I see you do not mention that none of her peers agreed with her conclusions and she herself revised them, admitting they weren't as bad as she had made them out to be. She was criticized for using an outdated technique which was discredited 25 years ago, to reach her summary. She also agreed that the damage could have been caused by suppositories that the mother had given them for their constipation. The results were not proof of any long term abuse and could have occurred naturally. In short, a second and unbiased opinion should have been sought because hers was not unbiased or reliable.
So do you think Christie was justified in his abuse of the children?
view the rest of the comments →
norobotono ago
I see you do not mention that none of her peers agreed with her conclusions and she herself revised them, admitting they weren't as bad as she had made them out to be. She was criticized for using an outdated technique which was discredited 25 years ago, to reach her summary. She also agreed that the damage could have been caused by suppositories that the mother had given them for their constipation. The results were not proof of any long term abuse and could have occurred naturally. In short, a second and unbiased opinion should have been sought because hers was not unbiased or reliable.
So do you think Christie was justified in his abuse of the children?