Revisionism about McMartin et al

[Pacal]

A Recent book published called The Witch hunt Narrative by a Prof. Cheit contends that most of cases in the 1980's involving ritual sexual abuse were not really witch hunts but dealt with real abuse. The author contends that the "narrative" of a witch hunt is at least partly wrong and that there was real sexual abuse.

http://global.oup.com/academic/prod...67D404D30675DDF6B69CAA0ECDA720?cc=ca&lang=en&

For a critical look at this book see this review

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/revisionism-gone-wild/

It appears from looking at the book that it does indeed downplay the prosecutorial and other abuses involved in those cases, selectively reports evidence etc., and in effect bends over backwards to give the prosecutors etc., the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Something happened in those tunnels

In reading up on the supposed tunnels of the McMartin school recently, I also found people who still believed that there was abuse and that it was covered up. link link2

Not that I wish to derail, but a recent book on the Duke lacrosse case (The Price of Silence, by William Cohan) does almost exactly the same thing: prosecutorial abuse is glossed over while the "something happened in the bathroom" thesis is resurrected. link. By coincidence (or not), the author of your Commentary link (revisionism gone wild) is KC Johnson, host of Durham in Wonderland and coauthor of the definitive book on the Duke lacrosse case. Maybe this sort of revisionism is inevitable, but I wish people would learn from their mistakes.

 

[fuelair]

A Recent book published called The Witch hunt Narrative by a Prof. Cheit contends that most of cases in the 1980's involving ritual sexual abuse were not really witch hunts but dealt with real abuse. The author contends that the "narrative" of a witch hunt is at least partly wrong and that there was real sexual abuse.

http://global.oup.com/academic/prod...67D404D30675DDF6B69CAA0ECDA720?cc=ca&lang=en&

For a critical look at this book see this review

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/revisionism-gone-wild/

It appears from looking at the book that it does indeed downplay the prosecutorial and other abuses involved in those cases, selectively reports evidence etc., and in effect bends over backwards to give the prosecutors etc., the benefit of the doubt.

It would have to to make that travesty look remotely acceptable as anything but ignorance used for evil/political (but, I repeat myself) purpose.

 

[fuelair]

In reading up on the supposed tunnels of the McMartin school recently, I also found people who still believed that there was abuse and that it was covered up. link link2

Not that I wish to derail, but a recent book on the Duke lacrosse case (The Price of Silence, by William Cohan) does almost exactly the same thing: prosecutorial abuse is glossed over while the "something happened in the bathroom" thesis is resurrected. link. By coincidence (or not), the author of your Commentary link (revisionism gone wild) is KC Johnson, host of Durham in Wonderland and coauthor of the definitive book on the Duke lacrosse case. Maybe this sort of revisionism is inevitable, but I wish people would learn from their mistakes.

Intelligent people do. Any assumptions you make about the ignorant, foolish or actively vicious should be assumed to be correct.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Lead us not into temptation

The Daily Beast's Jason Berry seems to be lapping it up: "Cheit’s revisionist history is grounded in a documentary record and obsession to distill truth from process; it is likely to be a controversial book, but it is one that journalists should embrace." One group's rebuttal to Cheit is here.