A Response to Articles and Commentaries on The Witch-Hunt Narrative

Abstract

The articles and comments in this issue bear out the enduring impact of The Witchhunt Narrative. There is not sufficient space to acknowledge or respond to most of this feedback. This response corrects an error that was identified by one commenter and it responds to questions raised by another commenter about my analysis of the "Concerned Scientists" brief. This response also documents how Wood, Nathan, and others have misapplied the term ritual abuse, misstated the facts of many cases, and promoted "mythical numbers" that significantly exaggerate the number of false convictions. These critics are wrong about the only three cases they discuss in detail. The McMartin Preschool case began with credible evidence of child sexual abuse that continues to be distorted by critics. The Keller case began with even stronger medical evidence that is not diminished by the dubious and incomplete "retraction" of the Emeregency Room doctor. The Fuster case involved overwhelming evidence of abuse, medical and testimonial, that continues to be distored or overlooked by critics. Those who promote the witchhunt narrative rely on selective use of evidence to reach an apparently predetermined result. That is politics and advocacy, not scholarship. This dismissive approach to children's testimony has caused documented harm to children.

Cognitive Blame Is Socially Shaped

“…A moral critic with low social status is vulnerable to the transgressor’s retaliation, and the community may dismiss the criticism (Ciurria, 2019). For example, women’s statements of having been raped or children’s statements of experiencing abuse can meet considerable skepticism (Cheit, 2017). A moral critic with high status will be better protected from retaliation and enjoy greater credibility (Cooney, 1994).…”

Psychiatric Impact of Organized and Ritual Child Sexual Abuse: Cross-Sectional Findings from Individuals Who Report Being Victimized

“…Several years later, high profile convictions in cases where ritual abuse may have taken place have been described in a book presenting case analyses in the context of CSA [ 11 ]. More recently, doubtful voices were being raised, criticizing previous researchers [ 12 , 13 ], saying that they had misapplied the term ‘ritual abuse’, misstated the facts of many cases, used evidence selectively, and exaggerated the number of false convictions [ 14 , 15 ]. In turn, opposition voices were raised, disapproving of the methodological approaches of the critics and highlighting the complexity of evaluating evidence produced across journalism, law, and science [ 16 , 17 ].…”