Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 86
The essay sets about to “prove” that widespread police concern about occult-connected
criminal activity is overblown because these “cult cops,” as the authors call them (referring to
those law enforcement professionals who take the problem seriously), are ipso facto driven in
their zeal by preexisting conservative or Christian evangelical biases. As it happens, there is
absolutely no way, given the way the authors set up their research boundaries, that they
could have reached any other conclusion whatsoever. The authors state, “Conducting a
survey of law enforcement perceptions of the Satanism-crime link proved extremely difficult.
The first problem was identifying an appropriate sample” (p. 193).
For the “sample,” the authors “located” two mailing lists: one from a police lieutenant in
Boise, Idaho, named Larry Jones and the other from a roster of attendees at a Texas police
academy, nearly all of whom came from southern and southwestern states. They then
“randomized” the names on the lists. Such samples are about as representative of the total
police population involved in occult crime as the readers of Millie’s Book (about Barbara and
George Bush’s dog) could be said to constitute a cross section of the national electorate. The
authors themselves point out that Lt. Jones is “known in the cult cop network for his strong
Christian anti-cult orientation” (p. 194). This type of approach is tantamount to undertaking a
supposed scientific examination of how many ordinary citizens hold pro-environmental beliefs
by “randomly” interviewing participants at a Sierra Club convention and a Greenpeace rally.
However, this ridiculous and obviously rigged sampling method does not preclude the authors
from generating impressive tables of statistics and making sweeping conclusions about who
“cult cops” really are. They are “often from smaller towns, with less education and income,
and more religious, officers who perceive a greater threat appear to live and work in a
relatively modest and conservative setting” (p. 202). Next one might survey the authors of
this particular book and draw the dazzling conclusion that, in light of this sample, sociologists
“on the whole” tend to think like Norman Lear and the organization People for the American
Way.
On the other hand, one may wonder whether these self-professed experts on the “scare” even
read the newspapers or the law enforcement journals. According to one of the authors, Hicks,
“the satanic crime model coalesced from several unrelated events: the publication of Michelle
Remembers ...the identification of multiple personality disorder (MPD) as a dissociative
disorder in the third edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, and allegations of child abuse at the McMartin Preschool and
other day-care centers (beginning in 1983)” (p. 176). This rather odd generalization makes
little sense insofar as none of the episodes or cases cited by Hicks had anything much at all to
do with police investigative models --furthermore, from the outset, they were all considered
problematic by serious researchers.
In fact, all of these so-called benchmarks concerned hypnotic recall of strange events by
subjects in psychotherapy. Hicks’s account is akin to saying that strategic thinking about the
Cold War coalesced from the McCarthy hearings, interviews with J. Edgar Hoover, and the
book None Dare Call It Treason. Hicks goes on to cite what he dubs “the seminal conference
on satanic crime in Colorado in September 1986,” at which only one police officer appeared
on the program. Precisely how a conference that Hicks himself criticizes for lacking criminal
justice expertise could have become ipso facto the basis of the elaboration of a “police
paradigm” defies logic.
Interestingly, Hicks fails to mention such experienced police officers as Ohio’s Dale Griffis or
Chicago’s Jerry Simandl, who belong to a rather sophisticated network of practicing law
enforcement professionals and are generally regarded as leading authorities on the problem.
The gambit is the model for most of the essays in the book: play up the frivolous and loony
cases, along with the poorly credentialed “experts,” while completely scanting any reference
to legitimate evidence or significant research. Overall, by means of cheap, but transparent,
The essay sets about to “prove” that widespread police concern about occult-connected
criminal activity is overblown because these “cult cops,” as the authors call them (referring to
those law enforcement professionals who take the problem seriously), are ipso facto driven in
their zeal by preexisting conservative or Christian evangelical biases. As it happens, there is
absolutely no way, given the way the authors set up their research boundaries, that they
could have reached any other conclusion whatsoever. The authors state, “Conducting a
survey of law enforcement perceptions of the Satanism-crime link proved extremely difficult.
The first problem was identifying an appropriate sample” (p. 193).
For the “sample,” the authors “located” two mailing lists: one from a police lieutenant in
Boise, Idaho, named Larry Jones and the other from a roster of attendees at a Texas police
academy, nearly all of whom came from southern and southwestern states. They then
“randomized” the names on the lists. Such samples are about as representative of the total
police population involved in occult crime as the readers of Millie’s Book (about Barbara and
George Bush’s dog) could be said to constitute a cross section of the national electorate. The
authors themselves point out that Lt. Jones is “known in the cult cop network for his strong
Christian anti-cult orientation” (p. 194). This type of approach is tantamount to undertaking a
supposed scientific examination of how many ordinary citizens hold pro-environmental beliefs
by “randomly” interviewing participants at a Sierra Club convention and a Greenpeace rally.
However, this ridiculous and obviously rigged sampling method does not preclude the authors
from generating impressive tables of statistics and making sweeping conclusions about who
“cult cops” really are. They are “often from smaller towns, with less education and income,
and more religious, officers who perceive a greater threat appear to live and work in a
relatively modest and conservative setting” (p. 202). Next one might survey the authors of
this particular book and draw the dazzling conclusion that, in light of this sample, sociologists
“on the whole” tend to think like Norman Lear and the organization People for the American
Way.
On the other hand, one may wonder whether these self-professed experts on the “scare” even
read the newspapers or the law enforcement journals. According to one of the authors, Hicks,
“the satanic crime model coalesced from several unrelated events: the publication of Michelle
Remembers ...the identification of multiple personality disorder (MPD) as a dissociative
disorder in the third edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, and allegations of child abuse at the McMartin Preschool and
other day-care centers (beginning in 1983)” (p. 176). This rather odd generalization makes
little sense insofar as none of the episodes or cases cited by Hicks had anything much at all to
do with police investigative models --furthermore, from the outset, they were all considered
problematic by serious researchers.
In fact, all of these so-called benchmarks concerned hypnotic recall of strange events by
subjects in psychotherapy. Hicks’s account is akin to saying that strategic thinking about the
Cold War coalesced from the McCarthy hearings, interviews with J. Edgar Hoover, and the
book None Dare Call It Treason. Hicks goes on to cite what he dubs “the seminal conference
on satanic crime in Colorado in September 1986,” at which only one police officer appeared
on the program. Precisely how a conference that Hicks himself criticizes for lacking criminal
justice expertise could have become ipso facto the basis of the elaboration of a “police
paradigm” defies logic.
Interestingly, Hicks fails to mention such experienced police officers as Ohio’s Dale Griffis or
Chicago’s Jerry Simandl, who belong to a rather sophisticated network of practicing law
enforcement professionals and are generally regarded as leading authorities on the problem.
The gambit is the model for most of the essays in the book: play up the frivolous and loony
cases, along with the poorly credentialed “experts,” while completely scanting any reference
to legitimate evidence or significant research. Overall, by means of cheap, but transparent,
