A CONSOLIDATION OF SRA

AND FALSE MEMORY DATA

 

JAMES QUAN

Portland, Oregon

November 1996

The purpose of this paper is to consolidate and present some of the major data for those skeptical of the existence of Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) and to suggest more mutual affirmation in pursuit of the truth in this area. This paper, nonetheless, attempts to critically examine both sides of the debate, namely:  critical thinking and belief, “no official” evidence, the context of evidence, actual corroborative evidence (including a map of the McMartin Preschool tunnels), false memory, the sharp rise in MPD/DID diagnoses, and alternate explanations for the profound similarities in child and adult accounts.  In light of the semantic difficulties inherent in “memories” it is important to avoid overgeneralizing on either side, and yet to fully accept that for which both memory and corroboration exists.

 

 

No doubt, new experiences can broaden our perspectives.  It is therefore not surprising that in a 1991 informal survey, 93% of APA therapists who have personal experience with adult SRA survivors stated they believe the memories of SRA are accurate. Contrary to accusations, many have been skeptical at first (Young, et al, 1990; Friesen, 1990; Calof, 1994), but:  1) The quality of therapists’ experiences with their clients was sufficient to broaden their criteria for the existence of this crime; 2)  There are extensive similarities in the accounts from both young children and adults throughout the country, many with minimal therapist suggestion and minimal cultural exposure; and 3) There is corroboration in some cases, yet for therapists to file reports with law enforcement would endanger the vital trust-based relationship and would not be in the client’s best interest for safety or privacy.

It is for these and other reasons described herein that I suggest considering a broader scope of acceptable “evidence” to also include qualitative and statistically quantitative aspects of the available clinical information.  These definitive contexts (thoroughly available to those within the clinical realm or personally associated with survivors) are foundational to a proper understanding of such reports.

Critical thought demands that our conclusions not be limited to the believable or the intuitive, but to the data, itself. Neither does critical thinking require that ambiguity be maintained in the face of indicative data, but rather a commitment to the indicated reality.

For this reason, the position of this paper is boldly apparent in a critical examination of all the data, including the qualitative and statistically quantitative data along with corroboration and “false memory” considerations.

At the same time, we must acknowledge that survivor accounts may comprise a continuum from entirely false to entirely true.  There may be some who have falsely concluded an SRA survivorship with, or perhaps without significant memories, and some overzealous non-victims may promote a satanic panic which skeptics use to discredit all survivorship (Wright, 1993).  Yet others with little or no exposure to the obscure consistencies they share with many others, recall incredibly similar details and with similar symptoms (For instance, compare the surveys of Young, et al, 1990 with Hudson, 1990; see table included on pages 11-13).

It is vital to understand that either side can present a convincing argument, with some documentation in support of that side.  For instance in the Spring 1994 issue of the Journal of Psychohistory, David Lotto’s (1994) article apart from the article that follows by Roland Summit (1994), would thoroughly convince an uninvolved party that SRA is a rumor-based social phenomenon.  The mass media is notorious for airing such single-sided perspectives, omitting an accurate portrayal of the victims’ actual life context[1] (demonstrating the importance of professional journals).

Confirmation Bias.

Central to the nature of belief is the confirmation bias, a natural emphasis on the information which confirms one’s own position along with a de-emphasis on that which doesn’t.  We are naturally biased as a psychological defense mechanism for minimizing cognitive dissonance—an incompatibility between one’s world view and certain concepts (Tavris & Wade, 1993), such as SRA.  Because of our drive to reduce dissonance, we struggle with the resulting affinity for all-or-nothing thinking, such that we either tend to dismiss all SRA or we might be overly suspicious on the other hand.  Without personal acquaintance with alleged victims or alternately the accused, one will likely remain consistent with his or her existing world view.  Acknowledging this bias will help us assure the necessary case-by-case mentality on this subject.

So, we maintain our beliefs on a platform of certain information, selectively assembled through our own confirmation bias.  We thereby require time to assimilate new especially challenging information.

Denial.

Another component of the nature of belief is denial, which can be conscious or unconscious.  We can best approach denial by understanding the implication-sensitive nature of denial.  As Sandra Bloom (1994) has noted in her article, the willingness to believe in SRA is a process of incremental acceptance of human cruelty and sadism, more than a sudden conversion to a belief in the unbelievable.  She describes how denial (including her own) is a “potent and universal defense, protecting us from being overwhelmed by an unacceptable internal or external reality” and that everyone—from survivors to supporters—lapses into denial regularly, based not on evidence, but on the personal implications.

Thus, the nature of belief is anti-objective, since first, no one can believe more than the sum of their information, which is filtered selectively via one’s confirmation bias and then maintained through denial.  Beliefs can and do gradually change, but are subject to these forces.

A recent poll showed that 9% of Americans, a sizable minority, aren’t even sure the Holocaust ever happened and that 2% feel certain it did not occur (Kagay, 1994).  In this light, we can accept that a much larger percentage of people won’t believe SRA occurs, regardless of evidence.

 

The following professionals have made powerful statements regarding the lack of official evidence for the reality of SRA:

 

A.  NO OFFICIAL EVIDENCE

 

George K. Ganaway

“...in nearly 12 years of extensive investigations by law enforcement agencies at local, state, and federal levels, virtually no independent corroborative evidence has surfaced to support claims that such a multigenerational conspiratorial ‘megacult’ exists... “  (Ganaway, 1992, p. 202)

 

David J. Lotto

“We have seen that in the cases in Manchester, the Orkneys, the Country Walk and McMartin preschools . . . that there are some very real victims, innocent of any wrongdoing, who have suffered traumatic consequences from being caught up in a net of hysterical accusations. . . Unfortunately, the therapists who are too eager to believe the outlandish tales told by their patients bear some degree of responsibility . . . One is stretching the meaning of neutrality to maintain [an] agnostic stance in the face of mounting evidence that there is no corroboration for the reality of these events.”  (Lotto, 1994, pp. 391-392)

 

Bob & Gretchen Passantino

“Let’s suppose there are 100,000 adult survivors [of SRA] who represent only a small subgroup of the conspiracy.  They are the ones who were not killed; eventually escaped the cult’s control; got into therapy; ‘remembered’ their abuse; and were then willing to tell others about it. . . . If we conservatively peg the average number of abusive events per survivor at fifty, that would give us 5,000,000 criminal events over the last fifty years in America alone.  And not a shred of corroborative evidence?”  (Parrott and Perrin, 1993).

 

Martha L. Rogers

“What I have experienced as most disturbing in this pressure to accept SRA premises and conspiracies is the defensive explaining away as to why hard evidence should not be expected...there is absolutely no criminal evidence to be found, not a body, not a hair, not a drop of blood, not a trace of bodily fluid—nothing.  They never leave a trail.  The conspiracy is so tight that no one ever tells.  They never make mistakes.  The police and FBI are simply stupid or else part of the cover-up...” (Rogers, 1992, p. 180).

 

When information like this is one’s primary source, it’s clear that one won’t believe SRA exists.  Either way, these statements demand adequate responses.  By referring to a composite of corroborative and contextual information on the existence of SRA, I hope not only to address these concerns but to counter these statements with equally demanding questions and observations from the other perspective.  For the sake of objectivity, I hope professionals in the future will temper their statements both with the corroboration and the contextual considerations in this paper.

Ganaway necessitates some form of a “megacult” to accept the widespread similar reports of SRA. While many believers do suggest that cult networks exist, they probably do not intend this as Ganaway portrays.  To what degree a centrally organized “megacult” exists in the bizarre ways we might envision is not as important as would be the existence of numerous such groups who abuse in similar religious rituals.  Obviously, one network does exist to maintain the estimated $3 billion dollar per year child porn market in the U.S. alone (Raschke, 1990).  It is therefore of considerable importance to examine the correlation between the consistent claims of photography and consistent claims of ritual abuse and the significant overlap in accounts.  The fact that photography is one of the most common elements cited in SRA accounts, aside from corroboration is sufficient cause to delay a broad dismissal of cult networking.

A larger system of cults also seems likely from evidence described in the survey by Young, et al (1990).  Patient photographs of alleged cult members were shown to other patients from a similar geographic region.  Four patients independently identified, by name and cult roles, the individuals in the photographs.  Neither group of patients were in contact with the other during their treatment when these independent identifications were made.[2]  Although not the central theme of his paper, Summit (1994) describes similar independent corroboration from children for a larger cult network in the Los Angeles area (described later).

Passantinos.  However, as the Passantino’s note, millions of bodies of cult murder victims have not been located and identified as such over the past half-century.  Martha Rogers suggests that by “a defensive explaining away as to why hard evidence should not be expected,” it is inappropriate to consider any explanations for this anomaly.  On the contrary, we must consider these claims in their time, space, and social contexts to even understand how, or if, these statements on “no official evidence” have significance.

 

B.EVIDENCE IN CONTEXT

Relative Context

Let’s consider these numbers in the larger picture of time and space.  For estimating purposes, since most reports involve more than one victim per ritual, we could probably reduce the Passantino’s estimate to 2,000,000 criminal scenarios over the past 50 years, or about 40,000 per year.  For comparison sake, from the Source Book for Criminal Justice Statistics for 1991, there were around 3,000,000 violent crimes of all types in the U.S. in the year 1991 alone, excluding all violence against children and excluding all robberies.  Thus, 40,000 ritual child abuse crimes per year is only about 1.2 percent of only the violent crimes committed against adults and would be a lesser percentage of criminal violence toward all ages.

It’s important to keep these numbers in perspective.  Since 100,000 victims is still less than 1 in 25,000 Americans, we can enjoy each others’ company, with little worry that any one of our acquaintances could be a satanic cultist.  There is no need for a “satanic panic” to still accept that SRA exists on a limited but very real scale.

To further place these numbers in context, if the estimated 100,000 survivors seems an outrageous number, consider the fact that 700,000 copies of the Satanic Bible have been sold (Rittenhouse, 1992).  Although the Satanic Bible does not promote ritual abuse, it wouldn’t take a very big subset of the people who purchase the book to legitimize the large estimate of SRA survivors.

Although aggressive efforts have been made to walk in on rituals as well as turn up other undeniable evidence, we must consider how evidence can ever be discovered for crimes authorities don’t even know happened.  There are few possible indicators that this type of crime has occurred.  By definition, there would be no calls made to police, no burglar alarms set off, and no balance sheet discrepancies.  No search for evidence will be initiated for crimes authorities are not aware of, and evidence will not be found if it his carefully hidden, at the same time that there is no awareness of its existence.  To expect to find such evidence might be like going home from work early on an arbitrary day, expecting to catch someone breaking into your house; or perhaps to discover faulty wiring just as it starts a fire, simply because your wiring is old.  It is very difficult to track this type of crime, because it is impossible (and unethical) to monitor everyone at all times.

Numerical Context:  The product of several small fractions is a much smaller fraction.

Further, we must acknowledge the multiple hindering factors influencing the discovery and identification of evidence. The effective multiplication of these three major evidence-reducing factors produces minimal evidence.

(%Overcoming Motivated Secrecy)
x (%Corroboration) x (%Official Recognition)
= Minimal Evidence.

% Overcoming Motivated Secrecy.  Child SRA victims would not initiate contact with the law because they virtually always report that their lives or the lives of loved ones were threatened, confirmed to them by the murders and tortures they recount.  It is in this context that Hudson (1991) describes how the incremental and progressive disclosure of a ritually abused child may take a year or more, beginning with the less severe molestation and progressing gradually to increasing degrees of horror.  Before and after every major disclosure, the child experiences a severe anxiety period lasting from one to several days.

In their college (General) Psychology textbook, Carol Wade and Carole Tavris (1993), describe the entrapment process (social psychology chapter) by which all cult-type groups successfully achieve mind control and motivate secrecy in their members.  This same entrapment process is often described by child and adult SRA survivors.[3]  Adults and children alike share a strong reluctance to disclose the more horrific details, due to both a fear of threatened harm from the cult and the fear of disbelief and rejection.  An important observation is that patients happen to mention both the threats and deceptions consistently as a peripheral to the main content of their memories.

% Corroboration.  Of these children who overcome confirmed threats to maintain secrecy, we must consider what percentage could produce irrefutable corroboration, without slipping in an element of the impossible, included by abusers to discredit their story, should the victim break silence.

Not only is deception commonly reported, but it would increase uncertainty, augmenting the fear of rejection and subsequent punishment by the offenders in any child considering disclosure, thereby further motivating secrecy.  Further, it would be sloppy and thereby out of character for successfully secretive cults to bury actual bodies in the presence of children (who have reported witnessing burials, where bodies were later not found).  Rather, if those who periodically initiate sacrificial murders do exist, they would necessarily incorporate fail-safes such as deception to discredit any potential reports, and would dispose of the bodies in a traditionally proven manner.

I know it may resemble circular logic to attribute all impossibilities to purposeful deception, such as a child’s report of sexual abuse by a lion as an adult in a lion costume, but if we are going to openly examine this issue, we must at least remain consistent with victim’s descriptions of perpetrators, of which secrecy motivated by confirmed threat and deception are nearly universal. McMartin whistle blower, parent Judy Johnson[4] reported to Summit that her son, contrary to accusations, didn’t like to talk about the abuse, and mentioned such things as being sodomized by a lion.  In 1984, such reports were unheard of and/or ignored, and it wasn’t until older less credulous children began reporting around the world (Netherlands in 1987, England in 1988, and North Carolina in 1989) that these wild animals had zippers on their costumes.

% Official Recognition.  Regardless, some claim that plenty of hard evidence has been submitted, but it is officially unrecognized, both because it is prosecutorially unwise for law enforcement to link molestations with SRA and because of the enormous ramifications in the existence of “official documented SRA evidence.”  Besides, to say there is absolutely no evidence is very different than to say there is no officially documented evidence. Along these lines, it is interesting to note that a law enforcement friend of Friesen’s, witnessed SRA evidence being intentionally misplaced in the law enforcement office where he worked, implying some degree of cover up (Friesen, 1991, pp. 96-97).

The Result.  As a hypothetical calculation of this effect, let’s assume that out of all children ritually abused who thereby are motivated to secrecy, say 5% would initiate disclosure of their involvement and trust their legal acquaintances to keep them safe (see Friesen, 1991, pp. 95-98).  Out of these cases, if we assume 20% could produce sufficient corroboration, to warrant an investigation, and then out of these pieces of SRA evidence, 10% would be officially recognized in (or out of) court, we would have 0.05 x 0.2 x 0.1 = .001 = 0.1%, or one out of a thousand ritual crimes is even acknowledged as evidence.