I've got some evidence to share that's been sitting there all along

Moderators: The primary source for this post is a research paper relating to child sexual abuse. So, at minimum this is on topic. The content of the paper speaks directly to a couple significant features of “pizzagate;” the public disinterest and lack of identifiable victims. While admittedly predating the events, this touches on extremely important aspects of the investigation. I link only to the research paper.

"The Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome" by Roland C. Summit, M.D. [ https://archive.is/Ue6dX ]

Every so often the mighty Wurlitzer plays a familiar tune - Famous TV personality found to be a child sex predator. Sometimes a story only gets attention from the independent media, the establishment media choosing to downplay or ignore it - Former Speaker of the House prolific pedophile.

A couple years ago two children from Hampstead England, a young girl and her younger brother claimed to be victims of ritual sexual abuse. Their story has since almost faded away completely.

Currently trending on social media and independent media is the latest flavor of this familiar tale, being branded as “Pizzagate”. In both the Hampstead and Pizzagate cases, the controversy isn't over the seriousness of the crimes or the social status of the perpetrators, but whether any crimes even took place at all.

The claims of the two Hampstead children were officially investigated and ruled to be false. The children had evern recanted their claims. Pizzagate hasn't been officially investigated as there aren't any known victims, and the claims don't relate to any specific crimes.

Despite this, many people ( including myself ) still strongly suspect organized child sexual abuse has occurred. But there is a large contingent of people who believe one or both cases are bogus and no sexual abuse took place.

From my initial investigation of the Pizzagate evidence, I find there to be strong indications that the public's concerns are warranted and an investigation needs to be conducted. Mostly extraneous evidence has been uncovered after the initial flurry of citizen investigation. In the Hampstead case, little new information has emerged in many months.

But I've got some evidence to share about both cases that's been sitting there all along.

In my ongoing research, I sometimes return to cases or topics that I feel are unresolved. Rarely do I find anything significant enough to reignite an investigation. Often though, I find information that supports an existing theory or provides greater context.

I found a research paper entitled, "The Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome" by Roland C. Summit, M.D. It was written in 1983. UPDATE: Please ignore the obviously biased criticism of the paper from legal professionals and experts for the defense, at least long enough to read it.

The first piece of evidence lies within the syndrome outlined in the paper, the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome.

The five categories of the syndrome are...

1. Secrecy
2. Helplessness
3. Entrapment and accommodation
4. Delayed, unconvincing disclosure
5. Retraction

The first two categories, secrecy and helplessness are conditions under which the abuse occurs. The next three categories are sequential events and behaviors related to the abuse.

Note the last two categories, Delayed, unconvincing disclosure and retraction. These behaviors were both seen in the Hampstead case. But let's focus on number five, retraction for a moment.

Both Hampstead children retracted their allegations in recorded police interviews. Many people argue that the retractions alone are proof enough that the allegations were false. Others view it as the natural progression of events given that the allegations were false and in light of a thorough interrogation and the children being made aware of the implications and consequences.

Let me quote from the paper…

"Whatever a child says about the sexual abuse, she is likely to reverse it." "Unless there is special support for the child and immediate intervention to force responsibility on the father, the girl will follow the 'normal' course and retract her complaint."

In just these two statements we learn that retraction is "likely" and the "normal course." That means that, more often than not the child will retract the claims.

For some additional perspective to help understand this behavior, I quote again from the paper...

"In the chaotic aftermath of disclosure, the child discovers that the bedrock fears and threats underlying the secrecy are true. Her father abandons her and calls her a liar. Her mother does not believe her or decompensates into hysteria and rage. The family is fragmented, and all the children are placed in custody. She is held in custody with no apparent hope of returning home if the dependency position is maintained."

The "...bedrock fears and threats underlying the secrecy" reference takes us back to the first category of the syndrome, secrecy. About secrecy, the paper states...

"Virtually no child is prepared for the possibility of molestation by a trusted adult; that possibility is a well kept secret even among adults. The child is, therefore, entirely dependent on the intruder for whatever reality is assigned to the experience…The secrecy is both the source of fear and the promise of safety."

The syndrome and the related information shared in the paper are claimed to be from research conducted within an extended network of child abuse treatment programs and other clinical settings as well as from hundreds of training symposia and feedback from thousands of individuals with personal or professional involvement in sexual abuse.

However, the syndrome itself and other information apply to the most typical female victim, as far less research involved male victim cases. This is largely because males are extremely reluctant to admit to sexual victimization experiences. And when they are abused, it is often outside of the nuclear family.

I found the paper to be well written with arguments well presented. I got the sense that the little-understood phenomenon of child sexual abuse is a passion of the author. He presented many reasonable findings I had never seen elsewhere or considered previously.

It seems that the children retracting their allegations in the Hampstead case is typical of children who have been sexually abused. However, the fact that the British legal system, medical and child welfare system didn't act in consideration of this understanding doesn't surprise me.

Now, let's look at the fourth category of the syndrome, Delayed, unconvincing disclosure in relation to the Pizzagate case. In the Hampstead case, there are only two children who only confided within the family. In the Pizzagate case, there are no known victims. What can account for this, if there's been actual abuse? Wouldn't older children who frequent the Internet have learned about Pizzagate? Would that not be enough encouragement to come forward?

The paper states…

"Most ongoing sexual abuse is never disclosed, at least not outside the immediate family. Treated, reported or investigated cases are the exception, not the norm."

Again, recall that this information is based on the typical female victim. Continuing, it states…

"Disclosure is an outgrowth either of overwhelming family conflict, incidental discovery by a third party, or sensitive outreach and community education by child protective services."

So there's already a statistical resistance on the part of children to claim abuse. Add to that the environment society presents outlined in the paper...

"The identified child victim encounters an adult world which gives grudging acknowledgement to an abstract concept of child sexual abuse but which challenges and represses the child who presents a specific complaint of victimization. Adult beliefs are dominated by an entrenched and self-protective mythology that passes for common-sense."

As to the reason why a possible network of child abusers could traffic in children without the children disclosing the abuse, the paper states…

"When no adult intervenes to acknowledge the reality of the abuse experience or to fix responsibility on the offending adult, there is a reinforcement of the child's tendency to deal with the trauma as an intrapsychic event and to incorporate a monstrous apparition of guilt, self-blame, pain and rage."

Another clue to this lack of disclosure may be found in the following statement.

"There is very little risk of discovery if the child is young enough and if there is an established relationship of authority and affection…The healthy, normal, emotionally resilient child will learn to accommodate to the reality of continuing sexual abuse."

What we've just covered in only a few minutes points to the legitimacy of the claims in both the Hampstead and Pizzagate cases, if only based on statistical probability. But I encourage you to read the entire paper. Reading it in full gave me possibly greater insight into the actions of the child victims, the perpetrators, law enforcement, the media and the general public.

Speaking of the actions of law enforcement; the Hampstead children's case was purportedly officially investigated and no evidence of abuse was found. In Pizzagate the MSM has been more dismissive, even ridiculing the people who merely think it’s worthy of looking into. I found the following statement from the paper illustrative of what the MSM coverage and that investigation was actually intended to be, a cover-up...

"What everybody doesn't know, and would not want to know, is that the vast majority of investigated accusations prove valid."