Tainted evidence: Dr Hodes and RAD

One of the most contentious—and persistent—bits of evidence that true believers in the Hampstead hoax like to haul out is that ‘the doctor found evidence of anal scarring’ in the children. This is often accompanied with a ‘so there!’ attitude, as though this information ought to end the argument then and there.

We’ve addressed this issue several times in the past, including in these two posts:

Yesterday, as so often happens around here, one of our commenters offered us yet another fascinating online resource, this time regarding Dr Deborah Hodes, whose evidence was considered by Mrs Justice Pauffley in the fact-finding hearing. In her judgement, she came as close as a judge can come to sharply criticising Dr Hodes’ work:

129. The only persisting physical sign post peer review was reflex anal dilatation [RAD] in P which, so Dr Hodes, maintains is “consistent with her allegation of the blunt penetrating force to her anus i.e. sexual abuse.” In evidence she referred to her colleagues agreeing it was “abnormal and striking.” It is a sign which is “rarely seen.” In her written report she also said, “There is evidence in the literature that the absence of physical signs neither supports not (sic) refutes an allegation of anal penetration. In this case it was alleged that lubrication was used which adds to the probability of abuse.

Conclusions in relation to Dr Hodes’ evidence

132. Overall, I feel impelled to observe that the level of Dr Hodes’ involvement in this case was unusual. I remind myself of the several cautionary considerations when a court is considering the contributions made by experts as comprised within Re U; Re B [2004] EWCA Civ 567 – i) The cause of an injury or an episode that cannot be explained scientifically remains equivocal. … iv) The court must always be on guard against the over-dogmatic expert, the expert whose reputation or amour propre is at stake, or the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice.

133. I was dismayed to find, twenty seven years after the Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987 that Dr Hodes adopted so definite a view as to the likelihood of sexual abuse to which she then adhered notwithstanding several noteworthy contraindications. One of the cardinal messages from Cleveland was as to the importance of multi agency collaboration so as to understand amongst many other things the context in which suspicions arose.

134. In her very last report, Dr Hodes said that “the current evidence is that prolonged reflex anal dilatation (the finding in P) is associated with anal abuse;” and cited the Royal College of Paediatrics 2008 Review. The Review also reflects, I would observe, that there continues to be a debate about the significance of RAD. It is a sign seen in up to a third of children with a history of anal abuse although it can also be seen in small numbers of children selected for non abuse (the evidence base is very limited and unclear on this).

135. I was troubled too that the children were subjected to intimate examinations to search for further signs twice in five days. I regret that Dr Hodes was not asked exactly what she hoped to gain by the second examination positioning the children differently. The 2008 Review suggests, arising out of Myrhe’s 2001 study, that there are differences in the muscle tone in the two positions.

136. I consider it unusual, to say the least, that Ms Draper was invited to discuss her version of the history at a lengthy separate interview with the paediatrician and her SHO at a time when the social work team as well as the police were undertaking inquiries.

137. I was perturbed that Dr Hodes was prepared to conclude and then confirm the presence of fissures when subsequent peer review resulted in them being described as a normal variant. Similarly, I found it curious that even although the physical signs had reduced in number to a single finding of RAD in P, nonetheless Dr Hodes adhered to her view saying that lubrication was used which “added to the probability of abuse.”

138. When confronted, in cross examination, with the evidence about Ms Draper’s treatment of the children with enemas, Dr Hodes did not pause before saying, “No, it does not affect my conclusions. It’s another possible cause of trauma.”

Leaving aside the fact that Dr Hodes only identified RAD in one of RD’s children (when both had allegedly been abused), the statement that it is a sign which is “rarely seen” is patently false. In fact, RAD can occur in up to 49% of non-abused children.

Another case, another example

In the fascinating document ‘Misconceiving the evidence: competence and context in child abuse trials’, written for Chris Saltrese Sols, Margaret Jervis points out that this is not the first time Dr Hodes has fallen into this trap.

Referring to a case which was tried in 2010, in which a two-year-old child’s evidence was originally in question, Ms Jervis writes:

It would appear from the judgment that there was insufficient confidence in the child’s evidence, whatever stage it was at, until April 4th when she was examined by a paediatrician, Dr Deborah Hodes. Dr Hodes examined her bottom and found no indications of past injury.

She did make a finding of ‘anal dilatation’- the opening of the anal canal on parting the buttocks that became the centre of controversy in Cleveland in 1987.

Dr Hodes gave evidence that that such evidence ‘could be supportive’ of an allegation of anal penetration but that it occurred in 11 per cent of non-abused children. This is misleading. Studies do in fact show that the ‘sign’ can appear in up to 49 per cent of non-abused children, that it may be caused by the pressure placed on the buttocks and that it has no diagnostic value in detecting sexual abuse.

During her examination, Dr Hodes also asked the child whether anyone had hurt her bottom and she replied that [the accused person] did.

So what Dr Hodes had was, in effect, not a finding supporting an allegation, but an allegation supporting in inconsequential finding in response to a leading question.

Indeed insofar as Dr Hodes has previously written a letter in a medical journal supporting Dr Camille de Sam Lazaro’s ‘therapeutic approach’ to the sexual abuse medical examination there may be caveats as to her objectivity.

Dr Lazaro was the medical architect of the Shieldfield fiasco. She would routinely examine children for physical symptoms of sexual abuse and elevate minor inconsequential findings into a diagnosis, suggesting to the child that she had been ‘hurt’ by someone even where no prior allegation had been made.

It laid the basis for the mushrooming of countless false allegations and a fixation that two nursery workers had been responsible for a catalogue of bizarre alleged abuse.

And there is more. Through Dr Hodes examination with the colposcope and anal probing, [the child] had gained recent experience of what the alleged abuse might be like – including her lying down.

Clearly, Dr Hodes has strong beliefs about the prevalance and nature of child sexual abuse, and these beliefs affect her clinical judgement. She seems to be locked into applying old, discredited theories such as ‘RAD is indicative of anal abuse’, when in fact it’s nothing of the kind.

We don’t need to be as diplomatic as Mrs Justice Pauffley was in her dismissal of Dr Hodes’ conclusions: we are left wondering why on earth this physician is permitted to continue examining children who are alleged victims of sexual abuse. We shudder to think of the number of innocent people whom her ‘evidence’ might have indicted.

And in the Hoaxtead case, Dr Hodes’ inability to remain neutral has poisoned the well: her evidence, discredited though it is, seems plausible and very real to those who wish to promote the hoax and spread images of RD’s children across the internet.

incompetent

 

67 thoughts on “Tainted evidence: Dr Hodes and RAD

  1. Reports like these are too complicated for the cult promoters who cherry-pick the bits that support their hysterical beliefs. There are times when I thank God for judges who are not afraid to tell it like it is. I can’t also think that those who promote their fixed beliefs as this doctor seems to have almost verges on abuse in itself. As for Ella giving enemas, what in the hell was this woman thinking ? It’s like she allowed her children to be used as experiments for the career criminal Abraham Cristie to push his twisted beliefs.

    Liked by 3 people

      • I also can’t understand why I make some really weird mistakes on this forum !! I think it’s because at times I fume at these horrors.

        Liked by 2 people

    • I’m so glad you posted this, EC. The ‘dual abuse’ on the part of Hodes as well as the crazed hemp queen simply cannot be overstated. Sounds like the doctor is afflicted with some perverse paranoia(/paranoid perversion?) that, as you so eloquently expressed, has likely done incalculable damage to a number of innocent people over time. And as a mother, the idea of using enemas on kids is so deeply revolting that it’s honestly beyond the scope of my imagination. I just hope the kids are doing well in a loving home and undergoing intensive therapy. My heart really does break for them…such bright, lovely children (ab)used as pawns in the most f*%ked-up game imaginable, unforgivably…*sigh*

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I think we only have to look at the very recent findings with regards doctors opinions then we realise that doctors can and do make mistakes.

    From this weeks newspapers



    We should also in this context consider the following judgment in the Court of appeal – which questioned Dr Hodes.

    From [2010] EWCA Crim 4 2010 WL 19952 Representation

    http://www.derestreet.co.uk/files/r-v-b.pdf

    Liked by 3 people

    • This is the same case. One of the points I was trying to make in the article was that the examination – conducted a year after the cessation of the alleged abuse meaning that whatever ‘indication’ RAD might have lent to case was nullified even by the claims of RAD believers – contaminated whatever oral evidence the child was subsequently to give in being potentially suggestive to the point of implicit ‘coaching’ . This point went completely over the head of the Court of Appeal as can be seen in the original judgement – whether it was raised at trial is not known.

      And RAD has been officially ‘rehabilitated’ see the Poppi Worthington case and Beatrix Campbell.
      http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/poppi-worthington-case-takes-us-back-to-the-cleveland-abuse-scandal-a6830011.html

      RAD in a corpse (where the muscles naturally relax) is a further extension of ‘signs and wonders’ masquerading as ‘evidence’ that has gained recent traction.

      A very interesting judgement is that of Mr Justice Holman,Leeds City Council v XY [2008] EWHC 802 (Fam) where RAD architect Dr Chris Hobbs comes under critical scrutiny. The judge criticised the ‘holistic’ or ‘jigsaw’ approach adopted by the RCPCH in their (then) new guidance

      “At paragraph 1.2 in the “Introduction” the document refers to the metaphor of a jigsaw puzzle. As the reference in the footnote indicates, this metaphor was apparently first coined in 1990 by Dr Hobbs himself, and another author, Dr J. M. Wynne, and Dr Hobbs has used the jigsaw metaphor in the present case. The report says,

      “Recognition that a child has been sexually abused has been likened to completing a jigsaw whereby the individual pieces of information need to be put together before the full picture can emerge. This metaphor is particularly apt when it comes to interpreting the significance of a single physical sign of sexual abuse, which is just one part of the diagnostic jigsaw.”

      Whilst the purpose of the metaphor is to stress, as the document goes on to make plain, the importance of considering “all physical findings together with other important clinical information including the history, child’s behaviour, demeanour and statements made by the child”, I myself feel that the metaphor (like many analogies or metaphors) can be misleading. It tends to presuppose that all the pieces can be fitted together, and that there is a “full picture” to be made. By presupposing that each piece of information does fit somewhere in the picture, it may ascribe some weight or significance to each piece of information and obscure the important point that 0 plus 0 plus 0 still equals 0. If the jigsaw metaphor is helpful at all, then, in my view, it is important to think of a pile of jigsaw pieces in which pieces from more than one jigsaw have been muddled up. There may be pieces which, on examination, do not fit the jigsaw under construction at all, but which require to be discarded or placed on one side. ”

      The response has been to go backwards in lending yet more tendentious support to disparate ‘pieces’.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I agree–I think this is part of what Mrs Justice Pauffley was trying to convey in her discussion of Dr Hodes’ findings. This isn’t a matter of stringing bits of evidence together, but about weighing each piece of information, determining its value in relation to other pieces, and then trying to work out whether it even belongs in the ‘Hoaxtead’ evidence pile.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Even if the medical reports indicated possible sexual abuse, rationally how the Satan Hunter can then make such a massive jump to the conclusion that this is the smoking gun proving a vast baby eating cult is in operation in London is laughable. The Satan Hunter narrative is that P and Q where raped multiple times, yet the medical evidence would have shown extensive damage to their anus if true, and those children would show major signs of PTSD; which is not evident. Second, if there was sexual abuse, who did the sexual abuse? Abraham Christie is a major suspect.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I think in their bleating about how the ‘medical evidence proved’ that the cult is real, the Hoaxtead pushers are leaving out a great deal of contradictory evidence…such as why this ‘medical evidence’ (i.e. RAD) would only show up in one child, and then only upon reexamination.

      Ah, but don’t confuse them with facts!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Amen to that. I’m no physician, but have worked as an interpreter in numerous medical settings and have pretty much “seen it all”. Had those kids been raped by objects and adult men as prolifically as alleged (with or without lubrication), the trauma would be so excruciating, massive, incapacitating and VISIBLE that these unreliable tests wouldn’t really have even been necessary. And your point about extrapolating an allegation of the sexual abuse of two children to a gargantuan baby-eating cult is excellent. The story beggars belief on all levels…

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Well Sabine continues to try to push SRA in Christchurch, Is this against her current bail conditions?

    Her twitter post (the last three)

    AND THE VIDEO from a very eloquent and obviously articulate “lady” (NOT)

    Like

  5. I thought the girl was also still a virgin, so no vaginal rape then?

    The children don’t seem traumatised to me either, but hey what do i know?

    As much as the majority of people believing all this and more.

    It’s a major distraction from real CSA.

    Too many main players in this are highly suspect.

    How come Belinda for one gets involved in every single one of these tales?

    Mmm something stinks…

    Liked by 2 people

    • I remember when Belinda posted that. I have to give it to her–she was right that Abrella would start accusing her and Sabine of being ‘in the cult’. Then again, that didn’t take any great insight to predict.

      Like

  6. The RAD test, particularly when carried out more than once and in different ‘poses’ IS abusive in and of itself and I would like to see Hodes investigated.
    The Squier case is a red herring – it’s quite likely she’s being persecuted for having given evidence in parents’ favour in very dubious abuse cases. None of the people on the panel have a relevant medical specialism to make them fit to pronounce on her. But she has caused some sloppy prosecutors real headaches.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’ve been thinking these intimate tests on the children are abuse from the off.

      Not very nice for adults, let alone children.

      If those children hadn’t been sexually abused, they certainly have now.

      The satan hunters don’t care about that though.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. @JW I believe the lady, Hannah, in the video accepted her mistake and changed her opinion after throwing in the towel trying to organise a protest outside the church, I know someone had a conversation with her in the pub afterwards and upon a bit of education she conceded she was probably wrong. Or something like that. It would be nice if this were reflected in her taking down her video. I see she is not commenting herself in response to comments made under the video, a bit irresponsible. If you listen to her on this tape she says: ‘I had done a lot of research into MK Ultra, so when I heard about babies being sacrificed etc’…which says it all for me.

    Re Dr Hodes, I am very angry in her part in all of this. Like most perfect storms, the coagulation of so many disparate parts forming a whole, causing catastrophe…. well, if only she had been objective, fair, scientific, this could all have been avoided. Her part in this must not be underestimated. She should really be complained about, not allowed to give expert witness anymore, perhaps that is some action we here could start, or find out about. I just had an idea: Perhaps she could be sued. After all, look how much people have lost money due to her actions. She must have property,etc..

    Liked by 3 people

  8. I see little purpose in arging with the idiots (not a word I use lightly) who expect this scam to be believed.

    The original videos were clearly (badly) coached. It was like watching two bullied children trying to repeat a Rabbie Burns poem under active duress. – I think you’d have to be either very dishonest (with yourself) or incredibly stupid to be taken in by this lame performance in the first place. Secondly, the cold hard facts are that Abe Christie is a violent criminal and a drug addict. Ella Draper is a woman of equally dubious morals and no credibility. Even if Dr Hodes examination HAD been in any way conclusive, the question remains who was actually responsible for the abuse?

    The story – in terms of its logistics alone – is idiotically infantile. I watched a few moments of the YouTube video above. What is it? There is such a thing as ‘visual grammar’. and in those terms this is about as literate at the sentence “get spike dig food”. As such it’s typical of sub-moronic YouTube content. – Some random bint who cannot string a sentence together wittering about some fairy story nonsense most of us grew out of when we were about nine!

    Here are another couple of idiots:

    – Playing at ‘TV stations’ in their garden shed. Their output is comically incompetent on every level, technical and otherwise ( and no, that’s not a resource issue). It’s also quite laughable in its dishonesty. The Police were asking the children leading questions – but that scummy little drug-dealing turd Christie wasn’t in his crappy phone video? Really? – We might write off the first performer as a hapless text-book blonde bimbo who knows no better. But what about the other two sordid old grifters? And another dishonest moron:

    Direct from her “garden studio” playing at TV stations like some silly little girl who had assembled some cardboard boxes and into a facsimilie of a shops and is selling play-food to her passing customers. – How THICK do you have to be to be taken in by this old trout?

    If it weren’t so serious it would be hysterically funny. Christie and Draper abuse two children. They, McKenzie and McNeill ride a coach and horses through the law that is there to protect sex abuse victims. A collection of prize imbeciles playing at ‘journalist’ promote the story in the most infantile way possible. A few ill-educated halfwits that never grew up cling onto the fairy story. Decent innocent people are abused by this rabble in the street. The morons behind it throw double-standards about like confetti. – the ONLY people being taken in by this scam are either so dangerously stupid they should be supervised. So mentally ill ( like Neelu) they need serious help. – Or complete morally-bankrupt scam artists like McKenzie, Gerrish, Christie and the rest of their hangers-on.

    Playing devil’s advocate for a moment (unfortunate term I know), even if you DO honestly believe that the world is run by various cabals. Even if you DO believe that there is some coherent or semi-coherent ‘plot’ to keep the truth at bay… Surely scams like this only serve to ensure that the majority of right-thinking people become persuaded that any and all ‘alternative’ views are simply the baying of lunatics at the moon? – If you truly ARE a seeker of tuth than be honest; this just isn’t it! – Most likely it’s a cynical scam to exploit the gullible. But these people serve well the purpose of discrediting any alternative to the mainstream view.

    Logic counters fantasy and myth every time. To the ‘Troofers’ who obediently trot after these Judas Goats – are you SURE it’s the truth you’re after? Or is it really a place of comfort you seek where you can justify your own failing? Because if it IS the truth you seek you need to face the fact that often it’s both quite prosaic and rather inconvenient. Occam’s razor is one of the sharpest tools in the box.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Inchambers – an excellent and well written comment which does go to the crux of the matter.

      Personally I agree that their is little point in arguing with the idiots. However I do hope that someone has the good sense to call McNeill to test with regards the earlier Injunction. A short sharp shock for her might help rid some of the nonsense.

      There is no doubt that the mob mentality exhibited by some of the merry band (merry as in alcohol or other substance fuelled) of McNeill or McKenzie would be subdued if they were brought to task, thus ending their gravy train (or is it river of parasite blood, fed by those desperate for a cause or belief).

      Occam’s razor (lex parsimoniae) is indeed a powerful and sharp tool, but in regards to the wild and spurious claims made it cuts the idiotic fantastical things being said to pieces without even being removed from its protective sheath

      Liked by 1 person

      • Certainly McNeill and a few others need to face the full force of the law with respect to the offences that they have committed. – And it troubles me that certain individuals have been allowed to cause havock for years – in some cases decades – with no consequence. Those who work in the legitimate media ( which is not necesarily the same thing as the so-called ‘MSM’) are educated in the law of the land as part of their training. Not only WHAT the law is but WHY it is. And they often face serious consequences if they stray from it. So how come these idiots get away with what they do so easily and so often? McNeill has been set up as the ‘stooge’ in this case, much as Robert Green was. – I do not to any degree seek to mitigate their behaviour. But the law fails us all when it helps the real ringmasters create martyrs. Not least because those ringmasters seem to get away without a care!

        Liked by 2 people

        • The frustrating issue for me is Belinda McKenzie is so far walking away from this car wreck, like she always does, without any major comeback. The only thing Hampstead hoax will do is undermine the ability of her launching any future major campaign, because I at least will sabotage anything she does in future.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Bellender is due a very serious comeuppance. It might ultimately require some of us to “bell the cat” by making our identities known – but it is only worth doing that if we have a serious chance of taking her down once and for all.
          Until then the best we can do is make sure as many people as possible know not to trust her and her scam charities.

          Liked by 1 person

      • You realise, of course, that the troofers who read this blog (and yes, we know you’re there, Jim) will see you discussing Occam’s razor and believe that you intend to slash someone’s throat with it. And not just metaphorically, either.

        That said, I agree with you: those who believe in this nonsense have their own reasons for doing so. Much of it, I think, comes from a sense of personal failure and disempowerment, and a sense (not completely unfounded) that government and big business are aligned against the ‘little fellow’. For a great many people, conspiritainment offers a sense of power and agency, even if on some level they don’t really believe in any of it.

        Like

    • What’s being ‘blonde’ got to do with it?

      Danielle La Verite is ‘blonde’ and she’s got an IQ of 151.

      I’ll get my coat.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. I was heartened to see Justice Pauffley’s takedown of Dr. Hodes. But the problems still remains… why under any circumstances is RAD used as a diagnostic for abuse? There’s something very odd about doctors who want to examine children intimately, looking for something which has, at best, very little evidential or diagnostic value. Dr. Hodes must be aware of this, she is a consultant.. so why do it, not just once, but twice?
    For some traumatized children, being examined like this is just another form of child abuse. I wish there were some way of having it officially discredited so that no registered doctor is allowed to use it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • In all honesty I am unsure if anyone here is qualified to dismiss or promote any diagnostic technique. – Certainly, as a layman, this test seems unduly invasive if not warranted by other circumstances. And criticism of Dr Hodes’ conclusions do seem warranted. – It would be better if data were gathered objectively then interpreted by at least two other fully independent doctors. – My stomach turns though at the thought of the children having been put through this trauma in the first place; all for the sake of their twisted Mother’s revenge and to fill the pockets of that scummy little weasle Christie.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yes–I think RAD will need to be looked at by a panel of physicians and its merits debated by them. However, I think it’s fair to critique the conclusions that were drawn, as it’s clear from the context that a personal bias was in play, in both cases discussed.

        Liked by 1 person

    • There is a hint of the Satan Hunter about the enthusiasm and narrow-minded way that Dr. Hodes carried out her examination, worrying for someone whose authority places strength on a legal case in court.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Dr Hodes was using the Royal College of Paediatrics (RCP) 2008 review for the Hampstead case. If she had been using the 2015 review, to which she was a contributor, she should not have recorded the RAD at all.

    The RCP looked at RAD studies and found that some studies show RAD is very rare, while in other studies the RAD is relatively common. What they realised is that if the child is examined in the position used in the UK, then RAD is very rare among non abused children. However, the US place the child in a different position and in that position, RAD is not rare among non abused children.

    When Dr Hodes examined P and Q, she initially placed them in the UK position, and found no RAD.

    It was only on the second examination, when placed in the US position, that RAD was found in one child. That has lead the RCP to create new guidelines in their 2015 review. The guidelines advise that paediatricians should use the UK position. If no RAD is found then it is not recorded. They advise that the US position should never be used alone. That it should only be used if a finding of RAD is already found in the UK position. Therefore, because Dr Hodes never found RAD in the initial examination (UK position), she should never have examined them in the US position, or recorded a finding of RAD.

    It’s interesting to see that her findings of RAD have been questioned before. Perhaps these cases is what lead Dr Hodes and her RCP colleagues to review the literature and refine the guidelines.

    In defence of Dr Hodes, she is being asked to give these opinions by a law system that doesn’t want to hear the complications of science or such examinations. Courts tend to want definitive answers one way or another.

    Dr Hodes and others are therefore stuck between a rock and a hard place. Dr Hodes did hint that it is inconclusive when se stated that it is just part of a jigsaw and not diagnostic. Also when she conceded that enemas could cause RAD. However, she had to give the understanding at the time that RAD can be a sign of sexual abuse.

    Having said that, she is willing to get involved beyond physical examination. The fact she researched and wrote about child retraction studies, suggests she became too emotionally involved. That, or she may have become ‘too big for her boots’. Sometimes the most prominent people in any field, are just those that shout the loudest.
    There is some debate among examiners as to what role the examiner should take. Some believe the examiner should not ask the children any questions about possible abuse. That they should just point out any findings and that’s it. Preferably without knowing anything specific about the allegations themselves. Allowing the examiner to remain objective and not be emotionally influenced. While others believe the examiner should be asking questions of the children and the adults, plus having full knowledge of the allegations.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Very good point about the emotional contagion aspect of Dr Hodes or indeed any examiner, particularly those working with children or adults who make allegations of this nature. I accept the legal procedure of giving evidence is flawed. But the initial examination needs to be protected from such contamination. It is strictly the physical findings which should be considered, and an opinion given on. Does the profession even acknowledge the dangers of the exposure to ‘the story of the victim’? (or their mother/person with an agenda)?

      A forensic scientist examining a crime scene for DNA would not (should not) be speaking to the victim or their mother. And in this case, eg with scientific analysis of DNA etc is already much safer in terms of the results that can be attained, and not something that relies on subjective appraisal of something as varied and unique as an individual human body.

      Information that could cloud the judgement of, or influence the findings, should not be allowed to be heard by the medical examiner. Their judgement must remain IMPARTIAL. As we see in this case it is very likely that Dr Hodes was influenced by the material Ella was offering, and indeed by what the children said whilst in Ella’s charge.

      While it is important for such an examiner to remain friendly and lessen the anxiety of the children being examined, tight boundaries should be kept. Transgressions should result in their evidence being disregarded. It is a great omission if this issue has not been considered in this area of clinical practice. The stakes are just too high.

      I saw a research paper on this very issue: Medical examiners who had been told that there had been sexual abuse before an exam where heavily influenced to make a diagnosis of sexual abuse in such cases compared to a control group. I have not been able to find that bit of research on looking but it was very convincing.

      Lastly, given the huge amount of abuse that was said to have taken place over many years by hundreds of adults it would be impossible for medical results to be inconclusive. Someone on this blog described the anatomy of children who have experienced a high levels of sexual abuse: Entrails hanging, serious rectal prolapse.

      Signs and Symptoms of Child Sexual Abuse

      Physical Signs
      Underwear that is torn, stained, or bloody
      Difficulty walking or sitting
      Redness, pain, bleeding, or bruising in the external genital area, vagina, or anal area
      Unusual discharge from the vagina or anus
      Frequent, unexplained urinary infections or sore throats
      Sexually transmitted infections

      https://lahey.org/Departments_and_Locations/Departments/Colon_and_Rectal_Surgery/Ebsco_Content/Rectal_Prolapse.aspx?chunkiid=27816

      Ella said in a recent interview that she had not noticed any blood in the pants of her children. Her ‘evidence’ seems to be limited to her complaints about the children’s behaviour which could have been their response to her lack of warm mothering.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I think I would tend to side with those that believe the examiner should not get heavily involved.

        Ella’s claims of not noticing any signs of abuse are even more amazing in relation to how many people are claimed to have abused them, and how regularly. The behaviours she describes don’t even seem particularly unusual.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, very good points all the way down the line, HW. I’ve questioned many times how it would be possible to overlook the symptoms of anal rape in children where it’s alleged it was happening many times per week with multiple abusers.

        Never have I heard an actual answer, other than ‘You’re a paedophile!’ or ‘You’re a cult member!’

        You know, the standard.

        Like

    • What is troubling in these sorts of cases is that the presumptive ‘jigsaw’ metaphor should be used at all. I can’t think of a more apt critique than than of Mr Justice Holman cited above. Mr Justice Eady made a similar critique of Dr Lazaro in relation to the ‘holistic’ approach adopted by Dr Lazaro in the Shieldfield case.
      RAD studies do vary enormously in prevalence rates – the trouble is that you can’t be sure what the variables are. One recent retro study by Chris Hobbs, for instance, found that RAD far more common in children where there was an allegation of anal abuse than in those cases were only physical abuse was alleged. This was drawing on cases examined in the Leeds hospitals where Dr Hobbs and Dr Wynne were consultants for many years. We don’t know whether the allegation preceded the ‘finding’ or came after it – possibly prompting. We don’t know reliability of the allegations or ‘disclosures’ or how they manifested – sometimes this is just interpretative play founded on third party suspicion or allegations. Whether in these cases more pressure was used or indeed, whether there were repeated examinations as in the Holman case and the Draper children.

      It’s important to realise that RAD is not a test of muscle laxity but a kind of muscular reflexive opening and shutting. Some people think it is related to the examination pressure or faecal loading – this might not be recognised by the examining paediatrician. It’s origin was in the 19th Century in France when it was thought to be a sign of homosexual practice which of course was regarded as a deviant perversion at the time. The idea being that the anus on touch responds through a learnt reflex to ‘receive’ the penis by spontaneous opening. Thus ‘blunt force penetration’ scarring will be absent. This was revived in relation to children by Dr Bruce Woodling in California and used in McMartin and related cases and termed the anal ‘wink’, Hobbs and Wynne developed this in the UK and passed it on tot he Cleveland doctors.

      Curiously though it was used in the Kincora case in the 1970s. The accused McGrath agreed to be tested having denied homosexuality . The positive finding was to lead him to change his plea to guilty,though he remained defiant as to his actual culpability – at least in relation to the Kincora allegations.

      Given that there is no agreed reliability of method or significance, it would seem to be redundant as any kind of ‘indicator’ – and certainly it could become a form of suggestion. So why perform it at all?

      Liked by 1 person

      • “So why perform it at all?”

        Exactly, you would think that all RAD findings would be made inadmissible until far more research has been carried out and the reliability of such findings are better understood.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Very good question. And I think it’s most important to examine the conditions under which studies are undertaken–as you say, for example, knowing whether the allegation came before or after the finding.

        I think the reason Dr Hodes’ conclusions have created so much confusion in this case is that most people these days have very low scientific literacy, and we aren’t taught as a matter of course to determine the reliability of source material. That sounds a bit abstract, but I do think that if we were to teach secondary students how to evaluate what they read and hear, conspiracy theories would have a great deal less chance of taking root, let alone flourishing.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Why on earth WAS Ella invited to discuss her version of the history at a lengthy separate interview with the paediatrician at a time when the Social Work team as well as the police were undertaking their inquiries??

    I wonder who allowed that to happen? Oh to be have been a fly on the wall that day, listening to Ella spout her lies about RD.

    Liked by 1 person

      • I’ve also long thought that the children’s knowledge of vaseline came from Ella’s (perish the thought) preparation of them for their enemas.

        There is something seriously wrong with a Mother who starves her children, lets her boyfriend physically and mentally torture her children and chooses to give such young children enemas. She is not innocent in all this, she is most definitely an unfit Mother.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Perhaps a thought in response to the question with what McKenzie asked with regards postal contact – a devout supporter of her inner circle at the time has mentioned removing children from the UK and her part in the Pedro conspiracy. Its all coming home now to roost. The police could not find sufficent evidence of the connection at the time.

    She’s crafty, shes good, but she does have a leak within. MB is a clue. Enough said.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. You’d have thought that since Ella Draper gave her children enemas she’s have spotted that the children had been buggered by hundreds of people.

    Like

  14. Pingback: False allegations destroy lives | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.