Critique of the Goodman study
childadvocate
study
Overview of what occurred after I requested a review of
Characteristics and Sources of
Allegations of Ritualistic child abuse by Dr. Gail Goodman, Phillip
Shaver, and Bette Bottoms - Diana Napolis, M.A. In December 2007 I
reviewed the pivotal research study .Characteristics and Sources of
Allegations of Ritualistic Child Abuse,. by UC Davis. Dr. Gail
Goodman, Dr. Phillip Shaver, and Bette Bottoms, which had been funded
by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1994. This body
of work has been used throughout the United States in attempts to
prove that the scientific community found no evidence to support the
belief that satanic ritual cult abuse of children was occurring in the
United States except in very rare instances. Regardless of the
conclusions reached, it appears that there was substantial and
persuasive evidence provided to the researchers which indicated that
ritual abuse was occurring on a grand scale, despite what appears to
have been repeated attempts made to minimize and disguise these
findings.
It will be difficult to understand my critique without accessing Dr.
Goodman's original study and the 1996 article titled, "An Analysis of
Ritualistic and Religion-Related Child Abuse Allegations" by these
same authors, so I urge others to download this material. In an
article published in the New York Times titled, .Proof Lacking for
Ritual Abuse by Satanists," by Daniel Goleman, he quoted Dr. Gail
Goodman's representations of this study:
"In a survey of more than 11,000 psychiatric and police workers
throughout the country, conducted for the National Center on Child
Abuse and Neglect, researchers found more than 12,000 accusations of
group cult sexual abuse based on satanic ritual, but not one that
investigators had been able to substantiate. “ This is a false
representation about what this study actually revealed. The
researchers did not receive anywhere near that high of a return rate -
it was actually less than 2000 reports which were examined, which
means there was an intentional and blatant attempt to misrepresent
their findings in this news article. It was discovered that this
propaganda is posted on numerous web sites in efforts to prove that
satanic crime does not occur.
On pg. 46 of .Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of
Ritualistic Child Abuse,. Dr. Goodman also wrote: "One respondent
cited as evidence the ritual abuse behavior checklist - a dubious
diagnostic checklist which includes many behaviors common to
childhood." (Gould, 1986). Due to that statement, I have posted a copy
of Dr. Catherine Gould's checklist on my web site, and as the reader
will see, these are clearly abnormal behaviors of children that are
being described and there is nothing dubious about it.
Dr. Goodman concluded by stating: Our research leads us to believe
that there are many more children being abused in the name of God than
in the name of Satan.. I found that an odd and inappropriate remark to
make given the fact that Dr. Goodman received more reports of ritual
abuse than she received about religion-based abuse. In order to make
her case Dr Goodman used as her examples cases of child abuse or
murder which were clearly committed by Christians who were mentally
ill, not mainstream Christians, therefore I believe it was
inappropriate to suggest that these crimes were committed in the name
of God. The belief systems of mainstream Christianity do not condone
criminal or aberrant behavior but the belief systems of Satanists most
certainly do and the ritual abuse crimes she was reviewing were in
line with those satanic beliefs. Therefore, it is obvious that there
is much more serious crime committed by satanists in the name of
Satan. Further, cases of Christian medical neglect are not equivalent
in severity to ritual abuse therefore I believe it was inappropriate
for these academics to argue against the enactment of ritual abuse
laws based on these arguments.
As further evidence which supports my opinion that there were
purposeful attempts to distort the facts, after the American
Psychological Association (APA) gave Dr. Goodman an award for
Distinguished Professional Contributions to Applied Research in 2005,
Dr. Goodman's response was published in the American Psychologist,
November 2005 issue, in an article entitled Wailing Babies in her
Wake. She stated in reference to this study:
"Our survey revealed that there was essentially no hard evidence of
organized, child abusing, satanic cults that had infiltrated
preschools or the FBI or that had kidnapped or slain babies. In
contrast there was much indirect evidence of clinical induction of
false memories and plentiful evidence of religion-related abuse,
including sexual abuse by Catholic priests. Although much of my
research indicates that children can have largely accurate memories
and can resist strong suggestions, they can, in contrast (as indicated
by the dramatic examples of ritual abuse claims) also tell wild tales,
cave in to misleading questions, and make important errors. The same
is true of some adults, of course. All of the books about personal
cases of SRA were written by adults who seem to have believed their
own stories."
This pseudo-analysis does not accurately recount the facts either. Dr.
Goodman has disseminated further propaganda in other publications and
I have updated my critique to reflect this information. These articles
are: "Children's Eyewitness Memory: A Modern History and Contemporary
Commentary,". Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 62, No.4, 2006, pg. 818;
and "Interviewing Children in and out of Court,". The APSAC Handbook
on Child Maltreatment, pg. 356. http://members.cox.net/court50/goodmanoverview.pdf
Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of Ritualistic Child Abuse,
1994, (Dr. Gail Goodman, Phillip Shaver, Bette Bottoms posted at
http://members.cox.net/court50/goodmanstudy.pdf
Critique of Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of Ritualistic
Child Abuse,. 2008, (Diana Napolis, M.A) posted at
http://members.cox.net/dnap/goodmancritique.pdf
The researchers claimed throughout this study that organized,
intergenerational, sexually molesting satanic cults did not exist, and
that a small number of clinicians and agencies were responsible for
the most reports of satanic ritual abuse. I am contesting both of
these conclusions. In my opinion, there were too many methodological
flaws, too much data was arbitrarily excluded, the conclusions reached
were unsupportable and not based on the data gathered, and researcher
bias, if not blatant manipulation, was prevalent throughout this
research study.
I believe that there were ongoing attempts by the researchers to
psychologically manipulate the reader into disbelieving that certain
satanic practices existed by making value judgments about these
practices from the start. The researchers continued to categorize
reports of torture, cannibalism and murder as "bizarre" and "extreme,"
and by the continual usage of those "buzz words," it served as a
"thought stopping" propaganda technique, intended to influence the
reader into agreeing with the researchers assessments and conclusions.
As unfortunate as it is, these are the practices of satanists and
black magic practitioners world wide which a Lexis/Nexis search of
"satan" "devil worship" and "ritual" would reveal.
Overall, there were too many serious methodological errors and
omissions in this study to ignore and, in some instances, I believe,
the researchers were caught in outright fabrications.
An Analysis of Ritualistic and Religion-Related Child Abuse
Allegations, 1996, (Bottoms, Shaver, Goodman) posted at
http://www.uic.edu/labs/pll/Bottoms-Shaver-Goodman-1996-lhb.pdf