[escepticos] RV: This is not a story for the weak of heart ...

["planetario de pamplona" <planetario@...>]

recordais el asunto de la niña de 10 años esa que mataron en una sesión de
"rebirthing" o algo así?
pues eso

j.armentia

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Garrison L. Hilliard <garrison en vcn.bc.ca>
Fecha: domingo, 22 de abril de 2001 20:22
Asunto: This is not a story for the weak of heart ...


>
>(From John Stone <jstone en e-guys.com> via my SKEPTIX list)
>
>Linda and I are very pleased to report the conviction Friday night of two
>very vicious mental-health quacks in Colorado.
>
>Connell Watkins, 54, a pioneer in the treatment of "attachment
>disorder" in
>children, and her associate, Julie Ponder, 40, were found guilty of
>reckless child-abuse resulting in death.  They will be sentenced on June
>18th, and each will receive from 16-48 years in Colorado state prison.  In
>addition, Watkins was convicted on a second felony, criminal
>impersonation,
>which carries an additional 12 to 18 months of prison time, and on two
>misdemeanors--obtaining a signature by deception and unlawful practice of
>psychotherapy.
>
>During six hours of deliberation, the jury apparently was never in doubt
>as
>to the guilt of the defendants on the main charge.  On April 18, 2001, the
>two "psychotherapists," together with two "assistants," killed 10-year-old
>Candace Newmaker by wrapping her 70-pound body in a flannel sheet, piling
>on eight pillows and 673 pounds of adults, and leaving her there until she
>died from lack of oxygen.  Her adoptive mother, a pediatric nurse
>practitioner(!), watched while they did it.  A video camera recorded the
>whole thing.
>
>The two assistants and the mother also face charges and will be tried this
>fall.
>
>The case has been something of an international sensation because of the
>videotape of the child's death.  It showed the four tormenting the girl
>during a putative "rebirthing" session.  After instructing her to try to
>come out of her flannel "womb," they then did everything they could to
>frustrate her efforts to comply, blocking her movements, retying the ends
>of the sheet, shifting their weight, and never heeding her cries for help.
>As Candace literally struggled and screamed for her life, they answered
>with taunts and chilling encouragements to "go ahead and die."  While the
>jury and the other 65 people in the small courtroom watched and listened
>to
>the life ebbing away from a lovely, vibrant, and courageous little girl,
>all save a few were visibly moved.  It was literally enough to make a
>grown
>man cry.  Tears well up still when memories of what I saw on that tape
>return unbidden and haunt a quiet moment.  I will never be the same as I
>was before.
>
>That was only Day 4 of the 14-day trial.  (Linda and I--and Emily,
>too--sat
>there every day and took copious notes through it all.)  There was much
>more to come, and it was, in many ways, even worse.  There were 10 more
>hours of videotapes of this child enduring hitherto unimaginably cruel,
>degrading, and frankly disgusting practices in what were called "holding"
>sessions.  In just one two-hour session, for example, Candace had her face
>grabbed, with enforced eye contact, 90 times, had her head violently
>shaken
>309 times, was screamed at just inches away from her face 68 times.  The
>"therapy" sessions were all like that, with just variations on the theme.
>In another, for example, she had her mother lay on her for an hour and 42
>minutes, and had her face licked some 21 times; in another, she had her
>treasured long hair hacked off into a short, ragged mop; in still others,
>she was required to kick her legs in scissors fashion unto the point of
>exhaustion.  There were numerous periods where this naturally energetic
>10-year-old was required to sit absolutely motionless for 10, 20, and 30
>minutes at a time. Indeed, the last image of Candace we were shown in the
>courtroom was of her sitting cross-legged, staring blankly at the camera,
>her face, though still lovely, showing nothing of the smiling, apparently
>confident girl seen in her fourth-grade class photo.  At the last, hers
>was
>the face of a torture victim.  That image, too, haunts me daily.
>
>Testimony given by the defense, including that of the defendants
>themselves, admits that such holding "therapy" has been going on for a
>decade or more, has gone on despite Candace's fate, and will undoubtedly
>continue by others.  It has taken an actual death for these culprits to be
>subject to the criminal penalties they now face, but they well deserve the
>maximum 48 years' prison time alone for the abuse and indignity they
>visited on hundreds of children before Candace.
>
>Reluctantly looking past Candace's specific fate, the testimony in this
>case has revealed much about the particular quackery that tortured
>Candace.
>In the beginning, there is the phony diagnosis of "attachment
>disorder" and
>the unrealistic expectations of hopeful adoptive parents.  Then there are
>the hopelessly unscientific, intellectually vacuous, ethically bankrupt,
>and pervertedly sadistic beliefs and practices collectively called
>"Attachment Therapies."  Next there is the motley collection of
>egomaniacs,
>sociopaths, charlatans, wannabees, failures, and hangers-on that comprise
>the community of "Attachment Therapists".  And in the end, there is the
>network of public and private social agencies, licensed and unlicensed
>social workers, self-promotional workshops and conferences,
>pseudo-professional cross-referrals, private clinics and residential
>facilities that sucks desperate (or unrealistic) parents and their
>children
>into its maw using fear, hype and hope.  The evidence in this case shows
>there was a pipeline feeding North Carolina children to Evergreen,
>Colorado, for victimization.  Our independent investigation suggests that
>there are others with different intakes and outlets.
>
>The prosecutors in this case, Laura Dunbar and Steve Jensen, did a superb
>job, both in and out of the courtroom.  I cannot imagine how Candace could
>have had better advocates.  I want to note especially how they made the
>case into an exemplar for handling pseudoscientific offerings of evidence.
>Whenever the defense tried to introduce testimony about the "efficacy" of
>the methods used on Candace, they were blocked because there was no
>scientific validation.  When the defense finally got someone accepted as
>an
>"expert" on psychology, the prosecution made mincemeat of his testimony
>regarding validation and scientific support for the practices at issue.
>And when the defendants testified that they used therapies without
>scientific basis for doing so, the prosecution went right for the jugular
>and used their own codes of ethics which require scientific validation of
>their practices.  Whenever a witness would admit a procedure was
>unvalidated, then the prosecution would accurately label it experimental,
>and question the ethics of conducting experiments on unwilling children.
>
>In particular, the following exchange was common in the courtroom:
>
>   Defendant:  I use this because it works.
>   Prosecutor:  How do you know it works?
>   Defendant:  Because I've seen it work.
>
>Typical quacks.  They don't have to wait for science, or go through all
>that hard work of collecting valid evidence for their practices.  They've
>had the epiphany, they've seen the results.  That's good enough for them.
>
>Some commentators have noted the arrogance of the two defendants,
>particularly in their own testimony.   They "knew" what Candace's real
>problem was.   They just "knew" what she needed to get better.   They
>"knew" her cries were lies or manipulation. They just "knew" she had
>enough
>air to breathe. Other commentators noted the ignorance of the defendants
>repeatedly demonstrated by the evidence.  Personally, I think they
>revealed
>themselves as having the hallmark of every quack:  the arrogance of
>ignorance.
>
>The prosecutorial pursuit was a delight to see.  During summation, both
>prosecutors accurately pointed out that this was a case of "ends
>justifying
>the means," rife with pseudoscience, and prejudicial to the health and
>welfare of the children (victims).  The defense necessarily had to let
>these charges go unanswered.
>
>A couple of related questions rang out loudly, especially in summation:
>Has a child no right to self-determination and dignity?  Is it ever right
>to torture a child?  Given the horrors found in the direct evidence about
>this crime, it probably wasn't necessary for the prosecution to raise such
>questions.  Linda and I had their ears in a very minor way and prodded
>them
>to do so, but it was their own humanity, we think, that tugged them to go
>the extra way.  We are gratified that they raised all the right questions.
>We are also gratified that the jury answered those questions in just the
>right way.
>
>Yrs, Larry Sarner
>
>"Rebirthing verdict may curb restraint therapy" -- Denver Post 4/22
>http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,11%257E25122,00.html
>
>"Rocky Mt. News story on verdict"  -- Rocky Mt. News 4/21
>http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_340264,0
0
>..htm
>l
>
>
>=========================================
>
>
>
> We will not go very far if we pretend to teach our kids that we cannot
>tell
>the difference between real and phony science. Yet that was the gist of
>all
>those 'equal time' laws in the 1970s and 1980s: the Arkansas and Louisana
>legislatures were actually telling the teachers in their public schools to
>pretend not to know the difference between real science - flaws and all -
>and outmoded or simply bad science. I cannot imagine anything more
>peverse,
>more deliberately harmful, than teaching kids that their elders cannot
>tell
>the difference between the real and phony. Some of them, of course,
>cannot.
>But all but the relatively few creation-leaning science teachers
>throughout
>the fifty states most assuredly can, and requiring them in essence to lie
>to
>their students sends about the worst message imaginable to the younger
>generation. And kids, of course, can see right through that."
>
>             Niles Ethridge
>
>