A Commentary From a Law Enforcement Perspective on The Witch-Hunt Narrative by Ross E. Cheit

Overview

It is difficult to comprehensively comment on a 400-page book in a brief commentary such as this. I am unsure how much good comes from simply rehashing such well-worn events (e.g., 25-year-old cases, 1997 “Day of Contrition”). From a law enforcement perspective, more benefit could have come had Cheit’s book and extensive research focused more on documenting how some allegations became so bizarre and inaccurate and less on the alleged far-ranging harm caused by the witch-hunt narrative. If Cheit is correct about his assessment, how does a fairly typical day care case turn into an atypical nightmare convincing to so many trained professionals? In my opinion, it is that process and not the witch-hunt narrative that did most of the damage.

However well intentioned, overzealous interveners must accept varying degrees of responsibility for contaminating and damaging the prosecutive potential of the cases where criminal abuse may have occurred (Lanning, 1992). I realize this was not the title, intent, or focus of Cheit’s book. But for more than 30 years, I have been trying to evaluate how and why these distortions take place and improve the basic investigative process of listen, assess and evaluate, and attempt to corroborate. From my investigative perspective, that is far more important than over 400 pages trying to prove the extent and harm of some ambiguous witch-hunt narrative. The worst-case scenario now would be for fact-finders to misinterpret Cheit’s book as suggesting that all the old discredited allegations actually did happen and conclude they can now return to simply blindly believing anything any child alleges about sexual victimization.

Background for Perspective

My background information set forth in this commentary is relevant only because it establishes the basis for its perspective and helps explain its opinions. My law enforcement perspective is somewhat different from that of most frontline investigators. I was a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for more than 30 years (1970-2000), and from 1981 until I retired in 2000 I was assigned to the “Behavioral Science Unit” (BSU) at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. While assigned to this Unit during the last 20 years of my FBI career, I specialized in cases involving the sexual victimization of children. My duties included furnishing operational consultation to local, state, and federal investigators and prosecutors in cases involving victimization of children. During this time, I was able to consult on and evaluate thousands of cases that I would not have had the time or the jurisdiction to personally investigate.

As a result of this FBI assignment, I was in the middle of the issues and cases described and discussed in Cheit’s book. I consulted on and have firsthand knowledge of most of the cases he discusses, including the McMartin, Kelly Michaels, and Frank Fuster cases. I have communicated with many of the investigators and prosecutors in the cases examined. I have also consulted on hundreds of multivictim cases involving offenders who were Boy Scout leaders, Catholic priests, coaches, teachers, and so on, and gained access to children through youth-serving organizations. Since retiring from the FBI, I have been involved as an expert for both plaintiffs and defendants in many civil cases over claims of negligence by such organizations.

I have also personally communicated to varying degrees with many of the proponents of the witch-hunt narrative as argued in Cheit’s book, including Debbie Nathan, Richard Beck, Shirley Downing, Carol Hopkins, Maggie Bruck, Richard Gardner, Stephen Ceci, Andrew Jarecki, Philip Jenkins, Hollida Wakefield, and Lawrence Wright. In fact, in the Preface to her 1995 book, Satan’s Silence, Debbie Nathan specifically mentions me as one of only two nationally known child protection professionals who responded to her requests for interviews and information (Nathan & Snedeker, 1995). Over the years of this work, I have also given many presentations and been interviewed often by the media about these types of cases and the controversies they caused.

Sometime in early 1983, I was first contacted by a law enforcement agency for guidance in what I then thought to be an unusual case of child sexual victimization. In the months and years that followed, I received more and more inquiries about these strange cases—whatever they were. Many aspects of these cases varied, but there were also some commonalities that I gradually began to identify. Most notably, they all involved allegations of sexual victimization of children accompanied by claims of bizarre-sounding activity (e.g., ceremonies, robes and costumes, use of urine and feces, insertion of foreign objects, animal sacrifice, torture, mutilation, etc.). Such activity was assumed by many to be part of rituals performed by organized satanic cults. By the mid-1980s, many of these cases allegedly involving satanic cults abusing multiple children as part of their rituals came to be most often referred to as satanic ritual abuse (SRA). As time went on, I was increasingly contacted for consultation on these unusual and bizarre cases. I recognized and wrote about many of the key concepts discussed in Cheit’s book 20 to 25 years earlier (Lanning, 1989, 1991). I came to believe that there is a middle ground—a continuum of possible activity. Some of what the victims allege may be true and accurate, some may be misperceived or distorted, some may be symbolic, and some may be contaminated or false. The problem, however, is to determine which is which (Lanning, 1991). It is somewhat reassuring to me that portions of Cheit’s book repeat and confirm much of what I had observed and came to believe about these cases over many years.

Focus of Cheit’s Book

It is these types of cases and the response to them that are the primary focus of Cheit’s book. He discusses the difficulty in precisely defining the cases in question. He often refers to them as the day care cases of the 1980s. But as he also accurately points out, most day care cases do not involve bizarre allegations of satanic or ritualistic abuse. In addition, most cases involving allegations of SRA did not involve day care centers. In his book, Cheit criticizes the witch-hunt narrative for using exaggerated numbers of cases. It is hard to count something not clearly defined. I do not know of hundreds of day care cases involving bizarre allegations of satanic rituals, but I do know of hundreds of sexual victimization of children cases involving such allegations. In his discussion of the witch-hunt narrative, Cheit essentially ignores its application to SRA or bizarre sex abuse allegations in adult survivor and custody dispute cases of which there are many.

Whether or not a case involved SRA or a witch hunt is a matter of how these imprecise terms are defined. Cheit might argue that certain cases did not involve such SRA allegations but others claim they did. Investigators and prosecutors understandably often deliberately downplayed the alleged satanic aspects of such cases. Whether labeled SRA or not, many of the cases discussed in Cheit’s book involved extreme or bizarre allegations that are then used as justification for the witch-hunt narrative. To now deny or ignore the role that claims of SRA played in many of these cases and in fueling the witch-hunt narrative serves no purpose and damages credibility. If the early interviews in the McMartin case did not involve “implanted” allegations of what came to be called SRA, where did they later come from and why did so many professionals then accept them? Cheit admits the limitations in answering such questions so many years later through written records. I have been searching for such answers myself for many years. Simply arguing that many cases mentioned by the witch-hunt narrative do not involve specific allegations of SRA does not address the more important underlying issues raised by how such cases were investigated. I use the term child sex ring to denote those specific exploitation cases where one or more adults are simultaneously involved sexually with several children or adolescent victims (Lanning, 1989). I was never certain if these atypical cases were truly a distinct kind of child sex ring case or just those not properly handled and investigated.

The U.S. Department of Justice published a training monograph I wrote titled Investigator’s Guide to Allegations of “Ritual” Child Abuse (Lanning, 1992). It contained a summary of my initial analysis, research, and recommendations for investigators concerning these cases. Most individuals debating these types of cases have repeatedly cited it. It is often referred to as an “FBI Report” but that is somewhat misleading. It is not a report containing the results of a specific criminal investigation by the FBI. It is a monograph setting forth the findings of my years of research and many case consultations on the topic. Although Cheit also incorrectly cites it as an “FBI report,” for me, maybe the most gratifying sentence in his entire book appears on page 167, “Rather, it is a plea for those who want to engage this issue with an open mind to pay attention to the FBI report that is misrepresented almost as often as it is cited.” I vigorously agree with that.

When the investigations on which I consulted could find no corroborative evidence for allegations for which there should have been some, I sought alternative explanations for why such allegations were being made. I discovered there were many possible explanations. From a law enforcement perspective, I wish Cheit’s meticulous review of the record had focused more on confirming or finding such answers and less on blaming the witch-hunt narrative. If young children are in fact reliable and not suggestible victims, what then are the explanations for their inaccurate accounts and how do we better assess and evaluate them?

I agree with much of what Cheit sets forth in his book about seeds of truth in many of the cases. I do not have the time or resources to dispute any significant amount of his time-consuming and admirable case-based research. However, in a few instances (e.g., the Nassau County District Attorney’s 2013 Friedman case “Conviction Integrity Review”), I am very familiar with certain details and disagree with some aspects of his conclusions. My aging memories can dispute little of what the written records reflect. However, as Cheit admits, the written record does not re-create everything.

Definitions

Although many recognize the importance of definitions, a major problem is the fact that many terms do not have one universally accepted definition. They have different meanings on different levels to different disciplines. As used in his book, for example, precisely what are child sexual abuse, a child, and the witch-hunt narrative? What variations exist between cases involving sexual abuse and exploitation and between 6- and 16-year-old victims? It is still unclear to me whether his book is suggesting that the purveyors of the witch-hunt narrative are a specific entity, a loose network, or an organized conspiracy.

Witch Hunt and Backlash

In my article “The ‘Witch Hunt,’ the ‘Backlash,’ and Professionalism,” I discussed many of the same issues that Cheit does (Lanning, 1996b). I pointed out that publicity and controversy about complex topics such as SRA and suggestibility of children had divided and polarized many child advocates, the media, and the American public. Those at one extreme claim that children are easily manipulated and that the allegations are part of a big “witch hunt” led by overzealous fanatics or incompetent and money hungry experts. Those at the other extreme claim that victims do not lie about sexual abuse, that everything alleged happened exactly as alleged, and that protestations to the contrary are part of a powerful “backlash” led by child molesters or those denying the extent and reality of child sexual abuse.

I realized the terms witch hunt and backlash are subjective, judgmental, derogatory, and poorly defined. To address this problem, I defined the terms as I used them. The witch hunt is characterized by the tendency to exaggerate child sexual abuse, to emphasize believing the children, and to criticize the criminal justice system only for the lack of investigation or for acquittals. When child sexual abuse is alleged, they assume it has happened and try to prove it. The backlash is characterized by the tendency to minimize child sexual abuse, to emphasize false allegations, and to criticize the criminal justice system only for aggressive investigation or for convictions. When child sexual abuse is alleged, they assume it has not happened and try to disprove it. Of course, because of the vagueness of these definitions, nothing said about the witch hunt or backlash is true of all individuals who might be considered part of either.

Cheit seems to be claiming that the witch-hunt narrative is the contrivance by which some undefined group justifies their backlash-type perspective. What Cheit refers to as the witch-hunt narrative, however, can easily be confused with what others have referred to as the backlash (Hechler, 1988; Lanning, 1996b). He uses his term in the title of his book and I am sure he chose it for carefully thought-out reasons. Referring to the same thing by different names and different things by the same name frequently creates confusion. His precise distinction was not initially clear to me. By his terminology, some could even argue that Cheit’s book advances a backlash narrative. A fundamental disagreement I have with Cheit is that he implies that it is only the backlash that uses such a false narrative and engages in the type of tactics and strategy he discusses. In my experiences, overzealous advocates from both extremes share them. In spite of their profoundly opposing views, the witch hunt and the backlash perspectives are very much alike: two sides of the same coin.

For example, Cheit seems to ignore three of the many characteristics that both extremes, including possibly himself, often share: (a) selective use of the criminal justice system, (b) claim to special knowledge, and (c) self-deception (Lanning, 1996b). Although there are guilty people who have not been convicted and convicted people who are innocent, the often-repeated standard in the United States is that “people are innocent until proven guilty.” This conversely would seem to imply that people proven guilty should be considered guilty. Some debating this issue want to selectively use these standards in making their arguments. Each side decides for themselves when an investigation, conviction, or acquittal has meaning. However imperfect, it is the criminal justice system, not emotionally involved zealots, that decides who is guilty. I have even been criticized by some associated with Cheit’s witch-hunt narrative for using criminal convictions for my research, suggesting, I assume, that I should have instead used their opinions. In his defense, Cheit does assert that his uncovering of “credible evidence” does not mean it meets legal standards for guilt, but only that there was not a witch hunt. In spite of this stipulation, his claim still implies knowledge of guilt. In addition, whether this means there was not a witch hunt depends on how one defines the term. The concept of a witch hunt can be applied to how any case was investigated as well as to why it was initiated. Most importantly, credible evidence of some allegations against one defendant does not explain or justify numerous bizarre allegations against many.

Those on each extreme claim to somehow know with absolute certainty the facts of any case. They know things that the investigation, prosecution, and courts cannot determine with certainty. Without the criminal justice system or some other neutral arbitrator, there is no consistent independent standard about who did what. Again in his defense, at least Cheit articulates some basis for many of his conclusions and opinions about what happened. As is often said, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Both extremes believe that they do none of these things and the other side does all of them. “We” are objective and right. “They” are devious and wrong. Both sides accuse the other of doing these things, but are outraged that someone would accuse them of the same. They cite every example of exaggeration and bias of the other side, but ignore and deny they do the same. Whether an unfair, distorted personal attack by the media or bullying is supported and repeated or condemned and protested is determined solely by who is being attacked or bullied. Without realizing it, both sides believe, hear, and see what they want to believe, hear, and see. Most significantly, Cheit seems to have a hard time applying such a negative label and admitting that there might be a valid basis for the witch-hunt aspect of what he calls the witch-hunt narrative.

In my opinion, the backlash in general and what Cheit labels as the witch-hunt narrative have had both a positive and negative impact on the investigation and prosecution of cases. In a positive way, it has reminded criminal justice interveners of the need to do their jobs in a more professional, objective, and fact-finding manner. In a negative way, it has cast a shadow over the validity and reality of child sexual abuse and has influenced some to avoid properly pursuing cases.

Much of the damage allegedly caused by the backlash or witch-hunt narrative is actually more self-inflicted by the witch hunt and by some well-intentioned child advocates. Even if cases do not meet some strict criteria for SRA, the mistakes of some overzealous interveners and the insistence by a few on the literal accuracy of every unfounded bizarre allegation make up the primary fuel that runs the backlash and enables it to influence public opinion with its so-called witch-hunt narrative. On the contrary, the debate over the validity of such grotesque allegations has obscured the well-documented fact that children can be reliable witnesses and that there are child sex rings, bizarre paraphilias, and cruel sexual sadists.

Professionals must admit the existence of and address the damage done by the witch hunt and not just the witch-hunt narrative. Although seemingly unwilling to do so, Cheit’s book appears to at least professionally consider a middle ground and to rely on clearly identified original source material for many of his conclusions.

Moral Panic?

In hindsight, many now refer to the phenomena of these more bizarre or SRA-type cases as a “moral or satanic panic.” I professionally lived through all of it and never observed anything I would label a “panic.” In my opinion, the cases in question were the result of many interrelated and complex dynamics motivated less by some moral, cultural, or political panic or agenda and more by an emotional need to overcome centuries of denial by believing and validating any and all victim claims of sexual abuse. At the time, this often included the belief that children and other victims do not lie about sexual abuse and if they have the details it must of happened. The legal need for corroboration had been removed and corroboration had become a bad word for many. If you do not believe everything a victim alleges, what then do you believe? The problem was compounded by a lack of understanding about how such complex cases, especially extrafamilial child sex ring cases, should be investigated and evaluated.

Case Variations

In his book, Cheit discusses institutional sexual victimization cases involving Catholic priests, Boy Scout leaders, and coaches (Penn State case). Such cases typically meet my definition of a child sex ring. In my extensive experience, the delayed reporting and minimization typically seen in such cases have more to due with inaccurate stereotypes perpetuated by child abuse idealists than any witch-hunt narrative. The biggest problem with these cases is the lack of understanding and recognition of nice guy offenders, diverse sexual activity, compliant child victims, and grooming/seduction techniques (Lanning & Dietz, 2014). Such cases are well documented but do present their own set of investigative problems. They are not aggressively investigated simply because the victims have credibility as older males. To the contrary, delayed and inaccurate disclosures by older victims are often viewed as indicators of false allegations. Proper investigation and prosecution based on corroboration overcomes or at least minimizes the influence of any witch-hunt narrative. The way that Cheit attempts to explain and contrast the recent spotlight on Catholic priest and Penn State cases—in spite of the damage, he claims, done by the witch-hunt narrative to the acknowledgment of child sexual abuse—indicates to me some lack of full insight into the differences in these types of cases.

When asked, and I have been many times, what went wrong with the McMartin Day Care case, my simplistic response is that this is what can happen when policies, procedures, and protocols developed to deal with one-on-one intrafamilial cases are applied to a potential many-on-many extrafamilial case. Although I am reluctant to be overly critical of past actions by applying current standards and insight, in hindsight and by my definitions and experience, the McMartin case should have been viewed as a potential sexual exploitation case, not a sexual abuse case. Either because he does not understand or disagrees, however, in his retrospective, Cheit does not sufficiently address the wide diversity of the ways in which children can be sexually victimized. This is important because different types of sexual victimization of children cases require different investigative or intervention responses. Many professionals, including possibly Cheit, do not seem fully aware of important distinctions among types of cases. Is the alleged offender a stranger, family member, or acquaintance? How many potential victims are there? How old are the child victims? How did the offender gain access to and control of them? Were threats or physical violence used?

Interveners may not recognize how different forms of sexual victimization are alike and unalike. The role of the child victim’s parents is a major difference between typical exploitation cases and intrafamilial cases. As parents are usually not the abusers in these acquaintance cases, their role is different. It is a potentially serious mistake, however, to underestimate the importance of that role. There is also a big difference between interviewing children whose victimization has been disclosed (fully or partially) by them, whose victimization has been discovered (e.g., recovered child pornography, medical evidence), or whose victimization is only suspected. Cheit does discuss the problem of children’s victimization seemingly “discovered” by medical evaluation that turns out to be unreliable. Interview best practices may vary depending on the type of case and age of the child. In my opinion, suspicion interviews are the most difficult (Lanning, 1996a).

Unreliable or inaccurate information and false victim denials can be obtained from state-of-the-art forensic interviews, and reliable information and valid disclosures can be obtained even from imperfect interviews. This fact can be lost in excessive focus only on how the interview was conducted. This in no way denies the fact that repetitive, suggestive, or leading interviews are real problems and can sometimes produce false or inaccurate information. The process by which information is obtained is important, but the primary focus should not be on whether an interview was conducted in accordance with some absolute best practice equally applicable to every case but on whether and how it may have resulted in unreliable or inaccurate information. For example, how a child responded to suggestive questions might be more important than simply whether such questions were asked.

I agree with some of Cheit’s concerns over possible overreactions and “feel-good” legislation such as Jessica’s Law, Megan’s Law, and Civil Commitment. I believe that sex-offender registration should be offender-based not offense-based. A sex-offender registry that does not distinguish between the total pattern of behavior of a 50-year-old man who violently raped a 6-year-old girl and an 18-year-old man who had “compliant” sexual intercourse with his girlfriend a few weeks prior to her 16th birthday is misguided. The offense alone for which an offender is technically found guilty may not truly reflect his dangerousness and risk level. The best-known laws determining how the criminal justice system responds to all convicted sex offenders, Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law, and the Adam Walsh Act, were named for victims who were abducted and murdered. Most child molesters do not abduct their victims, and most offenders who abduct their victims do not kill them (Lanning, 2010).

Conclusion

Many of the original interveners in the McMartin Day Care case came to believe that dozens of offenders (seven indicted, two brought to trial) had sexually victimized possibly hundreds of children in a variety of bizarre ways by moving them around the community—all as part of an organized satanic cult or child pornography ring. The witch-hunt narrative appears to be that nobody sexually victimized any children at McMartin and the case was a total false allegation. Cheit’s narrative, based on his research and analysis, appears to be that, although no one was convicted, one individual most likely sexually victimized a few children in familiar ways at the day care center. Based on my more than 40 years of experience, documented day care cases involving children sexually victimized by the oddball son or husband of the woman operating it are fairly typical. The difference between the witch-hunt narrative and Cheit’s narrative in the McMartin case appears to be minimal. The difference between these two narratives and what was alleged by the 1980s investigation is vast. Cheit believes that there were unjustified charges against the majority of the accused in the McMartin case but then chooses to focus on the evidence of “some abuse” by one of the accused and not on the reasons for all the unjustified charges. That choice of focus makes the book interesting but less meaningful for investigators.