<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: This is research?
Review: I just read this book and it was extremely dissapointing to me. While critiquing various satanic cults like the Temple of Set, she managed to delete all reference to the fact that the leader of this organization had been processed out of the active reserve/Army after a military investigation into the sexual abuse of children. AQUINO v. STONE 139; Cite as 957 F.2d 139 (4th Cir. 1992}, although he was not convicted of any offense. Since the appellate documents are widely available, I don't know how she could have "overlooked" this. Then this particular scholar claims that these groups are not "organized." The Temple of Set is run by a Lt. Col. from the US Army and it is quite organized. She then claims that Richard Ofshe effectively refuted a confession from the only confessed perpetrator of SRA in America. Not only did Richard Ofshe not make his case but an appellate court specifically noted it on the record and upheld the sentence of the man who confessed. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, NO. 13613-9-II; PAUL ROSS INGRAM, January 22, 1992 "Ingram presented expert testimony that his own and the victims' statements were the result of suggestive interrogations and influences, possibly including hypnosis, and that the offenses to which Ingram pleaded guilty had not happened. However, three other experts, all psychologists, opined that Ingram's statements were the result of direct recollections and that the events constituting the charged offenses had, in fact, happened." ---- I think this book was a terrible piece of work, logic and scholarship.
Rating:
Summary: This is research?
Review: I just read this book and it was extremely dissapointing to me. While critiquing various satanic cults like the Temple of Set, she managed to delete all reference to the fact that the leader of this organization had been processed out of the active reserve/Army after a military investigation into the sexual abuse of children. AQUINO v. STONE 139; Cite as 957 F.2d 139 (4th Cir. 1992}, although he was not convicted of any offense. Since the appellate documents are widely available, I don't know how she could have "overlooked" this. Then this particular scholar claims that these groups are not "organized." The Temple of Set is run by a Lt. Col. from the US Army and it is quite organized. She then claims that Richard Ofshe effectively refuted a confession from the only confessed perpetrator of SRA in America. Not only did Richard Ofshe not make his case but an appellate court specifically noted it on the record and upheld the sentence of the man who confessed. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, NO. 13613-9-II; PAUL ROSS INGRAM, January 22, 1992 "Ingram presented expert testimony that his own and the victims' statements were the result of suggestive interrogations and influences, possibly including hypnosis, and that the offenses to which Ingram pleaded guilty had not happened. However, three other experts, all psychologists, opined that Ingram's statements were the result of direct recollections and that the events constituting the charged offenses had, in fact, happened." ---- I think this book was a terrible piece of work, logic and scholarship.
Rating:
Summary: Backlash masked as science
Review: Jean La Fontaines book is probably one of the most sophisticated in the backlash literature. The reader almost gets the impression that her conclusions are based on scientific research. It is not. The investigation La Fontaine base her book on, and which she led, draw conclusions that was not based in the very results they themselves published. For example, one of their findings was that in almost half of the 84 studied cases there were medical evidence of sexual abuse, and in at least three of the cases there were material evidence that rituals took place during the abuse. If we take in account the fact hat it usually had gone months, if not years, between crime and investigation it is more remarkable that paraphernalia was found in three cases than that none was found in the rest of the cases. LaFontaine never even tries to explain the medical evidence which she herself acknowledge in this book, and the three cases where paraphernalia was found she explains away by claiming that the abusers were no "real" satanists after all.. That LaFontaines report proved the non-existence of ritual abuse is hardly more than an urban legend...
Rating:
Summary: The British Establishment view towards the subject
Review: The author, a Prof. of Anthropology at the London School of Economics, compiled an official inquiry for the British Secretary of State for Health in 1994. from which this book is a part product. "THE EXTENT & NATURE OF ORGANISED & RITUAL ABUSE": HMSO. Page 22. Figure 4: Frequency of Specified Features in Allegations of Ritual Abuse (percentages) 84 Cases. 25 features. Under 10%: ** Eating faeces. ** Abortion. ** Eating foetuses. ** Killing adults ** Killing children SECOND HIGHEST FEATURE ** KILLING BABIES; 28%
Rating:
Summary: The British Establishment view towards the subject
Review: The author, a Prof. of Anthropology at the London School of Economics, compiled an official inquiry for the British Secretary of State for Health in 1994. from which this book is a part product. "THE EXTENT & NATURE OF ORGANISED & RITUAL ABUSE": HMSO. Page 22. Figure 4: Frequency of Specified Features in Allegations of Ritual Abuse (percentages) 84 Cases. 25 features. Under 10%: ** Eating faeces. ** Abortion. ** Eating foetuses. ** Killing adults ** Killing children SECOND HIGHEST FEATURE ** KILLING BABIES; 28%
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting investigation
Review: Whether there is proof that Satanists abduct, sacrifice and eat tens of thousands of children each year in the uk or at other places is a topic which some would believe is unworthy of systematic investigation (acknowledging the need to substantyiate such claims may be seen as betraying children...) but others may find interesting.
To those who do so this book is a must read. It is the second large scale government investigation of claims of widespread Satanic Ritual Abuse whichb has failed to identify a basis for these allegations in even one single case.
<< 1 >>
| 
