Daughter claims memory of ritual abuse

By RICHARD GUILLIATT

A Sydney couple and a 72-year-old grandmother will face court next month charged with 67 sexual offences in a "repressed memory" case which involves allegations of ritual abuse, enforced abortions and "infant sacrifice". The case, which centres on the repressed memories of the couple's teenage daughter, is among a rash of similar prosecutions which has sparked concerns about the number of repressed memory cases in the courts.

The Herald has identified at least 10 cases in which men and women claim they have been wrongly prosecuted for sexual assault based wholly or in part on the "repressed" memories of their accusers. There is intense debate among therapists about the accuracy of such memories, which are often "recovered" during psychotherapy or counselling.

In the case due for committal proceedings next month, a mother, father and grandmother have been charged with raping and assaulting the couple's children over a 12-year period.

Their eldest daughter alleges she was subjected to sadistic abuse from the age of five, and police allegedly set up a special task force to investigate allegations that the parents were part of a ritual abuse network involving many adults and children.

In another case due to be heard next month, a man serving a six-year jail term for sexual assault claims he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice because his two daughters "recovered" memories of abuse 10 years after it allegedly happened.

Professor Don Thomson, of Edith Cowan University in Western Australia, said he was very concerned about the high number of cases which appeared to be entering the courts. Professor Thomson, a psychologist who has given expert defence testimony on recovered memory, said he was aware of four or five cases that were either at preliminary hearing stage or were being prepared for trial, and of other cases that were "in the wings".

His concerns were echoed by several defence lawyers, including Mr Howard Mason, a barrister who defended a Melbourne father charged with rape after his daughter underwent repressed memory therapy.

Psychologists and lawyers have been concerned about the repressed memory issue since late last year, when a man was tried in Bunbury, Western Australia, on 42 counts of raping and assaulting his two daughters. The prosecution, which was based entirely on memories the daughters recovered after consulting therapists, was unsuccessful.

It is now clear that the Bunbury case was not the first criminal trial involving repressed memory. At least four other cases were prosecuted before it, including an assault case in which a Long Bay prison guard identified his assailants after undergoing a psychological treatment known as Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing.

The Herald is aware of three sexual assault cases in Sydney and four in Melbourne in which recovered memory plays a central role. There have been two unsuccessful prosecutions in Western Australia and a committal hearing is understood to have started in Brisbane this week.

The cases have come to light as some prosecutors and judges have begun expressing reservations in particular cases about the use of therapy and hypnotism to recover memories of trauma.

The Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions announced last month he would no longer prosecute sex cases based on memories recovered during hypnosis, and a Melbourne judge recently tried to postpone the sentencing of a man convicted of sex offences dating back to 1968 based on the recovered memory of his stepdaughter. In an unusual step, the judge said he wanted the defendant's appeal hearing to proceed before sentencing.

The man, 67, was sentenced on Monday to four years in jail after the Supreme Court refused the delay. His appeal is set for next month.

In another development, the Australian Psychological Society has acknowledged it had some reservations about the conduct of a Queensland psychologist who helped several women recover memories of sexual abuse.

The psychologist, Mr Richard Rigby, was the subject of several complaints to the Psychologists' Registration Board of Queensland from parents who complained last year that their daughters had falsely accused them of sexual abuse following his treatment. The board subsequently cleared Mr Rigby of misconduct.

But in a letter sent to one of the families last month, the head of the Psychological Society's ethics committee, Mr Barry Fallon, said that although Mr Rigby's conduct did not constitute a breach of ethics, some aspects of it "were not at the level that one would describe as `best practice'".

These matters had been brought to Mr Rigby's attention, the letter said.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Recovered memory: the case list grows longer

RICHARD GUILLIATT

NINE months ago, the trial of a 65-year-old former teacher in Bunbury, Western Australia, sparked a widespread controversy about repressed memories of sexual abuse. During the trial, the man's two adult daughters recalled 25 years of sadistic incestuous abuse which, they said, they had forgotten until consultation with psychologists and therapists had helped them "recover" memories of their alleged ordeal.

The Bunbury case, in which the jury acquitted the father on 15 charges and was unable to reach a decision on the remaining 27, was widely portrayed as the first "recovered memory" trial in Australia. But inquiries by the Herald have revealed that it was not the first such occurrence, nor an isolated one.

At least four cases prosecuted in Australia before the Bunbury matter involved witnesses who said they had recovered memories in therapy; in the past year, a further six have arisen. In all but one, men are alleged to have sexually assaulted their daughters or stepdaughters, usually many years ago when the alleged victims were children.

Defence lawyers now fear that, despite recent debate about the reliability of recovered memories, a backlog of these cases is building. Professor Don Thomson, of Edith Cowan University in WA, who gave expert defence testimony in the Bunbury trial, says he is aware of five cases before the courts, several others in which allegations were withdrawn recently and at least four more that are "in the wings".

In addition, some prison inmates appear to be making more dubious claims about being victims of recovered memory.

"I have got to say that some of the ones I have worked my way through I don't believe have a lot to do with recovered memory," Professor Thomson says. "Everybody convicted is going to claim they are a victim of repressed memory, no question of that.

" At a psychotherapy conference in Cairns this week, one of the most contentious areas of discussion centred on the possibility that some therapists had unintentionally induced "false memories" of abuse by asking suggestive questions of their patients. Critics such as Professor Thomson argue that therapy patients are extremely vulnerable to leading questions, which are a problem among therapists who regard childhood abuse as a one-size-fits-all cause of adult emotional problems.

Many sexual assault workers and psychotherapists counter that "false memory" is extremely rare and that most therapists are careful not to ask suggestive questions or otherwise influence their patients. Some incest counsellors even assert that the "false memory" controversy is a "beat-up", part of a backlash against feminism and the fight against child abuse.

But the court cases highlight the extreme difficulties recovered memories present for therapists, police and the justice system.

The following case outlines are drawn from NSW court records over the past two years.

CASE 1: Mr and Mrs A

A year later, the parents remain separated from their children and face court proceedings relating to both their criminal case and the care of their children. The accusations against them have now escalated far beyond the original two charges brought by police to include allegations of ritual abuse, "infant sacrifice", enforced abortions and the torture of animals.

The children's 72-year-old grandmother has been charged with eight sexual offences and the parents with 59 offences dating back to 1981.

According to evidence given at a court hearing last month, the allegations made by the couple's teenage daughter arose after she consulted a psychologist who helped her recover suppressed memories from her childhood. The court was told her allegations had been corroborated by her younger sister, who claimed she had undergone an enforced abortion and years of sexual abuse at the hands of both parents. The girls' brother also allegedly made certain admissions to police about sexual relations among the siblings.

By May 1994, according to a Department of Community Services memo tabled in evidence, the following allegations were under investigation: that the children had been taken to six different houses where they were sexually abused by "multiple" adults sometimes dressed in "funny clothes"; that "stupefying drugs" were given to the children and enforced abortions were performed without anaesthetic; that rituals were held relating to the girls' menstrual cycles; and that there was a "suggestion" that an infant had been sacrificed.

"Police strongly suspect this to be a network of adults and children involved in ritualistic abuse," the memo noted. A police task force was formed, the homes of the children's aunts and uncles were searched, and a listening device was placed in the parents' home.

Since then none of the aunts and uncles allegedly involved in ritual abuse has been charged with any offences, nor have the parents been charged over the allegations of abortion and infant sacrifice.

According to documents tabled in court, the youngest daughter has retracted her story about having undergone an enforced abortion, admitting this was a lie, and a senior psychologist with the Department of Community Services advised in a written memo earlier this year that it would be "dangerous both professionally and personally" to proceed with the case.

Despite this, a department officer acknowledged in evidence last month that proceedings were under way to make the children wards of the State. Next month, the parents and grandmother are scheduled to face committal proceedings.

CASE 2: Mr B

ON May 31 last year, a 50-year-old man stood trial in the District Court on four counts of sexually assaulting his two daughters between 1981 and 1983. During the three-day trial, the man's 22-year-old daughter testified that he had raped her in a chicken shed in 1982 and sexually assaulted her in a bedroom the previous year, when she was only nine years old.

Her 24-year-old sister testified that her father had fondled her breast when she was 12, and sexually assaulted her the following year after rubbing oil on her body after a shower.

The girls' mother, who had separated from the father in 1990, testified she recalled an incident some time between 1980 and 1982 in which her husband was "horsing around" in the lounge room with his older daughter and had touched her breast.

Although he denied all the charges, the father acknowledged that he told police it was "possible these events occurred". He said he made that statement because of his "total confusion" and his reluctance to call his daughters liars.

In June last year, the father was found guilty of three of the charges but acquitted of the "chicken shed" incident. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and has now spent a year in various jails in NSW, where he continues to protest his innocence and stage periodic hunger strikes.

The trial took place before any widespread publicity about recovered memory in Australia; in fact, recovered memory was never raised as an issue at the trial. But in a submission filed as part of his appeal earlier this year, the father claimed he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice because his daughters' allegations sprang from memories they recovered 10 years after the alleged events occurred.

The appeal submission noted that both daughters had acknowledged they had "forgotten" the alleged assaults until 1990 and that the youngest daughter's specific memories did not surface until April 1993, after she had consulted a "kinesiologist" - an alternative therapist specialising in massage - whose treatment let the memory "come through".

The submission noted that documents tendered by the prosecution after the jury brought down its guilty verdict showed that the man's youngest daughter had been in psychotherapy and counselling since 1991 and had been described as having "serious psychological and emotional problems".

The documents also showed that his oldest daughter had undergone extensive treatment and counselling since 1990, the year her parents separated, for eating disorders, depression and substance abuse. One of her counsellors had acknowledged she conducted counselling sessions with both sisters and the mother.

None of the documents had been available to the father before his trial, according to the appeal submission. The prosecution has responded that that information was available to the father's solicitor.

His appeal is to begin next month.

CASE 3: Jamal et al

ON July 28, 1991, during an attempted break-out by several prisoners at Long Bay jail, prison officer Neil Thompson was severely bashed. Recuperating in hospital nearly three weeks later, Mr Thompson gave a statement to police in which he named six prisoners involved in the assault but said: "I cannot remember which prisoner did what ... I can just remember that between eight and nine prisoners came into the wing office.

" Two years later, Mr Thompson gave another statement in which he specifically identified three prisoners who had held him and two who had wielded a knife and fire extinguisher during the assault. The prison guard explained that since the assault he had consulted a trauma counsellor and a psychiatrist and the incident had become "more clear" to him. The following month, eight prisoners were put on trial in the Supreme Court for the assault.

Neil Thompson's counsellor was Ray Miletic, a clinical psychologist who used a treatment called Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR), which has come into vogue as a trauma treatment in recent years.

In EMDR treatment, the therapist waves a finger or pencil horizontally in front of the patient's eyes while asking the patient to focus on a traumatic event from the past. Although there is considerable controversy about its usefulness, anecdotal evidence indicates it not only alleviates traumatic stress but also improves memory of traumatic events.

Mr Miletic testified that during an EMDR session with Neil Thompson at his home, the prison guard became very agitated and began reliving the assault of the year previously, indicating that "the EMDR treatment had acted as a catalyst to draw out his repressed memory and experience the horror of his assault".

But Mr Thompson denied EMDR had been a catalyst and said his memories had recovered gradually over a two-year period.

Expert witnesses called to give evidence argued about the value of EMDR. A psychologist, Gary Fulcher, said he had recovered a childhood memory under EMDR which was later verified by his parents; but a psychiatrist, Jonathon Phillips, cautioned that "psychiatry has been bedevilled by miracle treatments" and said there was no satisfactory rationale for EMDR.

Defence lawyers argued that the prison guard's evidence was so tainted by the EMDR process that it should be rendered wholly inadmissible. The judge, Mr Justice Matthews, decided that EMDR had little if any importance in improving Mr Thompson's memory and rejected the defence submission. Two prisoners were found guilty of assault; their cases are currently on appeal.

CAPTION: DRAWING: By Jock Alexander