Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 83
Results of the follow-up interviews indicated that ritual crime in Virginia, to the degree that it
is found to exist, is limited primarily to individuals or very small groups (who might be
characterized as dabblers) and consists of trespassing, graffiti, and other vandalism.
Follow-up interviews exposed no evidence of any broad conspiracy of ritual crime. Local law
enforcement agencies throughout the Commonwealth and experts within the Virginia State
Police insisted that their investigations failed to uncover any organized network of crime that
could be attributed to the influences of a spiritual belief system.
Greater in-depth review of survey responses by members of the mental health field revealed
ritual crime claims falling into the second group. Follow-up interviews of these respondents
evidenced a substantively different body of information. Generally these claims involved
information derived from clients, were anecdotal in nature, and lacked detail concerning dates
and locations of alleged offenses. Additionally, they involved incidents that were years or
decades old. The nature of such claims makes verification exceedingly difficult, if not
impossible. It also suggests an aspect of this phenomenon that is fundamentally different
from the more specific allegations provided by law enforcement and social service agencies
and schools.
Testimony
On a number of occasions the task force received testimony involving allegations of ritual
crime. Academics, law enforcement officers, and alleged victims came before the task force in
public and private hearings (authorized by Section 9-134 of the Code of Virginia), the latter
being necessitated both by concern associated with the safety of certain witnesses and the
potentially sensitive nature of material relating to on-going criminal enterprises and
investigations.
Evidence received in such meetings mirrored the conflicting opinions and accounts
encountered throughout the study. Disclosures by therapists and self-described victims of
ritual crime included allegations of nationwide conspiracies (as described previously in this
report). Alleged offenses included kidnapping, murder, and physical and emotional abuse,
though witnesses were typically unable to provide specific details as to locations of events,
dates on which they occurred, or names of victims other than themselves.
Law enforcement officers (from the national, state, and local level) appearing before the task
force challenged these claims. While some of these witnesses suggested the possibility of
criminal activity between state lines, all rejected as untenable the existence of an organized
crime network as pervasive as that being asserted. Citing the lack of physical evidence,
missing persons, or other indications of the alleged crimes, these officers disputed the claims
of criminal activity and therefore failed to reach the more specific issue of whether such
alleged crime had occult influence as its origin.
Therapists who claimed experience in treating victims of ritual crime offered contrasting
positions on the veracity of a victim‟s testimony. While some expressed the conviction that
much of this testimony was accurate, others noted that victims of abuse, as well as those
suffering various emotional and psychological conditions, may assert such claims for
numerous reasons.
In its totality the testimony reaffirmed the need for separate discussion of concerns
experienced by law enforcement personnel and those encountered by professionals in the
field of mental health.
The Mental Health Perspective
Based upon the number of claims of ritual abuse emanating from therapists and their clients it
is evident that significant concerns exist in this arena. The cumulative research (including
interviews with and testimony of numerous licensed mental health practitioners) indicates

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 84
that issues relating to ritual crime in the mental health field possess their own unique series of
problems.
Because therapists are necessarily concerned with treatment issues, their initial response to
clients who report ritual abuses is to seek a determination as to what effect this has had on
the client. Ascertaining the validity of the reports may be important in treatment planning, but
it is not the objective of the therapist to attain or compile evidence in support of a criminal
investigation or prosecution. Indeed, attempts in that regard may tend to impede effective
treatment.
Where patients allege being subjected to abuse, claims of ritual crime take on a new focus,
directed at the victim solely. This impacts directly in two ways. While the nature of inquiry
differs, the ultimate objectives are also distinct. The mission of law enforcement is at odds
with that of the therapist since, for the therapist, challenging a client‟s story may be
inappropriate. It is imperative, however, for law enforcement to establish factual accuracy
with regard to alleged criminal offenses. Additionally, the goal for addressing complaints
directed to therapists varies from that sought by the criminal justice system. Law
enforcement agencies exist to prevent, investigate, and prosecute crime. In the majority of
cases the therapist is likely never to seek nor encounter the client‟s victimizer. Typically, only
if the patient is the actual perpetrator of the crime will the therapist address this side of the
equation.
This dichotomy is of particular significance for those attempting to establish the true extent of
ritual crime because claims involving the most serious and widespread offenses derive
predominantly from the realm of mental health. Often these claims are never reported to law
enforcement at all, or only after a therapist has elicited the information.
But if the nature of therapists‟ work makes more difficult the verification of claims involving
ritual crime, the concerns reflected by such claims remain just as real. Unfortunately,
controversy regarding treatment of clients reporting ritual abuse is as intense among
therapists as is the subject among the broader general population. Actually, mental health
professionals who espouse any opinion about the ritual crime phenomenon tend to fall into
one of the three earlier referenced categories.
However, while these professionals point to many of the same factors as others in debate
over the true extent of ritual crime, the discussion assumes a higher level of complexity. The
causes and effects of victims‟ mental conditions, and their impact on claims of ritual crime,
add fuel to the fire. The inquiry shifts readily from questions about the victim‟s veracity to
issues concerning their beliefs.
Just as the therapist‟s role contrasts with that of the law enforcer, so too is the patient‟s role
incomparable to that of the average citizen reporting a crime. The patient is there for the
specific purpose of seeking treatment and therefore properly views as unique communications
within the doctor-patient relationship. These communications are neither directed to, nor
intended for, an officer‟s ears. Further, the conditions for which the patient seeks help often
affect his or her ability to perceive and process information, which in turn relates to the
reliability of information relayed by such a patient.
The credibility that a therapist attributes to a patient‟s claims of abuse will depend
substantially on the pathology for which the patient is diagnosed. Manifestation of psychosis
may evidence distortions of reality apparent on their face, either because they involve
inaccuracies with which the therapist is personally familiar or because the reports follow an
inherently illogical path. Many claims of ritual abuse appear to be so bizarre that psychosis is
assumed. If objective testing does not indicate the presence of such psychosis, however, the
therapist might well attribute greater potential credibility to a patient‟s claims of abuse.