|
|
Child sex
abuse hysteria and the Ellis case |
|
|
|
|
The wisdom of
Gordon Waugh - Index |
|
|
Introduction Thank you for your
introduction, Dr Garry and good afternoon to you all. My name is Gordon
Waugh, and I'd like to introduce my wife Colleen to you. We live in Dr Garry asked me to
talk to you about "recovered memories" and left it to me to decide
how best to tackle it. My background is in Physics and Engineering, not
Psychology, so I don't speak your specialised language. I could have come
armed with masses of technical and scientific references and papers, but that
would be far too clinical. What I've chosen to do is to give you a Worm's
Eye View, from the perspective of accused parents, so
that you can see first-hand, the human side of the issues. In this presentation,
I'll paint a broad picture of the scene in We know "recovered
memories" is a very polarised issue, and it's difficult to talk about
without being provocative. However, I do not claim to be a Politically
Correct, Sensitive New Age Guy, and as an accused parent, I have strong
opinions and blunt words on this topic. Colleen and I have been
married for 43 years. We have three adult children, the eldest Sue (now 42),
the middle one Moira (now 40), and the youngest one Elvie (now 37). And we have
five grandchildren. 1992 was our annus
horribilus. Our two eldest daughters, Sue and Moira, then aged 33 and 32,
attended counselling that year and "recovered their memories" of
sexual abuse. Because we would not believe their unbelievable stories, they
told us that as far as they are concerned, we are dead. So here we are. … Dead
people. … Talking to you!! The
General Scene That event launched me
unceremoniously - and unwillingly - into a field I knew virtually nothing
about. In 1994, we helped Dr Felicity Goodyear-Smith to establish an
organization called COSA - Casualties Of Sexual Allegations. COSA was formed
primarily to help families affected by the "recovered memory"
fiasco, and to combat the causes. Our investigations unearthed all sorts of information,
which gave a clear picture of what was happening. As far as we know,
there were no reported cases of "Recovered Memory" in NZ before
about 1990. About 1988, ACC began paying compensation, of $10,000 per
claimed incident, for mental injury suffered by victims of sexual
abuse. Around the same time, theories about sexual abuse began to flow from
the When those theories and
practices spread across the country, there was a sudden epidemic of
"recovered memories". The public was being bombarded by horrifying
"statistics" about childhood sexual abuse. The belief was abroad
that tens of thousands of ordinary ACC claims, made
through its hundreds of counsellors, are a useful source of data. There are
many hundreds of other counsellors, not associated with ACC, who also
produced allegations based on "recovered memories". In 1988, ACC had just
221 sexual abuse claims. In 1992, they reached 2073. 1993 produced 13,500.
They were receiving new claims at the rate of 500 a week. Claims continued at
an average of some 10,000 a year for several years, and began to drop to
around 8,500 a year in the late 1990's. The cost to the taxpayer is measured
in hundreds of millions of dollars. New claims currently lie around 3,500 a
year. [Source : ACC Annual Reports to Parliament, letters from Ministers of
ACC, statistical reports from ACC, and various newspaper reports.] In that 12-year span,
almost 80,000 men have now been accused of sexual abuse in ACC
claims. By way of contrast, Ministry of Justice figures [*] on sexual crime
convictions for that period amounted to about 8,466, an annual average of just
705.
Some ACC claims were undoubtedly genuine, especially where criminal
convictions occurred. But that only accounts for about 10% of them. The other
90%, some 72,000 of them, were untested in criminal courts - and
that leaves a huge question mark over their validity. [*Source : Ministry of
Justice annual reports "Convicting and sentencing of Offenders in NZ,
Philip Spier.] How many ACC claims
arose from "recovered memories" may never be known, but our
documentary and anecdotal information, collected mainly from parents who
contacted us, suggest they number in their thousands. Families were shattered
and destroyed. Some men lost their jobs. Others lost their lives. Some were
charged and a few were convicted. Some were wrongly convicted. Many
lost their children and grandchildren, and were financially, physically and
emotionally exhausted. If the 70,000 or so UNTESTED
allegations affect a circle of family and friends of just 15 people - other
countries use higher estimates - the adverse effect on the wider community
is that as many as One Million people - roughly one third of our total
population - have been touched by this epidemic - this
tragedy. Those are just a few of
the effects of a moral panic, mixed with a deliberate mis-use of an Act of
Parliament, and a very large dose of snake oil. Personal
Background Against that
background, I'll now tell you a little of our personal experience. No
discussion about the family side of "recovered memories" is
complete without a mother's point of view, so that's why Colleen is here with
me. As a youngster, Sue was
bright and did well at school. Here is a photograph of her, taken at High
School, aged almost 15. Not long after that, she had a "hormonal
hurricane". Against our wishes, she left High School on her 15th
Birthday in 1973. When she reached 16, she left home to live with a young
man, in what they called a "trial marriage". She returned home
again at age 17, and this photo of her, was taken
then. Colleen might tell you more about this episode later. What none of us knew then,
was that Sue was developing a severe case of hypothyroidism. The
psychological and physical burdens which accompany this are fully described
in medical texts such as Davidson's Principles and Practice of Medicine, 11th
Edition, 1974, Pages 642-643, and in Sue's first marriage in
1976 lasted just two years. She had only one child, Tiffany. We raised
Tiffany ourselves, from when she was about 2 to age 15. Sue married again in
1986, and that lasted about 15 months. In between, and after marriages and
other disasters, she always returned home. She was in and out of jobs, on and
off the DPB. In 1989, she had hypnotherapy
to help her stop smoking. The hypnotist told her she smoked because I had
sexually abused her. Colleen, Moira and Elvie categorically and vehemently
objected to this idea. The hypnotist felt the lash of Colleen's tongue and
immediately cancelled the treatment. Significantly, Moira declared she
knew nothing of any sexual abuse in our family. Sue continued to live
with us for another two years, until she decided late in1991 it was time to
stand on her own two feet. She found a Flat and later, Tiffany (now 15),
joined her. Sue tried to get a job, but it seems that didn't work out too
well, and she became lonely and very depressed. About March 1992, at the age
of 33, Sue decided to get some counselling. Moira went with her, apparently
to lend support to her sister in trying times. On 6th May 1992, they both
made horrendous allegations of sexual abuse which was supposed to have
happened in Sue's childhood, beginning more than 30 years earlier. Moira had
suddenly switched and now gave full support to Sue's astonishing range of new
allegations. Sue told us she had "been
to She said the counsellor
told her she must confront me and give me back my secret, so she could begin
to heal. If I confessed and had counselling, I could be helped. She would
then forgive me and look after me in my old age. If we didn't believe them,
she and Moira would have to sever all ties with us, and surround themselves
only with people who did believe. Without saying one word, I had been
charged, tried, convicted and hung by a Kangaroo Court. Their allegations were
not all made at once. Over time, they grew in severity, and the content
changed dramatically. They were detailed, graphic and lurid - a mixture of
things and people. [Some of her
allegations were that] I had committed incest with her. I had fondled her
breasts. When she was a baby, about one and a half years old, an uncle had
taken her on a trip from When she was four, I
had taken her fishing at a public place and was molesting her. A stranger
approached and began fighting with me, so I stopped molesting her. I had
repeatedly raped her from when she was very young. Colleen did not protect
her from my abuse. There were many, many other allegations. She claimed I had
arranged for a family friend to rape her when she was about 12 or 13. She
clearly remembered she was a virgin at that time, and that she had an
"out-of-body experience" during this rape. She said Colleen knew
about the rape and condoned it. Moira first said she knew nothing
of it, but later claimed to have been there when it happened. Colleen challenged Sue
about this rape. If she had been raped as a virgin at 12 or 13, why had she
dramatically announced to the whole family, two years later, that she had
just lost her virginity to her High School boyfriend. Sue's explanation came
from She explained it away by
saying she had "suppressed" her memory of the rape. Her boyfriend
didn't know how to perform intercourse, but she suddenly remembered what
happened during the rape, gave her boyfriend instructions, then
"suppressed" it for the next 20 years until she went to
counselling. That is just one example of testing the allegations against
family history and fact. Sue has always been a
first class Drama Queen, and we had always tried to help and support her. But
after 20 years of her histrionics, enough was enough. Her allegations were
the straw that broke the camel's back, and I told her to leave the house and
not return until she got her head straight. A few weeks later in
June 1992, Sue and Moira made complaints to the police. Their allegations
were completely new. They were about Indecent Assaults on Sue, by
me alone. There was no mention of incest, rape, conspiracy to rape,
or any other men. Just me. Police investigated, but no charges arose. In her statement,
Moira, then a 32 year old, described an alleged incident, which she claimed
occurred 30 years earlier. "My
sister Suzette was lying on her back on the floor, just to the left of the door. My father was straddling her on his knees. His two hands were on the floor by her
shoulders. When I opened the door he turned around and yelled at me to get out. Suzette turned her face to the left
and looked at me. She looked
scared. I quickly closed the door
and went to my room and shut my door." Other than by constant
rehearsal, is it feasible to remember, with such clarity and precision, a
scene from 30 years ago, when she was 2 years old? We actually returned to
this house with a Private Investigator, to measure the room, and check the
body positions she described. They were impossibilities. It took me about 18
months to get over the initial shock and fury. I found that Sue had been paid
thousands of dollars of lump-sum compensation by ACC, so I began an
investigation through various Ministers of ACC, ACC itself, the Privacy
Commissioner, the Chief Ombudsman and others. It took more than 5 years to
get some of the paperwork and details. The counsellor - who
had never met me and refused to even talk to me - had written in her ACC
Report "this [event/situation]…. exacerbated the effects and feelings,
largely suppressed, of childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by her
Father." She also wrote that
Sue's second husband had sexually abused her during their marriage
between 1986 and 1987. She [the counsellor] had
never met him either. To top it off, there was at least one
other man involved, who also allegedly abused her as an adult. The NZ Listener
published in November 1994 an award-winning article about our experiences.
The journalist also interviewed Sue. Contrary to what she had told us on 6
May 1992, she denied having "recovered her memories" and told him
"I haven't forgotten anything". In a 1997 TV Assignment
documentary, her counsellor claimed that Sue's memories were intact
when she began therapy - although she didn't say how she knew this. But in a Letter to the
Editor of the Listener in January 1995, one of Sue's High School friends,
Christine, contradicted those claims. Christine claimed to have had a
telephone conversation with Sue in late 1992, many months after
counselling began. Amongst other things, she wrote: "When Sue phoned me late in
1992, she had forgotten being physically
abused by her father and that she had confided in me about his sexual
touching. [.during their High School time…] As we
talked, she gradually remembered, because,
although the memory wasn't immediately accessible, it hadn't disappeared
entirely. This is an important aspect to
remember when looking at recovered memories. That
memory is not forgotten, but rather, is hidden from day to day access,
therefore enabling us to survive the trauma." Had Sue "recovered
her memories", or was Christine concocting a story? Or both? Over time, the
allegations moved from infancy and childhood involving a number of men, to
just me alone, and then into her adulthood with different men. Their content
had dramatically changed at each stage. But the documentary and other testable
evidence confirms the allegations are at best improbable, and at
worst, impossible. There is no doubt in our minds that our children
were persuaded to "recover their memories." To give you an
indication of the type of relationship we used to have, When our 30th Wedding
Anniversary came around….[proceed to the inserts to photo album Sue made up……] When our children were
misled into making those allegations, it was very much like a death in the
family - shock, dismay, grief, tears, anger. They broke the most sacred of
trusts between parents and children. They trampled on our integrity, our honesty, and
our love. They converted
ordinary, everyday things into sinister events, and completely re-wrote their
childhood histories. They tried to put me in prison for things which we knew
had never happened. They blamed us for all their wrong choices and
unfortunate mistakes. And we lost two daughters and four grandchildren. Evidence The claims made about
"Recovered Memory" are extraordinary, and it goes without saying,
that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In this final
section, I want to comment on these claims. The best way I know how,
is to give you an Engineer's analogy. You are all familiar
with the saying about "Carrying the Can" - taking
responsibility. If I'm expected to carry the can, I want to know to know a
lot about it. What material is it made of, and how is it constructed. Is it
rolled and clipped, pressure-moulded in one piece, or fabricated and welded.
What sort of handle does it have? How many handles? Has it got legs? How many
legs? What are the intended
contents - solid, liquid, gas? Hot or cold contents? What is its empty and
full weight? Where is its centre of gravity? Does it leak? How many leaks?
How big and where are they? What are the consequences of leakage or
spillage? Does it have a lid? How is it fastened? All these questions,
and many more, must be addressed in the design and specification for the
can. Measurements, controlled observation, and professional judgement, give
us evidence
about, and confidence in, the suitability of the vessel for its intended
purpose. Psychological theories are subject to the same rules, so let's apply
my Engineering rationale to the theory of "recovered memories". There are two main
opinions, and four groups of people involved. One group says it happens. The
other three groups say it doesn't. We have to look at the evidence
both for and against the theory. The FIRST group is made up of those
who believe that massive repression and pristine recovery are
valid constructs. Therapists claim to see it in their daily work, that it's a
special form of amnesia, and is distinct from ordinary forgetting. Some claim
memories of traumatic events are stored in a different part of the brain from
other memories. Some even say they are stored in the body. Their claim is that
children robustly and completely banish memories of childhood sexual abuse
from their conscious minds and can recall them years later in perfect
condition, as though they had been recorded on video tape. But in direct
contradiction, it also seems there is a leakage mechanism involved, which
produces "flashbacks" and allows the memories to permeate
personality and behaviour. These factors led counsellors to believe they
could detect the hundreds of supposed "indicators" of abuse. In order to support the
theory, it is vital that externally corroborated evidence be obtained that
the reported abuse actually occurred. It must be
proved that the client had no conscious memory of such abuse.
Memories recovered must be demonstrably uncontaminated.
Credible and testable explanations for the leakage mechanism must
be established. Now that's a pretty tall order. It seemed to me that the
theory required a breath-taking leap of faith, so I gave it the "Carry
the Can" treatment. It appears to be highly
selective. If "repression" is a valid construct, why does it only
seem to affect children in the age range of about 1 - 15 years. Why does it
apply only to sexual abuse? Why don't all victims of genuine acute abuse
repress the memory? Why aren't there scores of recorded cases of pregnancy
from the apparently vast numbers of rape and incest events? Why are there no
medical records of surgical treatment, required after
full penile penetration of infants, by adult males? Is it feasible that tens
of thousands of fathers routinely rape their infant daughters and leave no
physical or medical evidence behind? Does a child
"repress" abuse memories during or after a single event? Or, if
it's done after a batch of events, what triggers the repression mechanism and
when exactly does it kick in? What triggers the "recovery" process?
How good are the legion of recovery methods? If the theory is valid,
I would expect to see a substantial world-wide history, of a fairly constant
rate of new cases. That history is absent. Above all,
I'd expect to see many examples of externally corroborated evidence which
show the claimed abuse was indeed genuine. But none seem to exist. Why
were there no reported cases in NZ until about 1990? Why have they dried up a
decade later? None of those questions have been satisfactorily answered by
those who believe the theory. Essentially, this group
appears to have formulated a theory based on Sigmund Freud's early work. From
uncontrolled observation and dubious methodology, in literally hundreds of
retrospective studies, they tried to find evidence and justification for
their opinions. But none of that work leads directly to credible evidence of
massive repression. I'll let you into a
secret - I've seen plates of spaghetti with tighter structures
than this theory. The SECOND main group
in the debate is comprised of seasoned academics and researchers who,
after decades of empirical study, cannot find supporting evidence, and say
the concept has no sensible foundation. The theory simply does not meet the
rigours of scientific testing and standards, let alone common sense ones.
Professional bodies around the world urge caution, while Courts in many
jurisdictions reject the concept. Fatal flaws in the theory have been exposed
by good science and clear thinking. Equally, the derivatives
of the theory, such as the infamous Multiple Personality Disorder, are also
fatally flawed. If MPD is valid in its own right, I would confidently expect
to see thousands of people exhibiting obvious MPD behaviours before
counselling. But they don't. They only seem to develop them during
counselling. The THIRD group is vast. We are the
parents and siblings of the adult children who recovered their
memories. We have intimate and detailed knowledge of our children and their
histories. Our verifiable, testable historical records about our families
can clearly show whether the accusing child is relating historically accurate
information, a form of narrative truth, or metaphors
for other problems. We say our accusing children have been seriously misled
as to the causes of their problems, and that the theory is rubbish.
Therapists try to ignore us, but we are not about to vanish. The FOURTH group is a recent and
interesting one. It's a mixture of post-event players. It includes former
clients who later came to realise they had been misled by therapists. Some
Insurance Companies in the Conclusion In conclusion, the
simple fact is that decades of research have failed to produce credible
scientific evidence of massive repression and pristine recovery of memories,
and until it does, the theory and practice of "recovered
memory therapy" - and all of its derivatives and liposuction methods -
are no more than destructive therapeutic folly. I make no bones about
it - those who choose to believe in "recovered memories", ignore
logic, data, evidence, analysis, professional judgement and ordinary common
sense. They have failed to take all the evidence into account, and failed
to show proof for their extraordinary claims. Their beliefs and
practices damaged many thousands of people, and worse, misled and permanently
damaged our children. I cannot imagine
anything worse than being accused of sexually abusing my own child. Believe
me - the label CHILD ABUSER is a truly LOATHSOME
one. It should not, and must not, be hung around the necks
of tens of thousands of men, on the basis of conjecture, belief, assumption
and opinion. Professional Bodies,
practitioners and public administrators have a clear and compelling
duty, to actively ensure that public health and welfare is not
jeopardised by snake oil, psycho-babble, or junk-science - of this,
or any other, variety. They cannot EVER sit back and let
another episode like "recovered memory therapy" happen again. Dr Garry, I trust this
presentation has given you all an insight into how accused parents see the
"recovered memory" debate. Thank you for the opportunity to present
it, and thank you all for listening. Colleen and I will try to answer any
questions you might have. |
