough. I put on my headphones and listened to music, partially falling asleep.

Anyway, my interest is in those who claim to have been in personal contact with extraterrestrial beings. That most reports of such contact are based upon recovered memories is a well-known fact. How are these recovered memories similar or different to those reporting satanic cult activity? Proponents of recovered memories of abuse, uncomfortable with the association to ET abduction, are quick to dismiss the parallel as a cheap-shot, a low-brow attempt at discrediting all recovered memories. But, without a method by which one may reliably distinguish legitimate recovered memories from fabrications or confabulations, the abductees present a unique challenge. If one can cultivate entire false memory scenarios regarding sometimes traumatic contact with alien beings, why could one not also construct such false memories about any traumatic experience? And what makes a more plausible recovered memory any less likely to be a false construction than an implausible one?

It was, I had understood, the consistency of the abduction tales that counter-balanced their implausibility with credibility. After all, how could it be that so many people, personally and geographically unrelated, would have such similar narratives of extraterrestrial encounters if these were but personal delusions?

Despite the fact that abduction stories are so prevalent in popular culture as to render this argument ludicrous, the question has proven undeniably compelling not only to fringe spiritual seekers, but to a few respected academics and journalists as well. Most notably, professor John Mack of Harvard Medical School undertook an enormous study of over 200 abductees from 6 continents in the course of over 10 years, till his death in 2004 when he was struck by a drunken driver while crossing a London street. Mack, encouraged by his long-time friend, author Thomas Kuhn, rejected what he felt to be an inhibiting materialist dualism that is “held in place by the structures, categories, and polarities of language, such as real/unreal, exists/does not exist, objective/subjective, intrapsychic/external world, and happened/did not happen.” (Mack, 1994)

Mack set out to “collect raw information, putting aside whether or not what I was learning fit any particular world view.” (Mack, 1994) Inevitably, though, Mack strained to fit his data into a world view, albeit a world view that was unconstrained by parsimony and the standard burden of scientific proof. To Dr. Mack, abduction experiences were real “in some way”, suggesting that they could be attributed to interdimensional travel rather than intragalactic. And while Mack did consider the possibility that the abduction experience was the product of an altered state, his altered state abduction wasn’t a purely internal, subjective experience, rather it was an altered state of higher consciousness that elicited communication with higher beings. (Mack, 1999)

In his book Passport To The Cosmos, Mack explains, “It is not just the experiencers’ conviction that what they have undergone is in some way real that has made me take them seriously. The richly detailed narratives they provide, the appropriate surprise, the convincing incredulity, and above all the genuine distress or other feelings they report, together with the observable emotion and intense bodily reactions they exhibit when their experiences are recalled – all these elements combined can give any witness the sense that something powerful has happened to these individuals, however impossible this may seem from the standpoint of our traditional worldview.” (Mack, 1999)

Dr. Mack’s claims of narrative consistency notwithstanding, the abduction accounts I end up hearing at the 2010 UFO Congress convention in Laughlin, Nevada – from those who claimed to have experienced them – are surprisingly inconsistent even given the near universal knowledge of how “actual” abductions are supposed to be carried out. At the very least, I had felt, everybody agreed upon who was responsible: little grey humanoids – “Greys”, they’ve been cleverly dubbed – with outsized hairless heads, large black almond-shaped eyes, and frail bodies.

Turns out there is a whole carnival of different species beaming people into different types of craft, and for different purposes – some benevolent, some… not so much. The Contactees happily share apparently well-worn, scripted descriptions of the multitudes of distorted other-world craniums and non-human eyes they’ve observed. There are mammalians, crustaceans, and ETs entirely human in appearance. The galactic community, it seems, is as diverse as human imagination.

The Greys? …Oh, yes, them.

Well, they are out there, up to their antics still, but they seem to have fallen out of fashion of late.

Given this variety of interplanetary taxonomic categories and their broad spectrum of individual motivations for the covert Earth capers they’re said to be engaged in, these are not “abductee” sessions that I am attending as an optional evening supplement to the larger conference… As hypnotherapist (and session organizer) Mary Rodwell explains, the word “abductee” carries with it certain obvious negative connotations that do not do justice to many of the “life-enhancing” extraterrestrial encounters that many of her clients have reported. Rodwell prefers the more neutral word “experiencer”. Thus, if we could refer to each other as experiencers rather than abductees, we’d all be a bit happier, yes?

There is dissent. “I don’t think that’s fair,” one harried man objects. His experience has very much been one of being taken against his will, and he seems as skeptical of reports of positive alien encounters as most people are of tales of alien contact in general. His, presumably, was one of those close-encounters of the orifice-stretching kind, and he reserves the right – by God – to refer to himself as an abductee. There is agreement from a few others in the group of about 30 who sat in a tight circle of chairs within the small windowless hotel meeting room. The “Experiencer” label, they feel, is a whitewash. They are Abductees.

Very well then. Rodwell is flexible, conveying herself with a saintly air of tolerance. She wants the evening Experiencer Sessions to “honor” all varieties of ET contact. If there are those who wish to refer to themselves as “abductees”, all well and good. So long as everybody is sensitive to the fact that “abductee” is an unacceptable blanket label to be applied to all in the room. The abductees begrudgingly agree.

Mary Rodwell holds the title of “Principal” at an organization called ACERN (Australian Close Encounters Resource Network), with the stated goal of offering “professional counselling support, hypnotherapy and information to individuals and their families who have ‘anomalous’ paranormal experiences, particularly specializing in Abduction/contact experiences.”

“If you don’t want to share and just want to listen, that’s fine”, Rodwell assures us all, much to my relief. My unease at the prospect of around-the-circle individual introductions and biographical synopses had been growing since realizing that I am, quite possibly, the only person in the room with no memories of contact with ETs.

“The other thing I’d like you to respect is everyone has their own understanding of their experiences,” Rodwell explains. “No matter how one chooses to understand it doesn’t mean you have to subscribe to that, it just means that that’s where they are with their experiences, that’s how they choose to understand it, though it may not resonate for you. It may not fit for you at all. But that’s okay, because we have the right to interpret our experiences whatever way feels right to us.”

A middle-aged Latin man seated to my immediate left is eager to tell of his experiences.

“I’m not really good at public speaking, in fact I have a phobia about speaking in groups. But I’m here tonight because I want to be around people who have had experiences. I’ve been an experiencer for approximately 25 years. It started when I was living in the Central Valley. I was a professional person. I was a parole agent. And when I started experiencing contact, I could never talk to anybody because I was a professional man and I couldn’t approach my supervisor and say, hey, I’m speaking to little grey guys. So I just pretty much kept it to myself. So my main reason for being here is just hearing other people’s stories and not feeling so awkward about what my own personal experiences have been.”

He finishes there, apparently having gotten off his chest what he wanted to express, just enjoying – it seems – being in an environment wherein he can declare himself an “experiencer” without feeling that he’ll have made himself outcast by doing so. And this is how most of the testimonials carry on throughout this first night. Experiencers within the circle talk about the various ways in which they present themselves to outsiders, some claiming to heavily advertise their relationship with extraterrestrials, others describing the daily discomfort of keeping this part of their lives constantly concealed.

One woman chimes in: “I just want to say, chances are that each one of us — in fact chances are really good — I’ve probably already lived half my life. I’m in my fifties. And I’m at a point in my life where it’s really important to me to be who I am. And I think that the extraterrestrial, interdimensional — whatever type of contact it is — that it is a significant part of my life… It has been for a long time. Um… I have had stages of being made fun of, of being talked about behind my back, being called crazy. I used to really, really care about that. And it used to really hurt my feelings… It was more important to me how other people thought of me than how I actually felt about me — you know, as far as being true to myself. So… I’m at a stage in my life where when I meet people — and let’s say they’re neighbors — there are people, like, up in the mountains. We have a place up in the country, about 35 acres around a bunch of country people. When I meet people, they come into my life, I let it be known right away. You know, this is part of my life. They have a choice whether they want to associate with me or not associate with me… there are no secrets… but on the other side of that, you know, at that point in time, they can say or think whatever they want to say or think about me. I don’t care. It’s not important to me any more. I figure people that are like me will resonate toward me, and those that aren’t will hopefully stay away. And also along with that: if I’m like a crazy person that everybody’s talking about, possibly they’ll talk to somebody who is out there who is having life experiences, who doesn’t feel like they can talk to anybody… and they’ll know they can talk to me…”

I find myself sympathizing with the experiencers. Aside from being far friendlier than the morose and self-entitled Ritual Abuse fantasists, they also aren’t directly victimizing individuals by labeling their unfortunate families as the revealed perpetrators of repressed episodes of abuse. Further, it’s annoying to think of religious literalists – believers in the Son of God’s imminent return to Earth to attend Good and Evil’s promosed apocalyptic show-down – having the audacity to laugh at these no-less-probable scenarios constructed by the experiencers. This is not to say that I feel abductees should be able to declare the absolute truth of their ET contact episodes without critical objection. Quite the contrary. Truth matters, and individual liberties are at stake. This sub-set of recovered memory advocates give license to those of the witch-hunting kind.  It’s all well and good to play philosophical games with questions like “Whose Truth?” until individual liberties and personal well-beings are threatened, at which point we must defer to the best method for knowing “truth” we’ve yet devised: scientific “materialism”… unromantic and inhibiting as it might seem.

The most perplexing comments, to my mind, this first night’s experiencer session, come from a couple of fellows who have no conscious memory of abduction, but feel that their lives have been a more-or-less regular stream of anomalous events for which alien intervention seems the most rational explanation.

Karl, a man in his late-thirties from Wyoming, tells of synchronicities, “psychic events”, and vague “anomalies” that have led him to suspect that extraterrestrials are watching him. One night, not long ago, he felt an odd compulsion to take a tent out into the woods. Before sleeping, he tells us, he asked for some sign, some acknowledgment, confirmation from these outer world beings that they are watching. He slept the whole night through without incident. But, upon returning home, he checked his email to find the confirmation that he had asked for: a girl he had gone to school with, who he hadn’t thought about in years, but who had come to mind in short proximity preceding his compelled camp-out, had sent him a Facebook friend request.

I was waiting for more. I was waiting for Karl’s story to bring us inside of a space-craft, into a vivisection lab… Something.

But that was it. A none-too-incredible synchronicity that, even if one felt certain couldn’t be “mere coincidence”, could have fit any number of supernatural narratives…  This was taken as a clear signal of extraterrestrial activity.

A short, over-weight man named Clem tells a tale equally unremarkable. One night, he was in his bathroom when the light-bulb started humming and vibrating. “I reached up to touch it”, Clem tells us, “Bwoosh!”, he spreads his hands and extends his arms, indicating an explosion.

As with Karl, Clem’s story ends before I can figure out its meaning.

After the session, I’m fortunate in that Clem approaches me and immediately begins to elaborate:

“If I was to reach up, you know, and touch something in the light I’m certain that nothing would have happened, but I didn’t want to take the chance.” He’s still marveling over the event, but I still have no idea what this has to do with ETs.

“So did you do hypnosis?” I ask.

“No! No no. No. This was — I was in the bathroom. I’m putting on a t-shirt. And you know, you got those [?] deals on the lights. I got two lights, and I just happen to touch it. And it just went — it just started to vibrate, and — you ever see Star Wars?”

“Yeah.”

“Where the Death Star exploded?”

“Right.”

“That’s what this did. And the lamp, the light itself – nothing happened to it. It burned out like a year later… but this was just… I’d never seen anything like it.”

“Something different entirely entirely, huh?” I ask, not certain what else to say.

“It was – Yeah! That was something different entirely!”

“Did you ever do a regression like she [Rodwell] does?”

It turns out, Clem has been regressed, but he seems reticent to speak of memories of direct ET contact. He continues to tell me about his bizarre electrical problems. “That comes and goes”, he explains.

“And like several years ago, I had a Lincoln…” Clem lowers his voice and leans in closer to me, as though he is about to confide to me something so frightening and abnormal that he doesn’t want to distress any innocent passers-by who might overhear. “I’m driving to work one day, and I keep losing power. And I say, what the Hell’s going on? So, I park it, and I went into work. And I go to my mechanic the next day, and I sez, so what the Hell happened? And he sez, you know, in the hundreds and hundreds of engines I’ve worked on, I’ve never seen anything like this. I was like out of a cheap b-movie… [The mechanic] pops the hood –”

Clem pauses and looks me in the eye dramatically.

“Yeah?” I urge him.

“Takes a wrench and holds it up towards the engine –” Clem raises his fist to illustrate.

“Uh huh…”

“And it goes *chunk*”, Clem opens his fist, his gaze following an imaginary wrench that slams into the engine. “…It was magnetized! And he had to reverse the poles of the engine. Change the battery. Change the alternator. Cost me several hundred dollars. And there was just no rhyme or reason for it.”

I’m at a loss. “Right…” I say, lamely.

“I’ve had experiences, and that kind of thing just drives me nuts. There’s no sense to it.”

I press Clem to tell me what exactly makes him feel certain that ETs were involved, and of what direct experiences he feels he’s had with unearthly beings.

He has had contact with ETs, but contact of the psychic kind. They come to him as voices in his head. They come into his house at night. He hears them crawling around… under the stairs, in the attic. At this point, my oscillating opinion of the hypnotherapists who perpetuate beliefs in ET encounters is decidedly negative. Clem, I feel, may need real help. He begins to describe how difficult it is to talk to some of his friends and family about these kinds of things. It is comforting to hear, at least, that he does have friends and family to talk to.

“You can’t be angry at them for finding these things hard to understand,” I tell him. “You don’t want to keep things from them, but you also want to hear them out and respect their perspective. It’s always good to hear another opinion, regardless of what they make of yours…”

Clem agrees.

We shake hands and part ways.

On my way back to my hotel room, I spot Karl. He’s telling another conference-goer who wasn’t at the session about his remarkable sychronicities. I can already see a shift in his demeanor. While he came to the session uncertain that the “anomalies” he had experienced were indicative of ET contact, he’s growing more and more convinced by the moment…

]]> https://process.org/discept/2010/10/18/among-the-abducted/feed/ 1 https://process.org/discept/2010/02/08/dr-colin-a-ross-psychiatry-the-supernatural-and-malpractice-most-foul/ https://process.org/discept/2010/02/08/dr-colin-a-ross-psychiatry-the-supernatural-and-malpractice-most-foul/#comments Tue, 09 Feb 2010 06:44:34 +0000 https://process.org/discept/?p=675

“Q.  Okay.  Just to make sure I have covered the bases and the record is clear, there is no known, reliable method for distinguishing between true and false memories by talking to a patient?

According to one expert witness, it was the worst case of medical malpractice he had ever seen.  The patient, Ms. Roma E. Hart, had been grossly over-medicated into a prolonged state of deranged confusion, during which time the offending psychiatrist, Dr. Colin A. Ross, had instilled her with exotic and perverse delusions:  To wit, the rather implausible belief that her family was involved in an occult crime-ring dedicated to a supernatural evil, and that Hart herself had been forcibly impregnated by extraterrestrials, birthing a hybrid infant (presumably in the course of a routine alien abduction).  The magnitude of Ms. Hart’s mistreatment during her submission to psychiatric “care” brought her to the precipice of death on several occasions.

During her treatment Ms. Hart gave custody of her 10 year old daughter over to Child & Family Services so as to preserve the girl from clutches of her Satanic cult family. Thus Ms. Hart lost her entire family in one egregiously misguided moment; her parents unable to forgive her for the accusations of sexual Satanic Ritual Abuse, her daughter heart-broken by abandonment.

1. “The recommended dose for most adults is 0.25 milligrams (mg). In some patients, a lower dose may be prescribed and the maximum daily dose should not exceed 0.5 mg.” – From the Physician’s Desk Reference [PDR] online (http://www.pdrhealth.com/drugs/rx/rx-mono.aspx?contentFileName=Hal1192.html&contentName=Halcion&contentId=265
2. “The usual dose, depending upon severity of symptoms, is 2 milligrams to 10 milligrams 2 to 4 times daily.” –http://www.drugs.com/pdr/valium.html .
3. Correction: Dr. George Johnson wasLieutenant Governor of Manitoba, not Governor General