BTW I'd love to have Debbie Nathan on for an interview... but I bet you a small fortune she'd never agree to it. if you can help me set it up I'll do it anytime anywhere. the woman looks like a simple-minded useful idiot.
I’d be very happy to look into setting something up with Debbie Nathan. From my perspective, that’s the most productive direction this series could take. I’ll email you about this. I don’t wish to make an impassioned plea for the integrity of her journalism, I do see that
Satan’s Silence is written with total acceptance of the witch hunt narrative from the start, however I also find it to be a well researched book, as best I can tell.
I did read the available sections of
The Witch Hunt Narrative. It might have some interesting points, and I certainly don’t want to be a cheerleader for Nathan’s journalism, but thus far I have not found it to be a compelling rebuke. I was also aware that evidence based on rectal examinations was central to the trial.
Nathan does write about Mathew’s Johnson’s examination on August 12th, as well as the one in July. She references M. Johnson’s medical records, but does not mention Dr. Richard Segal by name. I don’t think this omission is especially grievous given she was writing a popular book on the topic. She is also clear that Judy Johnson did not raise the issue of sexual assault at the July meeting, which is not the impression Cheit gives. More damning would be Nathan not clearly mentioning the examination by Dr. Scott McGeary where he concluded ‘possible sodomization’ had taken place. That’s the kind of question that would be good to put to her.
The main difference I find between Nathan and Cheit’s narratives is one of emphasis. Cheit always has Mathew Johnson coming to his mentally stable mother volunteering information about thermometers, whereas Nathan has a mentally unstable mother dragging this stuff out of him. I dislike this unobjective tone in both writers.
An example of Cheit being duplicitous would be his comments on page 63, that Nathan cites only a single publication in support of her claim that sodomy can maim or kill a child, and that this publication does not support her claim. This gives the impression that Nathan is fabricating facts, when in fact she additionally cites a phone interview with a Dr. Robert tenBensel as the source of her information. This may be a small point but it’s clearly deceptive, Cheit cannot have failed to notice this during his dissection of the rest of the footnote.
I will look at the Glendale case, but I’m not sure it’s relevant to McMartin. I don’t for one moment doubt that child sexual abuse goes on in daycares. I also don’t doubt that some of this is orchestrated and connected to powerful people who can squash investigations of it. I’m also in the camp that strongly suspects what has come into the light, both in Britain and America, is tip of the iceberg stuff.
Given that I can see why someone would look at McMartin and see a pattern. I can’t do that, as I also don’t doubt that the US legal system targets and persecutes completely innocent individuals and convicts them using fake evidence and coerced witness statements. A-priori, it is not obvious to me which camp any individual case belongs in.
It’s also apparent that the latter is used to cover the former, dismissing incidents like Franklin, where Satanic rites were reported, under the umbrella of Satanic Panic. If this is a deliberate strategy then it’s an excellent one - hence why it’s absolutely crucial not to fall into the trap!