RE: McMartin reference

["Lyn R. Greenberg" <lrgreenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My 2 cents is that we need to use valid methods with all children...because
at the time that we are questioning a child, we don't (or shouldn't) know
what the results will be, and we don't know what the "truth" is.

A few months ago, one of the kids from the McMartin case wrote a newspaper
piece, with a professional author, called "I lied in the McMartin case."
His story is heart-wrenching, and should forever put to rest that idea that
coercive or leading interview tactics don't victimize kids as much as
adults.  If you haven't read it, I recommend that you do - it can be found
in the L.A. Times archives.  This kid, who was led and pressured into making
certain statements, appears to blame himself in much of what follows.
Perhaps we shouldn't continue to relieve this case, but we also shouldn't
forget that that's what HE's doing.

Lyn R. Greenberg, Ph.D.
Forensic and Clinical Psychology
12401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 303
Los Angeles, CA  90025
(310) 399-3684
(310) 399-7154 - FAX
 
http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgreenberg/
lrgreenbergphd@earthlink.net

 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
[mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Linda
Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 6:35 AM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: RE: McMartin reference

Perhaps, if the McMartin case in in fact "iconic" -deservedly so or not -the
answer may be to focus less on its particulars and more on the underlying
issues of how we choose to spend our resources (time, energy most
importantly) when children's voices are at stake.  The potential some saw in
this case to forward an agenda for and against various ways to get to the
truth overshadowed children then, and may still.  Isn't it is more likely
that some interviewing methods work better in some cases and that other
methods are more effective in others?  If one method "worked" 90% of the
time aren't we still duty bound to use alternatives for the rest of the
cases?  Too much of our time is spent on pushing one method rather than
strenthening our ability to form rational arguments for conclusions based on
whichever methods are used.  Not to say some techniques are not ineffective
- just that we need to rethink what is central.  How many cases get tossed
because of the method used regardless of the circumstances?  Taking that
approach, of being more conscious in how we use resources rather than relive
the particulars of one case, may lead to a better framework for surfacing
and prioritizing our own internal conflicts.  An icon can be a black hole
-attracting, compelling, and reshaping all energy directed toward it.  In
this instance, create a false choice of either/or in the extreme.  I am not
sure there is a way to move toward it and then cause the energy to somehow
shift direction.  Seems like not a good use of energy to me.

Just my two cents...thanks as always,

Linda S

>>> lrgreenberg@earthlink.net 02/14/07 8:05 PM >>>
If you could back up for a moment...what's the basis of the assertion that
there is, currently, widespread disbelief about sexual abuse claims? 
There
is a range of opinion on these issues, and certainly there are strong
advocacy groups on each side - of course, the midrange includes
professionals who base their opinions on the relevant research and the facts
of a case.  (I have no opinion about the "truth" in the McMartin case, as I
didn't personally interview anyone or review all the facts of the case,
other than the fact that many interviews were poorly done.)  I'm sure that
case is cited by those who are inclined to disbelieve cases of abuse -
hopefully, it is also cited by those who suspect that these children were
abused and the cases lost due to poor interview technique.  If there is
evidence as to the "widespread disbelief" based on this case, I'd be very
interested in seeing it, as it would be important data for us all to have.
 
Lyn R. Greenberg, Ph.D.
Forensic and Clinical Psychology
12401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 303
Los Angeles, CA  90025
(310) 399-3684
(310) 399-7154 - FAX
 
http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgreenberg/
lrgreenbergphd@earthlink.net

 

  _____  

From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
[mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas
D. Lyon
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:42 PM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: RE: McMartin reference



Here's some archived discussion of these issues from the child maltreatment
research listserv several years ago (I don't know what to think about any of
this):

 

>From under006@tc.umn.edu Mon Feb 26 10:48:00 2001

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 01 09:30:49 -0600

From: under006 <under006@tc.umn.edu>

Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu

To: Child Maltreatment Researchers

    <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>

Cc: Child Maltreatment List <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>

Subject: Re: McMartin case facts

 

    [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]

    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]

    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

 

Before you are tempted to give any credence to the McMartin tunnel myth that
is propogated by Summit and the other true believers, read the article by
John Earl:

 

Earl, J. (1995). The dark truth about the "dark tunnels of McMartin".
Issues
In Child Abuse Accusations, 7(2), 76-131.

 

This article, which very convincingly debunks the claim that tunnels were
found, can be found on our web page:

 

ipt-forensics.com

 

Hollida Wakefield

 

 

 

>Subject:     Re: McMartin case facts

>Sent:        2/10/20 2:33 AM

>Received:    2/13/01 9:24 AM

>From:        Lori A Hack, twcurtis@juno.com

>Reply-To:    Child Maltreatment List, 

>CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu

>To:          Child Maltreatment List, 

>CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu

>CC:          Child Maltreatment List, 

>CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu

> 

>     Carl Raschke's book "Painted Black" (1990) contains an excellent,

>well-documented account of the evidence in the McMartin case.  He
points

>out much of the evidence that was ignored by the press generally, in

>addition to interviews with the jurors who mostly believed the children

>were molested but were not sure who did it.  I believe Raschke is at
the

>University of Denver.

>     The actual photographs and a description of the dig by a forensic

>archeologist are included in the book "Other Alters" by Craig Lockwood.

>It is a very good, but nonacademic source.

>     As researchers we are wise to bear in mind that an acquittal can
mean

>many things, innocence only one of the many interpretations.  Those who

>dismiss evidence as from "true believers" without looking at the
evidence

>simply become ignorant true believers of another cause.

>     I believe both books are out of print, but I got them from
Amazon.com.


>I could also fax/send you copies of relevant portions.  Your name seems

>very familiar to me. I am a grad student, perhaps I read some of your

>work recently? 

 

 

0________________________________________________________________________

 

Ralph Underwager & Hollida Wakefield

13200 Cannon City Blvd

Northfield, MN  55057

507.645.8881  voice

507.645.8883  fax

 

E-mail:   mailto:under006@tc.umn.edu

Website:  http://www.ipt-forensics.com/

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
[mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Lisa
fontes
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:44 AM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: RE: McMartin reference

 

What exactly I'm looking for....IS there solid forensic evidence that the
tunnels were real or that the abuse happened? I know the answer may be
inconclusive, but so much of the disbelief about sexual abuse seems to hinge
on this case, as silly as that is, and so I am trying to figure out whether
I need to be saying, "The archeological evidence shows clear evidence that
the tunnels that were described by the children in fact existed" or
something else. I am glad we now know enough to handle these cases
differently, but the "reality" of this particular case seems to have an
iconic place in the public discussion of sexual abuse. There have been some
recent cases which are in many ways quite similar to McMartin but where
current interviewing techniques and police investigative techniques have
been strong enough to encourage confessions and convictions. Why these newer
cases don't seem to change the public opinion of "the witch hunt" and the
"child abuse industry" is beyond me. I think it's time for an article in a
widely read newspaper or magazine, available to the public, to collect and
comment on these more recent cases. I'm not going to write it but I hope
someone is!

 

Lisa Fontes, Ph.D.

Union Institute & University

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
[mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Lyn R.
Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:15 PM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: RE: McMartin reference

 

There are also scholarly studies by people who have reviewed the interview
tapes specifically. Ceci's work focused more on the interviewing methods in
the Wee Care case, although many were similar.  What, exactly, are you
looking for here?

 

  _____  

From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
[mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu] On Behalf Of
DeanTong@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:36 AM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: Re: McMartin reference

In a message dated 2/13/2007 1:31:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lfontes@rcn.com writes:

I need a quick and easily accessible reference where the truth about the
McMartin case is discussed.

 

 

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/mcmartin_daycare/1.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dean Tong, MSc., Forensic Trial Consultant
10246 Hunters Haven Blvd.
Riverview, FL 33569
813.671.4190, Office/Fax
813.417.5362, Cell
813.278.8356, Pager
800.854.0735, Book Orders/Media
DeanTong@aol.com, E-Mail
http://www.abuse-excuse.com/, Web Site


Disclaimer:
Dean Tong is not a licensed attorney. The contents of this e-mail
correspondence represents his personal and professional opinion and must not
be gleaned to be "legal advice." If you need an attorney please visit
http://www.lawyers.com/ or contact your local State Bar Association. If you
are not the intended recipient of this e-mail please delete the same.