Allegedly a photo of “The Family” mothered by Anne Hamilton-Byrne. It looks like Julian Assange is in this photo.
by Mary W Maxwell
Fiona Barnett made a remarkable statement at a press conference in October 2015. She had been through torture and terror for many years, and was also, she said, “prostituted to a VIP pedophile ring”. At Satanic rituals she saw children murdered. Yet, at the press conference, she averred that the way she has been treated “since coming out” with her story, is worse than those experiences.
This is terrible and many other abused children have said the same thing. Men who are now senior citizens showed up at Australia’s Royal Commission hearings in 2016 and told how their lives were ruined first by perpetrators and then by the way officials covered it all up. Some broke down in tears when recounting it.
In the field of law, we pride ourselves on not giving credence to self-interested claims unless there is evidence to back them up. This is a bit silly, since, in our normal personal lives, we regularly take self-interested statement to be correct.
We can check on those statements if it becomes necessary but we don’t burden ourselves with such a task unless something big is at stake, or unless there is a factor that has given rise to suspicion.
I’m here to say that we need to do something to reduce the sort of legal treatment that causes an abused child to suffer from the frustration or humiliation of not being believed.
The Rebuttable Presumption, in Law
I make the suggestion that we invoke the concept, already established in law, called “a rebuttable presumption.” Thus we presume something to be true, but leave it open to anyone to produce evidence, or reasoning, that would rebut the presumption.
Can this give rise to people “taking advantage”? Sure. But why say that the problem of advantage-taking is so great that it must stand in the way of humane interactions with those who have probably suffered. That is disproportional.
Reasons To Reject It
Let me anticipate a few arguments against what I have just recommended, viz, the use of “rebuttable presumption.” The subject matter here is child sexual abuse and/or ritual abuse.
- Grown-ups can use false claims of sexual abuse of their child by a spouse, in a divorce case or a child custody case. Usually it would be a mother telling the court that her husband should not have custody, as he would sexually abuse the child.
I am sure this does happen. How frequently it happens we do not know. When this claim is made (if falsely), the husband may end up losing his child, the child may have to lose her Dad, and the man may suffer other penalties, such as losing his reputation.
Very bad stuff, but remember: the presumption that the child is telling the truth is rebuttable. I am not saying it should become an iron law that every claim of abuse is to be believed. I am saying it should not be an iron law that every claim is to be doubted and easily dismissed.
- Even where there is no divorce or custody case, a child may make up a story of sexual abuse. The motive could be to get attention or sympathy.
No doubt it could happen. However, as we saw in the reports to the Royal Commission, the very telling of the details of rape or other molestation is so embarrassing for a child, that it is at least highly unlikely that they would make up a story. (I think I couldn’t have told my mother and certainly not my father, if such a thing happened to me.)
- A child may have heard a story, or seen one on TV, and GENUINELY start to believe it happened to him or her. So here we are not talking about a kid who has a self-serving motive to falsely blame an adult. We are talking about a confused child.
In court there are ways to talk to a child that get at the truth. Indeed there are ways to ask questions of anyone whose story seems implausible. You can gently quiz the person and soon notice if their story does not hold up.
So the idea that a child is confused is never reason to dismiss his claim out of hand. Let a properly trained person interview him.
In sum, I don’t think any of the three problems just listed ought to counter my proposal of presuming children’s reports of sexual abuse to be true, subject to rebuttal.
False Memory Syndrome
All of that is separate from a matter that came up in the 1990s when kids who had been mind-controlled, such as by cults or as part of the CIA’s MK-Ultra program, began to recover their memories of abuse.
It is now well known how the original programming, which kept the person’s recall blanked out, can break down in middle age. In some cases, when the person’s main handler dies, they subconsciously realize that they are free and start to remember old events.
The Powers That Be were desperate to thwart this, or at least thwart any court believing that the kid was recounting a real episode. So Elizabeth Loftus and others came up with “scientific proof” that the human mind can create false memories.
I do believe we often think we have seen something ourselves when in fact we have only been told about it. For example, most of us who were brought up as Christian, in a white-race country, have seen many pictures of Jesus looking mighty white. We somehow think we have seen Jesus, maybe in a dream, so we “know” what color He is.
It is also true that memories change with time. I think that has been sufficiently proven in laboratory tests.
Nevertheless, the False Memory Syndrome organization was a dishonest effort to stand in the way of truth. To take one example, at the McMartin Preschool in California, the complaints by children began in 1979. The parents started comparing notes and finally by 1987 there was a prosecution by the state.
Many children had reported the same things and it was possible for a “blind test” to be done. Thus one child was taken to the street where her alleged abuser, Michael Aquino lived. She properly identified to police which house he lived in and she correctly described some interior features of the house. But Aquino was never prosecuted.
Many “experts” put forth the theory that the kids had a false memory of the event.
In a Cult, the Deck Is Heavily Stacked
There is an additional problem for children whose families are cult members. Even when that child grows up, and even if he gets his brain back enough to desire freedom, he will be a prisoner of his entire family. They will enchain him emotionally.
He will know that in their concept of morality he is committing the greatest sin – disloyalty. And many members of the cult will actually go after him and harass the living daylights out of him.
I mention this type of case here in order to reinforce my plea: Because the child who tells of abuse is under greater-than-usual pressure, believe him. Then make your presumption rebuttable.
The Weirdness of Satanism
In the instance of reports of Satanic rituals, I do not say that the parties refusing to believe a child are acting in bad faith.
Let’s face it. It is majorly hard to imagine the things that are said to go on in rituals related to Satan worship. It is natural to think “She has got to be making this up — no person would be inclined to commit such acts.” Moreover, you’d figure no person would dare commit them, knowing the price would be arrest and imprisonment.
Well, you see that they don’t get arrested, so their fear of that needn’t be factored in to our assessment of whether it happened.
As for no human wanting to have sex with an infant, or chop open a pregnant woman, or whatever else they do, I’m afraid these things do occur. You can research it and discover for yourself. Some writers who admire Satan have boasted of the rightness of committing such acts!
Don’t forget, one of the famous occult practitioners, Aleister Crowley, who was also a member of British Intelligence, declared “Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law.” Fancy that. Such a philosophy “covers a multitude of sins,” as my mother would say.
Hacking Away at the Powerful
By saying that we should give kids a break, I may appear to be on the other side, acting out of mercy. Well I suppose a bit of that comes into it. But my main motive is to get the cruel practises stopped.
And my main motive for wanting to get them stopped is that the whole business seems to be part of the mechanism by which governments are ruled by secret, evil persons. I can’t explain here how that works but please accept for argument that it is so.
The existence of a secret government is a terrible thing, no? It means that all our laws and cultural understandings of right and wrong, and of trust, go haywire. It means we must live in fear of arbitrary punishment. It means we can’t plan for a better society.
I think that is where we are stuck at the moment. But there has been a breakthrough in a scandal called Pizzagate. Many high-ranking people have been “found out” as pedophiles or as murderers of children. If society will keep the pressure on, these folks will get knocked off the their protected perch.
I offer that my proposal for broad acceptance of the “rebuttable presumption” thing will hasten the work that needs to be done. Of course the government will fight against it. They famously do not go after high mucky-mucks.
It is a closed system. But this can help open it.
— Mary W Maxwell is author of Fraud Upon the Court. She is a columnist at GumshoeNews.com