Facts concerning the Dutch National Unit for Special Vice Cases

The Dutch National Unit for Special Vice Cases (in Dutch: the LEBZ) continuously emphasizes that the facts show that there is no evidence that there is such a thing as ritual abuse.


  • Fact is that the LEBZ submitted its last annual report for 2008. Only now, at the urgent request of the Minister of Justice and Security, following a unanimous vote of the House of Representatives, is the LEBZ busy collecting numbers.
  • Fact is that – according to statements from the legal department of the national police – there are no documents available based on which one can derive the facts on which the LEBZ bases its opinion that therapists use suggestive techniques and therefore do not comply with the rules of the Health Council.
  • Fact is that, again according to the national police, there are no documents based on police investigation reports from which the LEBZ derives its statements about retractors.
  • The fact is that it is unknown whether the LEBZ has investigated cases of more than one retractor, and how.
  • The fact is that scientists who are or were affiliated with the LEBZ as consultants, such as Peter van Koppen and Ineke Wessel, do not respond or do not respond substantively to questions asked about the claims they made in the media. Information about discussions around this held by the KTGG with the persons involved is available for inspection.
  • The fact is, therefore, that many of the statements and claims made with great regularity by the LEBZ are not verifiable, so far.
  • It is a fact that the LEBZ makes claims about the composition of their team: multidisciplinary and coming from various fields. It is also a fact that almost all of these experts adhere to the fantasy model to explain DID and write off recovered memories as impossible;
  • The fact is, therefore, that there can indeed be tunnel vision and groupthink when assessing police investigation reports.
  • It is also a fact that none of the consultants or permanent employees has field experience in the treatment of complex dissociative problems. So it is – for the time being – a fact that it is also not verifiable from which perspective these reports are judged.
  • Finally, it is a fact that various articles written by scientists from the Maastricht University were judged negatively in articles by other scientists, and that the former authors did not substantively respond to these criticisms.
  • The fact is, therefore, that the LEBZ’s opinions are based on theories that are internationally not highly regarded.
  • It is also a fact that the vice squad is severely understaffed and has insufficient knowledge about the very complex forms of dissociative problems that result from having undergone organized sadistic abuse.
  • Finally, a factual question is: how can the LEBZ assert their opinions with so much certainty, while only three declarations have been made in the last seven years?

Trauma and Memory, Bessel van der Kolk

When people receive sensory input, they generally automatically synthesize this incoming information into the large store of pre-existing information. If the event is personally significant, they generally will transcribe these sensations into a narrative, without conscious awareness of the processes that translate sensory impressions into a personal story.

Our research shows that in contrast with the way people seem to process ordinary information, traumatic experiences initially are imprinted as sensations or feeling states and are not collated and transcribed into personal narratives.

Both my interviews with traumatized people, and my brain imaging studies of them, seem to confirm that traumatic memories come back as emotional and sensory states, with little capacity for verbal representation.
This failure to process information on a symbolic level, which is essential for proper categorization and integration with other experiences, is at the very core of the pathology of PTSD.

Continue reading

A Consolidation of SRA and False Memory Data by James Quan

by James Quan, November 1996, Portland, Oregon

The purpose of this paper is to consolidate and present some of the major data for those sceptical of the existence of Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) and to suggest more mutual affirmation in pursuit of the truth in this area. It attempts to critically examine both sides of the debate, namely: critical thinking and belief, “no official” evidence, the context of evidence, actual corroborative evidence, false memory, the sharp rise in MPD/DID diagnoses, and alternate explanations for the profound similarities in child and adult accounts. In light of the semantic difficulties inherent in “memories” it is important to avoid overgeneralizing on either side, and yet to fully accept that for which both memory and corroboration exists.  A Consolidation of SRA and false memory