Posted on 09/10/2001 9:59:11 AM PDT by Willie Green
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:08:38 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Sorry Senator if I misunderstood what you were saying. I guess you're right, the Detroit News could have given the article a more accurate title..
That would be about equivalent to everyone killed in car crashes (in the US) for the last five or six years. The number is just TOO HIGH to be believable.
The abuse mentioned in my posts are only the tip of the iceberg.
I cannot speak to the McMartin case directly as I have little information, but I have a number of concerns about interviews given to children who "may" be sexual abuse victims.
First, there is NO doubt in my mind that I could convince a child (2-3 years old definitely, maybe less so a 4 year old) of just about anything, given enough opportunity to "remind" the child of what occurred.
The anatomically correct dolls, common sense tells me, are more likely to elicit sexual talk or action than other dolls. Children will focus on the unusual features.
A lot of what I have seen of interview tapes is very leading. The children are rewarded and praised for talking about sex, and are ignored or badgered if they do not.
I think it is unconscionable that all possibly related cases are referred to the same therapist.
And in general I find it a little hard to believe that that many children were sexually abused and it went unnoticed by so many parents. Lots of clueless folk out there, but this seems unreasonable.
If I suspected that one of my children had been abused, I don't know where I would go. I'm not sure that one can "question" children about possible abuse without being leading to some extent. And I certainly wouldn't subject them to the same interviewer for weeks on end for him/her to repeat the same questions and scenarios over and over.
I believe that the first mother to come forward in the McMartin case, Judy Johnson, saw blood on her infant's diaper.
Take a look at The Dark Tunnels of McMartin for more info on this case.
The anatomically correct dolls, common sense tells me, are more likely to elicit sexual talk or action than other dolls. Children will focus on the unusual features. A lot of what I have seen of interview tapes is very leading. The children are rewarded and praised for talking about sex, and are ignored or badgered if they do not. I think it is unconscionable that all possibly related cases are referred to the same therapist.
From post #118..
The stories told by these children, it should be noted, were not fed to them by some diabolical team of therapists and headline-seeking journalists. Many of them were offered spontaneously to hundreds of parents and scores of childcare specialists. And the victims of the McMartin Preschool, all adults now, still tell the same stories today.
And in general I find it a little hard to believe that that many children were sexually abused and it went unnoticed by so many parents. Lots of clueless folk out there, but this seems unreasonable.
Just as with many people here, denial seems to be a way of coping with that which is difficult to accept. It has happened before, and more than likely will happen again, especially with all of these "experts" saying that none of this ever happened..
The whole thing is a no-win proposition. Your answer is to decriminize action that accounts for 90 percent of crime. Illegal money is corrupting all levels of society? Our entire societal fabric is unraveling, and its not money that is doing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.