Tuesday, August 16, 2016

The Sanhedria Murchevet Witchhunt - a defense for what has happened

One of the important figures in the Sanhedria Murchevet sex abuse scandal is Dr. Joy Silberg - a therapist in Baltimore who is viewed as a major expert on child abuse. I have exchanged a number of emails with her and she is working on a public statement concerning this matter. What is important to know is her view that while there might not be satanic abuse rings in Jerusalem - there is significant abuse and that there is a kernal of truth to the allegations of abuse.

In particular she suggested that I read Ross Cheit's book "The Witch-Hunt Narrative" which provides a detailed, scholarly and controversial - revisionist view of the sex abuse hysteria in America. 

This I assume will be the basis of the defense for the three charged with promoting a campaign against what they claimed is satanic sex abuse rings linked to the Church. I just purchased the book - it is very heavy reading. In the meantime here is a review of the book. Here is a rebuttal 
http://ncrj.org/resources-2/response-to-ross-cheit/the-witch-hunt-narrative-rebuttal/

Cheit isn't denying that innocent people went to jail - his thesis is that not all the cases were a result of witch-hunt hysteria but that there were many cases of genuine abuse and that because of the present mistaken belief that it was largely charges brought during hysteria - the pendulumn has swung the other way and children are not automatically believed as they once were.

Cheit is not a psychologist but is a  professor of political science and public policy at Brown University
=====================================================

How the ‘Witch Hunt’ Myth Undermined American Justice

Innocent people persecuted by a legal system out of control? In The Witch-Hunt Narrative, Ross E. Cheit argues the media and courts have gone too far in dismissing evidence of abuse.


[...]
In 1996, Philip Jenkins, then a history professor at Pennsylvania State University, argued in Pedophiles and Priests that the earlier coverage of clergy abuse was a “putative” crisis, one “constructed” by the media and church critics.

In 2002, a Boston Globe investigation of such cases ignited a chain reaction in many newsrooms about a deeply rooted culture of churchmen concealing abusers that the Vatican ignored. The “putative crisis” resembled a construction of its author. Jenkins had written entirely from secondary literature—no interviews or excavation of legal documents. He has since become a $400-an-hour expert witness for the church in lawsuits filed by abuse victims, according to his own testimony.

Jenkins drew a parallel between the Salem witch trials and the 1984 acquittal of two defendants in a Minnesota day-care-center case in which charges against 23 other people were also dropped after a botched investigation. But the lead defendant was convicted, and spent years in prison, as Ross E. Cheit notes in The Witch-Hunt Narrative: Politics, Psychology, and the Sexual Abuse of Children. This 508-page book examines media coverage of prosecutions of abuse at day-care centers in the 1980s and ’90s.

A professor of political science and public policy at Brown University, Cheit has 68 pages of footnotes, with an array of legal citations; though the narrative is sometimes plodding, and at times redundant, Cheit mounts a rigorous argument that the witch-hunt—innocent people persecuted by a legal system out of control—is a concocted myth.

Cheit is no stranger to litigation, having sued the San Francisco Boys Choir in 1994 for “rampant sexual abuse of boys, including me,” he writes, “fighting successfully to keep from having the entire matter sealed and insisting on a public apology to settle the suit.” He writes, too, that he does volunteer work with sex offenders in a Rhode Island prison.

Cheit’s careful, probing approach is counter-cultural to an age when information moves at amazing speed with fewer guarantees of accuracy than in newsrooms of yesteryear. Legal proceedings are about process; so is The Witch-Hunt Narrative. Cheit wants us to make sense of the forest and the trees.

The case that spawned the media notion of a witch hunt was the McMartin Preschool, where allegations in 1983 fell within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles District Attorney. As initial evaluations of children were underway, parents contacted a TV reporter. “The DA’s office was caught unprepared when the media spotlight hit them on Feb. 2, 1984,” writes Cheit, “suggest[ing] there was widespread sexual abuse at the McMartin Preschool and the government was dragging its feet.”

Cheit explores the difficulty child-care specialists faced in determining what happened; videotaped screenings morphed into forensic interviews, and became something they were never intended to be: evidence in court. A “runaway train” grand jury indicted seven people including Virginia McMartin, the wheelchair-bound grandmother for whom the school was named. Much of the suspicion centered on her grandson, Ray Buckey, who spent five years in jail during the longest and perhaps most costly preliminary proceeding of a criminal case in California history. Charges against five people were dropped. Buckey and his sister stood trial.

McMartin became its own media narrative. 60 Minutes did an exposé of the legal malfunctions, all but exonerating the defendants; Los Angeles Times media critic David Shaw won a Pulitzer for attacking his own paper’s coverage. Cheit’s painstaking account of the chaotic pretrial saga ends with a jury acquittal of Buckey and his sister on a host of charges. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on 12 charges against Buckey. He was retried, again acquitted, though not unanimously.

“The McMartin case began as a morality play about the failure to protect children,” he writes. “It ended as a morality play about the failure to protect civil liberties…[and] the complete negation of the evidence of abuse.” That critical distinction is a leitmotif through the book. Society craves black-and-white narratives where good triumphs, criminals go down. It is much harder to accept the gray area of resolutions—as in the O.J.Simpson case, when a man widely assumed to be guilty was acquitted in a circus-like courtroom.

Cheit criticizes journalist Debbie Nathan for her phrase “junior McMartins” in describing “a nationwide rash of similar cases.” Nathan published a 1995 book with defense attorney Michael Snedeker, Satan’s Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of an American Witch Hunt. Cheit concedes that charges in some cases should not have been filed, but debunks a key source of Nathan’s reporting: a list of 36 cases cited in a 1988 Memphis Commercial Appeal series called “Justice Abused: A 1980s Witch-Hunt.”

“What kind of witch-hunt or ‘justice denied’ results in no charges whatsoever?” he writes. “Sixteen of the cases never got to the stage of a trial; charges were dropped in some cases and they were never brought in others. One-third of the cases resulted in a conviction, seemingly undercutting the claim of ‘justice abused.’ “ [...]

13 comments:

  1. There were no charges brought. Your statement about "a defense for the three charged" is inaccurate and presumptuous. At least one suspect has been released from house arrest with no charges brought. Neither was there evidence compelling enough to extend the house arrest.
    Dr. Joyanne Silberg is one of multiple world class experts who have been involved in this case for a long time, contrary to your and others' claim that this has been (mis)handled all along by "amateurs".
    It is time to start responsibly separating fact from fiction, or speculation.
    Haemes yoreh darko.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr. Silberg said that she had seen no evidence that there was a ritual abuse ring or abuse done in the name of any ideology such as the church. If she were involved in this case from the begining - not just amateurs - then why doesn't she agree with Rabbi Berkowitz and company.

    The police were concerned with two issues - one they found no evidence for any ritual abuse rings - in agreement with Dr. Silberg. The police claimed that three people conspired to promote the story of these abuse rings in order to make money. It is this latter claim which is weak.

    I repeat my assertion - the hysterial that was promoted was not justified by the evidence. Rabbi Berkowitz and others did what they did from genuine concern - but they over reacted and were not being guided by experts.

    My statement about a "defense for the three charged" is not innacurate and presumptous - but seems to be an accurate description of the defesnse.

    You caution of about responsibly separating fact from fiction - was not heeded by those involved for the last few years

    ReplyDelete
  3. It was heeded by some, and not by others. This is not a monolith. Individuals are responsible for their own behavior. There were many well meaning but misguided individuals who did do terrible damage in their efforts to "help".However, among the people leading the investigation into the confirmed horrors perpetrated on many, many innocent children in Yerushalayim are responsible people who actually found and brought in experts like Dr. Silberg and others. They also tried to resist the pressure to involve the amateurs and their leaders. The immaturity of many in the community forced the involvement of concerned people who were unqualified to help. Please do not lump all of them together.
    As far as my earlier post, they were not "charged" with any crime. There was an investigation. It did not bear fruit,they found nothing that the judge deemed concerning enough to warrant bringing charges.There was no indictment. Language is very important.
    Consideration should also be given to the possible vested interest of the police in discrediting the whole story. A more productive investigation would explore why tens, if not hundreds, of cases that were brought to the police and the revacha were not dealt with at all. Including many cases that had nothing whatsoever to do with the "amateurs".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since you claim to know what is going on - If Dr Silberg and other experts were called in - and they didn't find evidence of a satanic ring - then why did Rabbi Berkowitz give a public announcement that that in fact was the problem? Why does he still insist that that is the problem? Either the experts are heeded or they are just window dressing. Why was money being raised by these people for satanic abuse if their own experts said there is no such thing?

    What does immaturity - whatever that means - have to do with involving people who just caused hysteria? The end result is that the community is scared. The police aren't trust. Not a single perpetrator has been caught. It sounds like the whole mess was caused by naive amateurs who are totally inept at protecting the children and catching the perpetrators.

    your blaming the police is absurd. Why not blame the "brilliant" people who should not have taken charge of this situation which is a scandal and chilul hashem either way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is this a partial backtrack from Dr. Joy Silberg's initial belief that there was a cult?

    ReplyDelete
  6. We can certainly agree about the resulting chilul Hashem, although who us responsible for it is debatable. As far as I am aware, the experts have by no means ruled out the possibility that many of the cases include components of ritual abuse.
    However, for argument's sake, assuming this is true, why should it matter if it is "only" a non-Satanic pedophile ring has been operating in Jerusalem for almost five years for business purposes only, and almost none of the police reports have been followed up ?
    And again, you seem to assume that all parties acted in lockstep. In reality, there was great discord about whom to involve and from whom to take guidance.
    I challenge you to find anyone who has actually sat with the affected children and families-even a small handful of them- who will agree with your stance.
    These people are experiencing a living hell-and instead of maligning the few who tried to act responsibly and help them with incredible-even superhuman-mesirus nefesh, let's ask where the truly brilliant and responsible leaders were. What have they done to help?
    Many will be asidin litein es hadin in this case...
    Very few will be able to say "yadeinu lo shafchu es hadam hazeh"
    Even if those few WERE-at worst- naive and gullible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. you are totally missing the point!

    ReplyDelete
  8. did she have an initial belief that there was a cult? Her statement to me was that she had seen no evidence that this was a cult or abuse done for any ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  9. assuming this is true, why should it matter if it is "only" a non-Satanic pedophile ring has been operating in Jerusalem for almost five years for business purposes only

    Have any experts concluded that it is probable that there is a pedophile ring that has been operating in Jerusalem for the past 4 years? If so, who? Can you please post their official statements?

    ------
    By experts, I mean people who have the recognized experience and knowledge in this field.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1) What connection does Dr. Joy Silberg have with Jerusalem? Were there no qualified professionals who actually live in Israel who were available? Why was she chosen as the guru? Why did she accept responsibility for a difficult case that was half way around the world from her?

    2) I listened to a recording on her website. I was shocked that she chose theory over hard data; particularly when her theories are counterintuitive. The basis of any theory has to always be facts. Fourth grade students learn that the very first step of the scientific method is observation. If there is no observation prior to having a preconceived notion or theory, then it isn't science at all. There's a difference between soft science and junk science, or no science at all.

    According to the limited data we have, 99% of women who asked for restraining orders and received a polygraph test failed the test. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/08/women-who-asked-for-restraining-orders.html Yet to her, a woman asking for a restraining order is automatic proof of abuse. If a father accuses the mother of parental alienation, then it is proof that it is the father who is seeking to alienate the child from the mother. But she doesn't stop there.

    She even goes as far as to claim that only 0.01% of sexual abuse allegations that are made in divorce cases are false. That's right, she claims that 99.9% of sexual abuse allegations that are made in divorce cases are true. I would like to know what percentage of psychologists agree with her.

    It is true that in less liberal enclaves, judges will respond harshly to a parent who seeks to alienate the child from the other parent. One can argue about the role of the court, and what the right response should be. But you cannot turn the facts on its head and claim that it is almost always the father who is trying to alienate the kids from the mother.

    --- Why was she chosen?

    ReplyDelete
  11. excellent question. Chei'ts book that she recommended is exactly as you describe the problem

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dr. Silberg is not the only expert involved, there are very well-known and superbly qualified professionals who live and practice in Israel who are involved as well. I choose not to name them as I do not intend to involve them in a sideshow; I only spoke of Dr. Silberg as she was referenced in the original post. She is appropriately involved as she is treating victims whose families relocated to the States as a result of the abuse. She responsibly connected the dots and became involved as any compassionate and responsible professional would have,considering the circumstances.
    It is more than a bit offensive that you assume that all the people involved are uneducated, incompetent amateurs. Has it occured to you that some of the parents of these children may be highly educated, sophisticated individuals who wouldn't be blindly led by unqualified do gooders? That they would leave no stone unturned in finding the best help possible for their traumatized children? In researching best practice and data driven approaches to the investigation and treatment of complex sexual trauma?
    Perhaps there's room for enough humility to hold off on forming an opinion while there are still many facts that haven't been made public.
    I would think that basic mentschlichkeit, not to mention Journalism 101, would warrant that if one covered the story of the arrest as if it resolved matters entirely, and then no charges were brought and there wasn't enough evidence to indict or even extend the house arrest, that story should be covered too.

    ReplyDelete
  13. since you are the only source for the claim that no charges were brought - perhaps you would like provide some proof to support your claims? The charges were reported in the papers - I have no verified source that things have changed.

    Regarding the rest of the story - you haven't explained why claims have been made and are still being made that this is a case of satanic ring abuse. I have not seen any evidence that this matter is being handled properly and there is much to indicate it has been handled improperly. Who is responsible? Are you claiming that Rabbi Berkowitz has handled the matter properly? Where is the proof?

    In short instead of clarifying what is going on and providing proof for what you are claiming - you simply are attacking me? Not very impressive nor is it very convincing.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.