• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
“The Search for Satan”: Fourteen Years LaterBy Lynn Crook, M.Ed.(permission granted to post)http://ritualabuse.us/research/memory-fms/the-search-for-satan-fourteen-years-later/AUTHOR NOTE: In my initial review of PBS Frontline’s “The Search for Satan” forTreating Abuse Today I reported some of the problems I had discovered in thisdocumentary: (1) In several clips, producer Bikel flashed a quick shot of adocument and narrowed the camera focus to one statement. Using the pause button, Iwas able to read the rest of the document. There I learned that Mary Shanley wasnot, as the producers claimed, “having a normal life and doing normal things”before her hospitalization in Houston. (2) The film contained a surprising numberof recreated scenes which were not labeled as such. (3) A supposedly direct quotefrom FBI agent Ken Lanning had been edited. (4) A call to the State of Illinoisrevealed that Shanley had not been “listed with the State of Illinois as a childabuser,” nor had her teaching certificate been listed as “restrictive.” (5) I didsome research and found the producers failed to mention that Shanley had beenhospitalized at four different hospitals and received a diagnosis of “mixedpersonalities.”I titled my review “Smoke and Mirrors,” and it appeared in the Jan/Feb 1996 issueof Treating Abuse Today.Two years later, the women featured in the film, Shanley and Pat Burgus, had bothsettled their lawsuits against their therapists. Shanley’s case settled with a gagorder in place. Malpractice carrier AIG and two others had settled Burgus’s casefor $10.6 million .The medical license of Burgus’s psychiatrist was suspended fortwo years. Five of Shanley’s mental health care providers were indicted on federalfraud and conspiracy charges.I flew down to Houston in September of 1998 to cover the trial in federal court,and was in the courtroom when Shanley was on the witness stand. During cross-examination, defense attorney Rusty Hardin discredited virtually all of the claimsShanley had made in “Search.” Shanley acknowledged she recalled memories of cultabuse long before she met the defendants, and could not name any false memoriesthat Peterson had supposedly implanted. The government rested its case after fivemonths. All charges against the five defendants were then dismissed.My follow-up review “The Search for Satan: Three Years Later” was published in theSeptember/October 1998 issue of Treating Abuse Today.In 2001, I reviewed the lengthy deposition of Pat Burgus, the second womanfeatured in “The Search for Satan.” I found that on January 17, 1997, Burgus hadacknowledged that her psychiatrist had not implanted any false memories. Instead,he had only passed on to her what other patients at the hospital had reportedabout her (Deposition, pp. 912-913). Based upon Burgus’s deposition, her mentalhealth had improved significantly during her hospitalization.The following article has been slightly revised from the version that appeared inTreating Abuse Today in 1998.“The Search for Satan”: Three Years Later“Two troubled women. Both sought help from some of the top doctors in the country.The diagnosis? Satanic ritual abuse!..After millions of dollars in treatment, the
 
women now say, ‘The doctors were wrong!’”So begins Frontline’s 1995 film, “The Search for Satan.” The media hailed the filmas an “indictment against therapists” and the film was re-broadcast by publictelevision stations around the world.The “two troubled women” were Mary Shanley and Pat Burgus. “Some of the topdoctors” were Bennett Braun, Roberta Sachs in Chicago and Judith Peterson inHouston. “The diagnosis” was not “satanic ritual abuse,” but multiple personalitydisorder.“The Search for Satan” on Frontline“The Search for Satan” was produced and written by Ofra Bikel and Rachel Dreitzenfor PBS Frontline. “Search” aired on October 24, 1995. At its website, Frontlinedescribes its commitment to viewers.From its inception, FRONTLINE has never shied away from tough, controversialissues or stories others avoided because they seemed too gray and complex for theblack and white spectrum of conventional broadcast journalism. For there is anaesthetic goal as well: the fusion of credible, thoughtful reportage withcompelling narrative, the story well told. In the end, that is the core ofFrontline’s commitment to its viewers.The following excerpts compare the Frontline producers’ “credible, thoughtfulreportage” in 1995 to what their interviewees said under oath during US v.Peterson et al. in 1998.MEREDITH SHRINER - MARY SHANLEY’S BEST FRIENDSearch - Shriner said the Shanleys were the typical loving family. Mary was amodel wife and mother, her husband’s lover and best friend, a woman filled withpatience, the perfect feminine presence in a typical, loving family. She had awonderful relationship with her son, Ryan. Mary was a great mom, she had tons ofpatience.vs.Testimony: Shriner testified that Mary experienced panic attacks. Mary wasincreasingly disturbed by her angry outbursts against Ryan and Joe, and theShanleys were experiencing marital problems.MARY SHANLEY – FORMER HOSPITAL PATIENT AND GOVERNMENT’S STAR WITNESSSearch - “I was in very poor health [when I left SSG].”vs.Trial: Shanley, a slender woman, testified during direct examination that she hadgained 25 pounds since her Spring Shadows Glen (SSG) release. During cross,Shanley appeared confused when shown hospital records indicating that she weighed108 pounds when she entered SSG, her weight dropped to 105 pounds during her stay,and she weighed 108 when she left SSG. Shanley testified during direct that shewas prevented from seeing a dentist despite her complaints of pain from anabscessed tooth. However, hospital records showed that she refused dental care for2 months prior to November 3rd because she felt that dental care prior to thatdate would be “triggering.” She was prescribed antibiotics to contain the dentalinfection. She complained of back pain due to abreactive sessions and wasprescribed additional voluntary restraints to support her back.Search - NARRATOR: In 1988, Mary fell into a deep depression… MARY: Because I wassuffering from seizures and blackouts, the counselor thought I might be suffering
 
from a dissociative disorder. So I went for an evaluation at the best hospital inChicago [Rush Presbyterian-St. Lukes’ Medical Center].vs.Trial - Two years prior to entering the dissociative disorders unit at Rush,Shanley was evaluated and hospitalized for memory blackouts and self-harmingepisodes at the following facilities: Alexian Brothers in May 1989, ForrestHospital in January 1990, Old Orchard in March 1990 and Rush Memorial in 1990. Shewas hospitalized at SSG in Houston in May 1991, and discharged in June 1993. Undercross, it was shown that insurance claims reviewers determined that Shanley was“chronically suicidal,” hence, “untreatable,” and advised that she should beplaced in a nursing home. Shanley refused this option, and SSG staff assisted herin finding housing and employment.SALLY MCDONALD: UNIT NURSING SUPERVISOR AT SPRING SHADOWS GLENSearch – ‘‘These kids [Pat Burgus two sons] came into the hospital as reallystable, well-functioning kids.”vsTrial: Contrary to hospital records indicating the boys were very troubled,McDonald testified that the boys were stable because, in her judgment, theyappeared stable. She further testified that she decided that a patient whosehospital records stated that she had been sexually abused could not have beensexually abused if a gynecological report showed that the patient’s hymen wasintact“Search – “It became very clear to the nurses that if we objected that there wouldbe a reprisal, and that reprisal would be a transfer off the unit, a demotion andin some cases an actual termination’vs.Trial: Under cross, McDonald could name no instances in which nurses weretransferred, demoted or terminated. McDonald was eventually demoted for below-standard nursing practices.Frontline’s “Guidelines on Journalistic Standards and Practices”Frontline’s Guideline #7 states that “where it may be appropriate to re-enact orstage an event, it must be labeled clearly and unmistakably as such.”Readers may recall a powerful scene from “The Search for Satan” which showedShanley seated in a large, crowded church sanctuary as the pastor supposedly toldhis congregation: “In April of 1989, satanism came out of the closet for all of usto see it in all of its ugliness. The satan worshippers that pose the greatestthreat to our society are the secret splinter groups, scores of clandestine groupsare meeting right here in our neighborhood and the amount of activity is on therapid increase…”Under cross-examination, Shanley testified that she had never attended thischurch. The scene was not labeled as a re-enactment.The Guidelines say that producers “will exercise extreme care in checking theaccuracy and credibility of all information they receive, especially as it mayrelate to accusations of wrongdoing.”During her final day on the witness stand, Shanley testified that she now viewsher hospital treatment as “worse than it was” and that, at some future time, andshe might “testify differently” regarding her hospitalization experiences.In response, the defense stood to object, “But Ms. Shanley, these defendants arefacing prison terms.”
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...