‘Marinated in terror’: The effects of long-term abuse on children

One long-standing argument put about by those determined to believe in the veracity of the Hampstead Satanic ritual abuse hoax is that RD’s children volunteer so much detail, and are so convincing in their speech, that they cannot possibly be lying. People like Kristie Sue Costa have argued vehemently that the Hampstead children were able to appear calm, rational, and articulate in the videos they were forced to make, because they had been abused for so long that it seemed “normal” to them.

This claim is not only ridiculous, but offensive to children who really have suffered long-term sexual, physical, or psychological abuse in childhood. It goes against all the clinical evidence that has been gathered on childhood victims of severe trauma, and makes a mockery of their experience.

We’ve discussed some aspects of this before.

In May, we looked at a study of children who had been confirmed to have suffered from sexual abuse, titled Why Didn’t They Tell Us? On Sexual Abuse in Child Pornography, which described the reality of interviewing children who’ve survived sexual abuse. One of the most striking differences between the interviews with bona fide child sexual abuse survivors and the children in the Hampstead SRA hoax is that the children who really had been abused were deeply reluctant to discuss their experiences, and would often simply say, “I don’t remember” in response to questions about the actual abuse.

Far from wanting to describe all the details of their memories of what had happened to them, as RD’s children seemed to do, the abused children found various ways to avoid describing the experience. The trauma they’d endured was not something they wished to revisit, and they only provided information which their interviewers already knew to be true: that is, they volunteered no more details than they had to.

This response makes sense, given what we know about the effects of trauma on the brains of children.

The Traumatic Impact of Child Sexual Abuse

In 1985, David Finkelhor and Angela Browne published a paper called “The Traumatic Impact of Child Sexual Abuse”, which set forth a model for how children were affected by the experience of sexual abuse. In this often-cited paper, they said:

The model proposed here postulates that the experience of sexual abuse can be analyzed in terms of four trauma-causing factors, or what we will call traumagenic dynamics – traumatic sexualization, betrayal, powerlessness, and stigmatization. These traumagenic dynamics are generalized dynamics, not necessarily unique to sexual abuse; they occur in other kinds of trauma. But the conjunction of these four dynamics in one set of circumstances is what makes the trauma of sexual abuse unique, different from such childhood traumas as the divorce of a child’s parents or even being the victim of physical child abuse.

These dynamics alter children’s cognitive and emotional orientation to the world, and create trauma by distorting children’s self-concept, world view, and affective capacities.

Finkelhor and Browne go on to describe the effects—such as “traumatic sexualisation” (sexual preoccupations and compulsions), revulsion, fear, anger, powerlessness, stigmatisation, sense of betrayal, hostility, clinginess—which sexually abused children can experience.

‘Malleable, not resilient’

More recent studies of the effects of trauma on children have shown that children who are exposed to long-term violence or threats of violence (such as being violently raped multiple times per week, as the Hampstead children alleged) experience certain effects on their developing brains. In a paper titled “INCUBATED IN TERROR: Neurodevelopmental Factors in the ‘Cycle of Violence‘”, author Bruce D. Perry states, “Children are not resilient; children are malleable”.

He means that contrary to the belief that children can experience long-term trauma and then somehow “bounce back” from it, it has been found that children’s brains are malleable—they are shaped and distorted by trauma, and will develop behaviours which, while adaptive during the time they’re being abused, can create all sorts of problems throughout their lives. For example, children who are exposed to chronic violence are more likely to be violent themselves. Perry writes:

If during development, this stress response apparatus are required to be persistently active, the stress response apparatus in the central nervous system will develop in response to constant threat. These stress-response neural systems (and all functions they mediate) will be overactive and hypersensitive. It is highly adaptive for an child growing up in a violent, chaotic environment to be hypersensitive to external stimuli, to be hyper-vigilant, and to be in a persistent stress response state.

Clinically, this is very easily seen in children who are exposed to chronic neurodevelopmental trauma (Perry, 1994a; Perry, 1995a). These children are frequently diagnosed as having attention deficit disorder (ADD with hyperactivity (Haddad et al., 1992). This is somewhat misleading, however. These children are hyper-viligant, they do not have a core abnormality of their capacity to attend to a given task. These children have behavioral impulsivity, and cognitive distortions all of which result from a use-dependent organization of the brain.

Of course, this is only one example of a behavioural change created by long-term violence; there are many others, but our main point is this: children do not escape from long-term sexual and physical abuse unaffected. And the younger the child is when the abuse starts, the more profound the effects.

Children with histories of long-term violence and/or sexual abuse may be easily “set off”, becoming angry or tearful with seemingly little provocation. They can struggle with knowing how to calm down, and may seem unpredictable, oppositional, volatile, or extreme. Children who have grown up fearing an abusive authority figure may respond to any perceived blame with defensiveness or anger; or they can take the opposite tack, becoming over-controlled, rigid, or unusually compliant with adults.

One would not expect to see children who’ve endured violence, repeated sexual assault, and the constant threat of physical pain since babyhood to appear as composed, articulate, and engaged as the Hampstead children did, both in the videos made en route to London from Morocco, and in the ensuing police interviews. Anyone with experience dealing with traumatised children would be very well aware that this behaviour simply would not be normal, given the alleged experiences these children were supposed to have endured.

In other words, in contrast to what the Hoaxtead mobsters would have us believe, children do not simply “grow accustomed” to the experience of long-term sexualised trauma, so that they are able to appear perfectly normal in all respects. Anyone claiming this is either displaying a stunning lack of intellectual honesty, or is not playing with a full deck.

Advertisements

59 thoughts on “‘Marinated in terror’: The effects of long-term abuse on children

  1. There have been a number of Seminars held by IICSAUK. I’m both catching up with them and watching the live broadcasts currently investigating Rochdale. You need to click the little notification bell to recieve links as the current live broadcasts are unlisted.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. By startling, ahem, coincidence, Kristie Sue has put up two new Farcebook posts, just after our comments yesterday about her recent ‘radio silence’. Way too obvious, Kristie Sue. Now go sit in the corner and be quiet (and don’t forget your dunce’s cap).

    *Well, I say new posts but they are of course just reposts of old (and totally discredited) crap, as usual (‘Retraction Analysis of Child Q’ and ’60 Minutes’ on the Worldwide Paedophile Network’). Yawn

    Great post tonight, btw, EC.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yeah and Jake Clarke has posted the 2nd one on fb.

      On the same post I think it is, Wesley Hall has put up a still from some film commenting that the actor looks like RD.

      There is a resemblance but the guy is 71 now and RD is around 48 I believe!

      Whoever the idiot Tim Veater is buy’s it.

      These people are fools.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Now, is that the recording where it runs on after the policeman leaves and shows the boy punching the air as he realises that he won’t be going back to Abe?

      Funny, they never analyse that bit, in fact they appear to have cut that bit off some time ago.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “the child so fed up of going over the same things is changing his answers to please them, thus ending the questions.”, how about a month of torture in Morocco involving exactly what that Kathy just said. A month of interrogation, bullying physically and verbally by Abraham Christie will make any child give in.
      Only scum support child torturers Abraham and Ella.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Indeed,the retractions were hardly initiated as a result of disgusting threats like being buried alive in the desert or being kicked repeatedly in the “front privates” etc.In fact it was the very assurance that they would NOT have to have contact with that evil child torturing bastard Abe ever again that precipitated the pack of cards falling.

        How anyone could even begin to seriously entertain scenarios that could put the children anywhere near those dispicable psychopathic wastes of oxygen is in itself totally beyond comprehension.

        Unless of course ones life is so bereft of attention and drama that sacrificing innocent lives is deemed a calculated risk worth making.

        Grr.

        Liked by 3 people

  3. Great analysis tonight, EC. There are a lot of hoaxers parading around acting like experts on child psychology and I’d love to see just one of them to show us their credentials, or at least cite their sources.

    Meanwhile, over on Angie’s page the intellectual elite have come out to play:

    Liked by 2 people

    • Cry me a river Yoyo
      “Mistys gunna be in the newspapers and stuff and I called the popo on him and stuff because he did hates crimes against me and stuff”
      “What did he do?”
      “He unfriended me on facebooooook….whaaaaaaaaaaaaa”

      Call in Scotland yard, call in Sherlock Holmes, call in the marines, look out, we have the crime of the century, nay the crime of the millennium here to solve….
      How could ANYONE be so darstardly as to unfriend Yoyo????

      Liked by 3 people

    • I actually feel sorry for Yolande.

      She’s had several mini strokes etc.

      I think she has it wrong about Donna Hopkinson and her ilk being paid by the Government or whoever but the video that Donna AIK (all-in wrestler) did on Yolande was awful.

      The links have all gone now except one from a Newspaper.(can’t remember which one)

      These lot have turned on Yolande because she doesn’t agree with their support of Eugene Luk……neko (sorry can’t remember) who wants his son back from people fostering him in Medway area.

      I’m not so sure the son, now just turned 15 wants to leave where he is.

      If anyone is “nuts” as these people “trolling” Yolande say, I’m not so sure they recognise that Eugene is an overbearing, controller.

      He’s on 3 suspended sentences, which makes no sense to me, I would have thought you get one suspended sentence, you break it and you go straight to jail, do not pass go, but there you go…

      I’ve a feeling Eugene has been this way since he took his son into his care 11.5 years ago from Thailand.

      As for Jake, I wish he’d stop speaking gobble de gook.

      Irritating…

      Like

      • She’s also a really nasty person who frequently slanders people, posts anti-Jewish hate speech, accuses everyone of being Yannis and picks pointless fights with anyone who so much as looks in her direction. I’m afraid have little sympathy for her.

        Like

        • Yolande does block people on fb a bit too quickly just for asking a question.

          Got to agree on her thinking that everyone is Yannis when they are clearly not.

          I’m not sure about her slandering people or the anti-Jewish hate speech, I know she says Eugene is a Russian Jew, well he’s got a Dutch passport now and agrees he is Jewish.

          The video about her is the AIWrestler showing off with no evidence and nasty.

          Like

          • “I’m not sure about her slandering people or the anti-Jewish hate speech”

            If it helps, I have posted numerous screenshots of both over the last few months.

            Plus being accused of being Yannis is defamatory in itself. Personally, I’d rather be accused of being a blood-sucking vampire, lol.

            Liked by 1 person

      • I do agree that Eugene is an arsehole, though. He terrorised not only that MP when he and his mates put his house under siege but also they guy’s young child, who can be heard panicking in the recording that Eugene himself posted.

        Liked by 2 people

    • With all Jakes issues one would think the very last thing he needs to be doing is sandwiching himself between 2 bloated gobby grannies public exposing themselves.

      Maybe its all part of an aversion therapy program or something?Each to their own I suppose.

      Liked by 4 people

    • If it’s not a stupid question, why the bloody hell do people put their photos up if they don’t want anyone to look at them? That’s bugged me for ages.

      Liked by 3 people

      • The million dollar question for me is why you’d put pictures of your children and grandchildren on Facebook when you believe the world is run by psychopathic lizard cannibals and you are an internet warrior who’s determined to bring the nasties down? If I believed all that crap I would be TERRIFIED. As it is, people just post pictures of their loved ones and light another fag/joint and moan about being ‘targeted’. Yeah right!

        Liked by 5 people

  4. Veale butchers Grocer

    ONE OF the most controversial aspects of Wiltshire Police’s Operation Conifer, investigating paedophile allegations against former prime minister Sir Edward “Grocer” Heath, was the revelation in the Mail on Sunday on 26 November 2016 that his alleged crimes included child sacrifice and satanic ritual abuse.

    Under the headline “Satanic Sex Fantasist” the newspaper reported the conclusion of ritual crime expert Dr Rachel Hoskins, who had been brought in by the force to review witness statements, that the claims were “preposterous” and “fantastical”.

    Wiltshire’s beleaguered chief constable Mike Veale retaliated with an extraordinary video “open letter”, posted to YouTube on 2 December 2016, in which he stated unequivocally: “Fact: the recent media coverage… referred to satanic ritual sexual abuse. Let me be clear, this part of the investigation is only one small element of the overall enquiry and does not relate to Sir Edward Heath.”

    Clearly Veale has a selective memory. Or is it a false memory? On page 59 of his Operation Conifer summary closure report, published on 5 October 2017, he states equally unequivocally: “During the course of the investigation six victims made disclosures that included allegations that Sir Edward Heath was involved in satanic or ritual abuse.”

    He adds: “Following investigation, no further corroborative evidence was found to support the disclosures that Sir Edward Heath was involved in ritual abuse.”

    ‘Who’s Who of Satanic Child Abuse’
    This will come as a disappointment to Robert Green, a child abuse campaigner and firm believer in satanic ritual abuse, who was jailed for 12 months in 2012 for harassing people he accused of being paedophiles. Green revealed two weeks ago that he had passed to the chief constable details of five witnesses who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Grocer Heath. The information had come from Dr Joan Coleman, a founder of the organisation RAINS (Ritual Abuse Information Network and Support), whom he described as “the eminent specialist into [sic] sexual abuse”.

    In the wacky world of the blogosphere and Twitterland, Dr Coleman’s five cases are frequently cited. They appear in a 19-page file compiled by RAINS that appeared online under the headline “The Who’s Who of Satanic Child Abuse” – which, as we reported in Eye 1437, names no fewer than 235 members of a satanic cult, including Sir Edward. “He has been mentioned,” it adds, “by at least 5 SRAS [satanic ritual abuse survivors], none of whom know each other.” The RAINS list is now regarded by conspiracy theorists as proof of “The Satanist Cult of Ted Heath”, the title of an academic paper written by occupational psychologist Dr Rainer Kurz, which he sent to Wiltshire Police last year (see Eye 1452).

    The original ur-text for these Satanic Grocer theories is The Biggest Secret, a 1998 book by champion conspiracist David Icke, in which he branded Heath “a child-sacrificing satanist”. Icke now regards chief constable Veale as a hero, tweeting this tribute on 8 October: “At last – a police chief with the guts to take on the Westminster abuse ring and its web of protection.”

    ‘No inference of guilt’
    Perhaps Icke hadn’t read the “closure” report, which revealed that the two-year, £1.5m investigation uncovered no corroborating evidence in any of the 42 allegations made by 40 people (one person making allegations under three different names). The police whittled this down to seven claims – one of which had “undermining evidence” – about which they would have interviewed Heath if he were still alive. But the report stressed that “no inference of guilt” should be drawn from that decision.

    From the chief constable’s behaviour, however, Icke and his fans might well have thought otherwise. If Veale didn’t want to create an inference of guilt, why choose for his only two post-report interviews the hacks who have done most to push the idea that Heath was guilty – Simon Walters of the Mail on Sunday and Mark Watts, the former editor-in-chief of the discredited investigative news site Exaro?

    It was Watts and Exaro who first promoted the false claims of the witness known as “Nick”, which led to the Met Police’s disastrous £2.5m Operation Midland. With Exaro having gone belly-up last year, Watts published the Veale interview on his two current online outlets, FOIA Centre News and Byline.

    “I have been really struck over the last two years by the amount of people that have come to me privately to offer views about their distrust of the political establishment,” the chief constable told Watts, “and their genuine belief that there has been a conspiracy, cover-up and people being complicit, whether that is senior civil servants, colleagues in policing, government, the wider judiciary… the unfortunate thing is, I can’t make a judgement in relation to the assertions they are making. I simply don’t know.” But who needs evidence when you have belief?

    ‘The cloud of suspicion’
    Veale’s interview with his chief supporter in the mainstream media, Simon Walters, was punctuated by gasps of admiration from the MoS fanboy: “Mr Veale, tall and with a rugby wing-forward’s build… His features, as fair and fresh as a cider apple… Mr Veale, whose black shoes gleam like a guardsman’s…” In between these swoonings, Veale told Walters that something sinister was afoot, even if he didn’t know what it was: “I was told early on in Conifer, ‘You’ll lose your job, the Establishment will get you.’ I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t believe in Martians. I used to think, ‘What are these people on about?’”

    Had the Heath investigation changed his mind? “Yes,” Veale replied. “In the last two years I’ve spoken to people who genuinely believe… there are too many people making too many assertions…” He could have spent “two or three more years investigating Sir Edward” if he had been allowed “to dig deeper”.

    All this X-Files dialogue ignored the actual outcome of Operation Conifer: no corroborating evidence for satanic abuse, or any sexual abuse by Grocer Heath; no evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up. Yet Veale told a meeting of MPs last December that he believed Sir Edward was “eight out of ten guilty”, according to Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, Heath’s principal private secretary when he was prime minister from 1970 to 1974. Although Armstrong says he was present when Veale made the statement, a spokesman for Wiltshire Police denied the comment was made.

    Last week Armstrong repeated his call for an independent judge-led inquiry into Operation Conifer’s investigation into Heath. “As he is dead, the normal provisions and processes of the law are not available to resolve the matter,” he told the House of Lords, “and the cloud of suspicion remains hanging in the air indefinitely.”

    Private Eye 1455, 20/10/17
    http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1455/news

    Liked by 3 people

    • Hats off to the Power-Disney clan for their masterstroke of converting the old boiler room into a granny flat.That way Angie has a bit of company in her dotage and she can inflate herself to her little hearts content by blowing smoke up her arse and rumble on without anyone even noticing.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Turns out Professor Mad Moo is the REAL expert on the Moon landing and the Universe in general, whereas Professor Brian Cox is just a “nob end”. Who knew?

    Like

We welcome comments! Please note: this is a Shurter-free zone. Offending posts will be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s