BOGUS DEVIL VIDEO REKINDLES SATANIC PANIC

.Video evidence presented in a much-heralded Channel 4 Television documentary has been declared bogus. 'BEYOND BELIEF', (shown at 10.30 pm on 19/2/92) claimed to show a video which contained prime facie scenes of illegal abortion, child sex and buggery. In order to back up these allegations the programme makers interviewed a woman who claimed to have been part of the group which made the video. She told viewers that she had witnessed human sacrifices and that she had sacrificed her own baby. But it was all lies. The programme makers knew very well that the video was simply far-out Performance Art by a popular rock group who have many other over-18 rated videos in public circulation. Most of the scenes were library shots cut in from other sources and the video contained no evidence of Satanism nor Abortion, nor buggery. 'Beyond Belief' was simply another Cook Report's Devil's Work special. The latest irresponsible hatchet-job in the unending campaign by a small clique of 'experts' to promote their wildest suspicions about the myth of Satanic Abuse. The attempt by Dispatches to pass the video off as a secret film of Satanic Rites was utterly reprehensible. Their programme misrepresented facts and concealed partisan motivations of some people who took part in the programme as we shall reveal. 'Beyond Belief' was the 'first-guard' in what will become a last-ditch attempt to breathe life back into the Satanic Panic by the same obsessed therapists and journalists who invented the idea in the first place. Another documentary supporting controversial disclosure techniques is to be screened soon by the First Tuesday programme. This will largely be co-ordinated by journalist Tim Tate, the researcher who gave Britain their first bogus national satanic panic in the form of the discredited Cook Report, 'The Devil's Work'. Further 'Seminars for the Obsessed' occurred during February, March and April, where the growing isolation of 'believers' in Satanic Abuse will reform and regurgitate their 'expertise' on an unsuspecting public. The very same pro-sramists who promoted the Myth in 1988/9 are getting it on again. The same old unproveable stories, the same unproveable allegations, the same disproven cases, the same illogical lies about occult doctrine and aims. What appears different in Beyond Belief are the players and the wrapping. But nothing has changed, nothing is new. Behind the scenes in Dispatches the 'evidence' is traceable directly to the same people who initially promoted the idea of Satanic Ritual Abuse in the U.K. and whose Rotweiller mentality has been only temporarily subdued because of public ridicule after Orkney. Choosing to remain quiet until the public's attention span waned, they have reformed into another battle-wagon using new ambassadors to push their obsessions yet again.But the shock-value has worn thin. The public has become impatient with the exaggerated claims of 'experts' in Satanic Abuse. The public have had enough of the Witch-hunt along with its bandwagon of obsessed social workers, radicaltherapists, fanatical fundamentalists, and opportunist media. The public's response to the allegations contained in the programme is now pretty well unanimous. Go and peddle your evil somewhere else!Reviews of the programme have ranged from lukewarm through critical to absolute ridicule. The tabloidesque emotional manipulation in the programme, which used actors pretending to be patients to simulate trauma, won no friends in a broadcast which pretended to take a 'dispassionate' and 'objective' line in its investigations. Thomas Sutcliffe of the Independent wrote that the programme "didn't advance our understanding". That its maker [Andrew Boyd] suggested that evidence has been mocked because we couldn't face up to the truth "..but was decidedly fuzzy himself about what the truth was" The Independent review ended by posing the perceptive question: " Are witnesses psychologically disturbed because what they say is true, or is what they say untrue because they are disturbed?"Even the Observer, the Newspaper whose journalists exclusively unveiled the 'new evidence' on 16.2.92, had to admit that they had backed the wrong horse. John Naughton, Observer columnist, wrote: "Rumours of Satanic Abuse have been around for a long time, during which time no policeman has ever found a shred of forensic evidence for its existence. Moreover the provenance of such rumours often turns out to be evangelical Christians who are, almost by definition, off the wall. So the big question which Mr Boyd's film set out to answer was "How long can such abuse remain beyond belief?" The answer, I'm afraid, is for a bit longer, or at least until he comes up with something more convincing." (Observer 23.2.92)Although initial promotion of 'Beyond Belief' assured viewers that it was 'detailed and scrupulously researched' (Oracle P447 19.2.92) there were many glaring inaccuracies and omissions. The SAFF have produced a long-list of factual inaccuracies unworthy of a programme with pretentions towards a definitive review of the subject. You will find some of the more important points discussed later. The errors were particularly vexatious because this was the SECOND unsuccessful attempt by the Dispatches series to sell viewers the idea that Satanic Ritual Abuse exists. During October 1990, in the midst of the uproar over the Rochdale Satanic Abuse Case, the feminist Beatrix Campbell was given a commission to reveal 'new evidence' to prove a satanic link in the infamous Nottinghamshire Broxtowe child abuse case. The Broxtowe case was the kingpin upon which all other U.K. SRA allegations have been built and pro-SRAMists (promoters of the Satanic Ritual Abuse Myth) involved in that case provided research for Boyd. Replete with similar melodrama to the Beyond Belief programme the 'discoveries' in Campbell's piece were 'secret' tunnels under a cemetery in Nottingham which matched some of the testimony of children and a cache of prosthetics found in a Lodge in the cemetery. Only after the emotive effects of the programme was it disclosed that Nottingham is riddled with such tunnels and caves and that this is common knowledge to all residents. The cache of prosthetics turned out to be the weekly haul of litter from the grounds which the caretaker was waiting to dump. These circumstances lead Dispatches to claim 'new evidence'. Pathetically many 'believers' still consider the evidence presented in this programme to be worthy. What is not common knowledge is that around the time the commissioning editors of Channel 4 gave the go-ahead to Campbell's programme they refused a commission from an alternative programme by two award winning journalists which intended to DISPROVE the existence of Satanic Abuse in theNottinghamshire Case. Over a year later, the debate over any Nottinghamshire Satanic connection has worn itself out with the authorities pronouncing that there was no Satanic Ritual Abuse aspect. The two journalists who knew this and who could have proved it had they been given a commission by Dispatches, are still waiting in the wings. Yet in the rarified atmosphere of Channel 4's commissioning suite, Dispatches still continues to indulge in senseless Occult-Bashing with this latest programme.It is ironic that Channel 4's pretentions towards Access Television seem dependent not upon the spirit of its formation but upon the personal preferences of some of its commissioning editors. The current idea that Channel 4 is a valid station which can represent and protect alternative and minority religious beliefs cannot now be relied upon. It would be unthinkable for a racist to be in a position to pursue their prejudices within Channel 4s output, yet there is more than an inkling to suggest that Cultural prejudice rules the day in Dispatches.Why could this be? The reason is obvious. Documentary programmes are simply intellectual whipping posts which present society with homologated scapegoats in order to absolve the intelligentsia of evils within a society the circumstances of which they themselves have created. With the successful decomposition of stereotypes on race, gender and the continuing dispelling of myths surrounding minorities, documentary journalists are finding it more and more difficult to incite xenophobia without jeopardising some valid minority viewpoint. How much safer to pick on a bunch of irrelevant hippies who have no power-lobby to fall back on and whose interests are not only considered morally indefensible but are ignored by Broadcasting Standards. Pack-instinct victimisation is obvious in the way Beyond Belief was made. The importance of accurate research and corroboration when broadcasting extremely serious allegations of murder and child sexual abuse is too apparent to need emphasising. Particular care required in a documentary which contains recommendations for the enactment of new laws and which demanded automatic amnesty for witnesses who might be accessories to murder. Not only did Andrew Boyd's programme throw aside all professional responsibility in this area, but it did a good job of interfering with the course of justice through its selective presentation and censorship. This is not the type of thing we have come to expect from Dispatches. Why was it allowed to occur? Just who is responsible in Channel 4s hierarchy for vetting the programme and why didn't they do their job properly? For example, Boyd's Book contains a list of the people from whom he obtained most of the background material for his 2 years of research on so-called Satanic Abuse. No less than 14 of his main sources of information have a connection with campaigning Christian evangelism or fundamentalism. Five of Boyd's major contributors have been heavily criticised in various newspapers or TV/radio programmes for their obsessive belief in Satanic Ritual Abuse and the unreliability of their opinions and failure of their evidence when put to the test. Moreover, in trusting to the anecdotal testimony of the ready-made network of pro-SRAMists ( who seem to have passed Boyd around their clique) he has not bothered to corroborate many of their claims and publishes them without checking into their veracity. As you might expect therefore he ends up with an astonishing estimate of over 900 current victims of ritual abuse. He repeated this statistic in Beyond Belief as though it was a fact. Viewers have no way of knowing that as suspected cases entered the pro-SRAMist network they were, like Boyd, passed around to people who added them to their own 'list of cases'. This multiplied the number of cases dramatically. Additionally Boyd conveniently and completely fails to differentiate between supposed cases and cases which come to court. Not one case of Satanic Abuse has stood up in court but how much less proof are allegations by victim imposters cases which relate to evidence so uncheckable that prosecution never follows? Neither does Boyd clarify the proportion of cases which refer to adults and the proportion which refers to children. Anyone who has tracked the Satanic Ritual Abuse Myth over the past four years begins to get a strong feeling of Deja-Vu as definitions change by the minute at the convenience of the pro-sramists. We have been this way before.For instance in his book Boyd writes that Dianne Core of Childwatch says she has had first hand experience of 37 cases yet the S.A.F.F. has documented Dianne Core's involvement in just two cases in which police action was taken. Neither case succeeded in proving the existence of Satanic Abuse but it did result in a complaint by a police officer that Core's interference had compromised their investigation. Despite a two year long campaign by Childwatch (1988-1990) in which the group combined with Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens and used every tabloid opportunity to hype the Satanic Abuse Myth (at one point Dianne Core was reported as claiming that 4,000 children per year were being sacrificed to satan) Childwatch were unable to find one case which proved Ms Core's belief that Satanic Abuse existed. Boyd adds Core's 37 cases to his 900 total yet the S.A.F.F. claim that Dianne Core has not produced one proven case of Satanic Ritualised Abuse. In the same way, Boyd writes that another of his sources, Maureen Davies, an avowed fundamentalist who believes in demon infestation, exorcism and end-time ministry, claims that she has First Hand Experience of 70 cases of ritualised Abuse. Yet it is a matter of public knowledge that despite her link with many of the early supposed Satanic Abuse Cases, Ms Davies has been unsuccessful in proving ANY Satanic content in any of them. Moreover in her last interview with the press (Sunday Telegraph 7 April 1991) Davies admitted to Victoria Macdonald that 'she has never had to deal with anyone younger than a teenager' and "of everyone that we have ever spoken to only one went into it for the sexual activity." Boyd adds Davies' 70 cases to his total. Knowing the background would you? How can Boyd justify this lackadaisical approach to data which is destined to convince the police and the judiciary that radical changes are required to criminal law and amnesty for witnesses? Dr Stephen Hempling is another of Boyd's sources. Hempling, a retired police forensic expert, appears in the Dispatches programme and tells us that as far as he is concerned Satanic Abuse must exist because reports were too consistent and persistent. From a forensic expert this sounds like an impressive opinion indeed yet as Thomas Sutcliffe of the Independent points out, such logic is 'reminiscent of the intellectual rigour of flying saucer enthusiasts'. In Boyd's book Stephen Hempling is reported as being 'aware' of 8 ritual abuse cases. In fact Hempling is referring to 8 supposed cases of ritualised abuse in Sussex which he featured in an article he wrote for the journal of the British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse & Neglect, a group which has firm links with the NSPCC. Unfortunately for Dr Hempling , as soon as it was published the Sussex Police said that the incidents had been investigated thoroughly and there was no evidence linking the eight cases. Their investigations had not lead to any prosecutions. (Guardian 12 June 1991) So Hempling's cases, according to the police, are not even suspected. In short it doesn't seem that Hempling has first hand experience of any real case of Satanic Abuse, yet here he is opining as an expert. So far we have dispensed with over 100 cases by simple critical inspection of 'evidence, which Boyd took for granted. We could do the same with most of Boyd's sources, until his 900 claimed cases virtually disappear. Peter Horrobin,( billed as a Christian Carer in Boyd's Book), is in fact the British head of a very large fundamentalist organisation which has just spent over a million pounds on headquarters for their South of England base. His organisation helps arranges Tent-Crusades during which star overseas 'stage evangelists' exorcise hundreds of people en mass, converting sobbing and writhing people to Christianity in their thousands. In between time Horrobin's organisation trains evangelists to exorcise devil's from people who may be mentally disturbed or sick. Boyd reports Horrobin as claiming that he has First Hand Experience of more than 100 victims. But victims of what? The untutored observer is not helped to differentiate between the supposed ritual abuse of children and the supposed ritual abuse of adults. Neither is the reader/viewer aided in the definition between what evangelists consider 'Occultic Abuse' (i.e. Fantasy Games, Rock Music, Vegetarianism, hypnotism etc) and the medical & psychological definition used by professionals whose opinions Boyd interchangeably uses. In fact Horrobin's organisation (The Christian Trust), runs intensive residential courses for evangelicals in Ministering to the Sexually Abused. These courses cover 'The Demonisation of Man' and how to cast out 'Sexual Spirits', 'Ritualistic Spirits' and 'Demonic Entry Points'. People who are 'rescued' from Satan by Horrobin's organisation are first given a 190 part questionnaire which lists over one hundred and fifty things which Horrobin's organisation consider Satanic, including: Abstract Art; Horse-shoes over Doors; tea-leaf reading; Punk Rock; Meditation; Dungeons & Dragons; Handwriting Analysis; Mascots; Acupuncture and Men With Gold Earrings! With such an unreasonable spread of qualifying criteria is it any wonder that Horrobin claims to have experienced over 100 cases? He would find it difficult NOT to discover cases, which to his mind, might have some connection with Satanism using those parameters; would he not? If Boyd took anecdotal evidence for his programme from research provided by people with such an 'imaginative' world-view as this, is it any wonder he ends up interpreting Performance Art as Satanic Abuse? On any count Horrobin's 100 cases are suspicious if not worthless in relation to Boyd's allegations of Satanic Murder and Abortion. The largest number of cases which Boyd reported was 300 for Sue Hutchinson, founder of SAFE, an organisation set up to help 'victims' of Satanic Abuse. Hutchinson claims to have been a victim herself whose memory of the abuse was repressed for 16 years. We quite simply don't believe Ms Hutchinson's allegations because the accuracy of her regained memory about her Satanic experiences is in inverse proportion to her inability to remember the slightest detail which could give police a link with the perpetrators. She has herself admitted that she is unable to prove any of her story. On August 8 1990 The Guardian reported that 'Ms Hutchinson said that she had no evidence to substantiate her claims, but insisted the practices were widespread.' Until the S.A.F.F. see categoric proof and case-histories are produced Ms Hutchinson's opinions will remain opinions and her 300 cases will remain suspect. Having just about halved Boyd's claimed 900 cases we find Audrey Harper listed by him for 45 cases of claimed Satanic Abuse. Harper was the co-director of REACHOUT a controversial Christian evangelical Trust which considers Christian Spiritualists and Jehovah's Witnesses to be a form of Satanism. Audrey Harper was Maureen Davies' co-director and star lecturer throughout the early years of the Satanic Scare and combined evidence with her on TV and newspaper interviews, promotions and lectures. Mrs Harper's pool of cases will be substantially the same if not identical to that of Mrs Davies'. How could Andrew Boyd have overlooked the fact that Kevin Logan, a Blackburn Vicar, had closely collaborated with both Maureen Davies and Dianne Core. To the extent of supporting each other's views in newspaper and media interviews (and appearing together in the discredited Cook Report special on The Devil's Work) including arranging with Davies to pick up and safe-house a SRA victim who later turned out to be an imposter. He also provided Core with 'cases' and background which were used in a dossier on Satanic Abuse which she intended to present to the Home Secretary. None of Logan's cases were proven and the possibility of cross-contamination is just too great to admit any of the 18 he claims without further extrapolation. Far from being even an approximate estimate, Boyd's statement that there have been 900 victims of Satanic Abuse is virtually fictitious. The S.A.F.F.'s own researches, which have always proved exceedingly accurate, show that SUSPECTED cases of Satanic Ritual Abuse from 1988 to date have involved just over three dozen children and that includes those wrongly accused in Rochdale and the children in Orkney. NOT ONE CASE OF RITUALISED ABUSE HAS BEEN PROVEN IN THE COURTS. To all intents and purposes statistics show ZERO cases of Satanic Abuse in the U.K. and Boyd's programme has not changed that total despite fictitious claims otherwise. Oracle described Andrew Boyd's programme as 'scrupulously researched and well-written investigation' but in fact it begins and ends with wildly exaggerated approximations and unreliable definitions. And there's worse to follow for the key player in convincing the audience of the veracity of both the 'prima-facie evidence' of the video and Boyd's insistence that children are abused as part of Satanic Rites, is 'Jennifer', an emotionally disturbed witness who claims to be a victim of Satanic Abusers and who validates the video during the broadcast by claiming to have been an ex-member of the group which made it. The witness confirms that she took part in similar rituals in the same room as that shown in the video and interprets a scene from the video as being a ritual abortion. Boyd: "Did you see this happen?"Jennifer: "Yes I did"Boyd: "How many times did you see it happen?"Jennifer: "I saw it twice"Boyd: "Who is performing the Abortion?"Jennifer: "It's a pregnant woman"Boyd: "Is there a significance in that?"Jennifer: "Yes, Abortion is always performed by a pregnant woman so that the Boyd: "What would happen to the foetus?" Jennifer: "They would be used in sacrificing rituals"Boyd: "And what would happen to the remains?"Jennifer: "They would be burnt, perhaps their bodies would be melted, just burnt down, rendered down, something like that. To be used in potions and salves that are used in rituals."Boyd:" We've seen something which looks rather like a dentist's chair occurring a number of times in this tape. Have you seen this chair at all?" Jennifer "Yes I have"Boyd: "And where was it?"Jennifer: "It was in the East End of London , in the basement." Boyd: "Is what we are looking at that room?" Jennifer: "Yes it is"Boyd: "Are you certain?"Jennifer: "I'm positive."This sound's pretty well conclusive. Certainty beyond any thought of criticism. But is it? Jennifer's testimony is the only corroboration which Dispatches offer for their 'video evidence'. In fact the video was published as Performance Art during 1983 in a limited edition of 100 copies by a Rock Band. The premises used for filming the shots shown on the programme do not have a basement. The woman whom Jennifer identified as being pregnant is in fact just fat and is willing to be identified and speak up for herself. The scene does not show an abortion. The shot, which lasted only a few seconds, was so questionable that the programme makers consulted an obstetrician, Dr Wendy Savage, for her expert opinion. Eileen Fairweather , a researcher for Dispatches, used statements from Wendy Savage, in an article in the Observer. Fairweather interspersed Savage's comments within conclusive comments about the scene from Dr Stephen Hempling. The programme makers were inferring that the scene had been conclusively identified as an abortion. But that is not the case. In an interview with West Midlands BBC Radio the day after broadcast Mrs Savage corrected that impression. This is how the interview went. Interviewer: You were actually brought in to look at one particular scene which I think was what we are lead to believe was a very young girl who was being subjected to a forceps foetal abortion. Was that mock - was that real?Savage: Well for a start I was not able to say whether this was a very young girl or not. And I from the bit of the video I could see, I would have said it was more likely that it was a late teenage woman rather than a pre-pubescent girl but it is terribly difficult to be dogmatic about things like that with such poor quality film. There was a sequence where there was a round object near the vulva but although one could have said that this was the size ofa foetal head it didn't have any hair or vernex and it could just have been a ball or an orange put there to make it look like something of that nature. In another sequence which wasn't absolutely next door to this bit where the ball was near the vulva it looked as though something was being pushed into the vagina but there wasn't any obvious blood pouring out and as they were so keen on showing you blood I would have thought that if there had been blood they would have done so and it is certainly not the way that I would do an abortion nor the way that I've read that illegal abortionists doing it because they do look at the cervix, the neck of the womb in order to pass an instrument through it and not just push things into the vagina willy nilly. "On February 23 she spoke again to the Mail on Sunday newspaper. They reported:'Dr Wendy Savage said last night that it was not an abortion. " I told the film-makers this, but they chose not to use it. I also told them that in my opinion someone had a very fertile imagination". 'Not quite the same impression of absolute proof as that given in the programme by any stretch of the imagination. In fact there are MANY inconsistencies in Boyd's research and allegations. We are told that Jennifer became a member of the group in 1980, but the group was not formed until a year later. All these things could have been very easily checked by the police and by Dispatches for that matter, before beginning another Satanic Panic. Although Boyd has claimed several times to be working in unison with Scotland Yard's Satan Squad it appears that Dispatches has refused to put the police in touch with this key witness. Why should the programme makers protect a woman who has confessed to murdering her child? As Dr Wendy Savage pointed out, our society makes allows for infanticide and would certainly accept mitigation about duress if she gave herself up. Is Channel 4 protecting 'Jennifer' or hiding the fictitious nature of the woman's evidence? Decide for yourself. During the BBC Radio West Midlands programme Andrew Boyd was linked in by telephone and in discussing 'Jennifers' testimony Boyd admitted that: "in checking out the account of the survivor you are discussing we can't verify, er, blow for blow, what she is describing because it was a long time ago and none of us were there." It would appear then that Dispatches have set in motion police action, search and seizure over allegations of murder and abortion which have no basis in fact. Andrew Boyd's book Blasphemous Rumours was published to co-incide with the Dispatches programme. Beyond Belief spread the idea that there is proof at last of Satanic Ritualised Abuse . The Dispatches programme was based on Boyd's research material for his book yet, strangely, Jennifer's case doesn't appear at all in Boyd's book. Neither does any mention of this 'prima facie' video 'evidence'. It is as though it never happened. Although the book does mention the accused group in passing there is no reference to such things as satanic abuse, abortion, child sacrifice, child abuse and other horrors which were included in the programme. In fact in his book Boyd plays the devil's advocate and challenges himself as to whether anyone can take their eccentric leader seriously. A rather impression to that expressed in the programme. The group which Boyd named on TV could best be described as the fan-club of the rock band. Channel 4 are now acutely aware of this because after the programme the 'help-line' number was beleagured with complaints from HUNDREDS of dissatisfied fans who all made the point that the video shown was no secret. Their favourite group, the callers said, weren't into abusing children, murdering babies, or carrying out abortions. So quick and articulate was the response of the rock-bands' fans that Channel 4 set up a confrontation between Andrew Boyd and a reviewer in their Right To Reply programme on 22.3.92 during which Boyd made a number of other lame excuses for inflicting his half-baked programme upon us, including: "We did not set out to prove anything. We said that we had evidence which suggests that ritual satanic abuse exists . We are not talking about proof.. there are a lot of strands which together have to be weighed and have to be tried and have to be tested before we can talk about proof. We are not at that stage yet."Viewers can be forgiven for thinking that that was not the impression they received on screen.