Anna Stubblefield: Sexual abuse case involving facilitated communication

Great Debates
1

In the NY Times Magazine there’s a lengthy article about the fascinating case–and I mean “fascinating” in a horror-show, car-wreck kind of way–against therapist Anna Stubblefield. She worked with a man w/cerebral palsy (named only as “D.J.” in the article) who was 34 years old at the time, wearing a diaper, and considered mentally challenged with the mental capacity of a toddler.

But Stubblefield was convinced that he was not mentally challenged, as he’d been considered for all of his 34 years, but rather able to communicate intelligently and articulately… once she facilitated that communication by supporting his arm.

It’s a terrific feature and I hope people will read it to understand the nuances of the case. Stubblefield, who was married w/kids, eventually fell in love with D.J., and had sex with him. She claimed the sex was consensual; D.J.'s family and the prosecution claimed otherwise. D.J. himself can’t share what he thinks, which is the tragedy here.

For a shorter version describing the case (although at the time there was no verdict), here’s a Slate article from September.

I’ll put this in spoilers just in case someone wants to read the NYT article without knowing what the results of the trial were:

The verdict was that she was indeed guilty of sexual abuse, and sentenced to ten years for each time they had sex–up to 40 years.

Facilitated communication (which let’s call FC for conciseness) is at the heart of the article–a big part of Anna’s defense rested on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of FC, and…

…the Judge flatly wouldn’t allow it to be tested, since in New Jersey it’s deemed inaccurate evidence, much like a polygraph I guess (except even hinkier). I think there’s an argument that could be made–and the defense certainly made it–that Anna and her attorney were denied the right to defend Anna using the only evidence she could possibly provide.

NOTE: The above was the last time I’m using the spoiler box. If you read further, I’m going to be talking about the results, so if you want to read the feature without knowing the verdict in advance (although it’s pretty much stated upfront), read no more until you’re through with the article.

FC isn’t the only topic under the spotlight: the case also invokes questions about the appropriateness of a therapist/caretaker getting emotionally and physically involved with her client/patient–and I think most people would agree this is inappropriate, but I could be wrong.

A further topic for debate is whether Anna Stubblefield was not just manipulating D.J., but herself as well: was she genuinely convinced that FC is valid, that D.J. was talking to her, and that D.J. was capable of expressing consent? If so, if she’s this delusional, does this mean she herself had diminished capacity, and should that have been taken into consideration at the trial?

I guess I’m opening the thread for several of these issues, basically to debate whether the legal consequences of Stubblefield’s actions were fair or too harsh (40 years in prison is the same punishment a gang rape would receive); whether FC should have been allowed as a defense; whether others believe in FC; whether she harmed D.J. knowingly or was under her own spell, as it were.

For the record, I believe:

  1. The verdict was absolutely just. Even taking away the FC part of the case, you have a therapist/caretaker breaching the most basic rule: do not get involved with someone in your care. There is simply too much room for abuse, and this is a perfect example of it.

  2. The sentence feels too harsh to me, but I can’t articulate why, and the more I argue with myself the more wrong my feelings are. If D.J. really does have the mentality of a three-year-old, and is this physically challenged, and was not able to communicate his consent… what Stubblefield did was rape a completely vulnerable victim, no different from someone who did the same to a voiceless three-year-old child left in her charge. That three-year-old wouldn’t be able to tell anyone what happened, just as D.J. couldn’t. It’s sick.

So why does some nagging part of me think 40 years is excessive? I don’t know and it bothers me. I don’t think it’s because D.J. is male–in fact, I’m certain of it. What I’m leaning toward is that my pushback against the sentence involves Stubblefield’s own mental health. Which leads me to the next question.

  1. Was Stubblefield’s belief in FC crucial to her defense, and if so, should a test of this have been allowed at trial? (Of course, if NJ has deemed it unviable evidence then of course legally the decision was correct. I’m setting aside the legal issue and just asking it in a vacuum.)

I find myself thinking her intent mattered. Not during the original verdict phase, but when meting out punishment at her sentence. So I think it was crucial to determine how genuine her beliefs were, and thus the FC test should have been allowed.

…But then I change my mind. Does mindset matter? If someone inflicts harm on another person in the delusional but genuine belief that the victim wants what is happening, would I be so lenient? I genuinely don’t know, but I think not. Hell, Charles Manson seems to have genuinely believed black people were going to begin a race war and he intended to instigate it by framing them for his followers’ murder spree; does that mitigate his crimes? No.

That’s why I want to hear others’ opinions and arguments. I can go either way and it rather bothers me that I have this instinct at all.

  1. Is FC real? I’d say in 90% of cases, no. I’m sure there are many people locked in a noncompliant body who need assistance to communicate, and they do so without being faked by the person making accommodations for them–technological or physical assistance. But the usual way FC works doesn’t fit that model. It’s been proven time and time again that the results can’t be duplicated in a blind test, where the test subject is privately shown items that the alleged facilitator can’t see, and then the subject is asked what those objects were while the facilitator assists them. They might as well be Uri Gellars.

Speaking of which… I recently read Derren Brown’s Tricks of the Mind, and FC isn’t far at all from what he describes as the almost subconscious, microscopic movements that people make without realizing it, simply by thinking or believing something should be happening (like with Ouija boards–mentioned in the article–or Brown’s own trick of “the moving table,” where a group of volunteers put their hands around a table, which starts moving as if on its own).

  1. Given that, I think it is just possible that a facilitator might actually influence his or her client without realizing s/he’s doing it. If you want something enough, your muscles and mind will make it happen. And sadly, I think this might have been the case with Stubblefield.
    Okay. Sorry for the wall of words. I’d really love to hear others’ opinions on this.
2

Facilitated Communication is not real. If it was real my dog could communicate in English. There has never been a double blind study where it was shown to work at all. In other studies of the method where any success was found the facilitation seemed to be unnecessary. It is utter nonsense, and if you can stand to read that article (which should have been written with the facilitation of an experienced writer) you will see the obvious signs of delusion in the woman/caretaker that is it’s subject.

3

Very likely she was genuinely convinced that FC was valid.

James Randi, the well known skeptic, tests a lot of people who believe they have paranormal powers, in the context of his million dollar challenge. The most common applicants are dowsers. Randi’s opinion and experience is that these people genuinely believe they can dowse, genuinely believe the dowsing rods (or whatever) move independently of their will, and are genuinely surprised when they can’t dowse in a blind test. Indeed the very fact they apply for the challenge knowing they will have to do a well designed blind test suggests they are not faking it and genuinely think they can pass.

I suspect that FC involves precisely the same ideomotor effect as dowsing is assumed to involve.

4

Speaking sort of generally as somebody who’s done a lot of legal intellectualizing about criminal stuff and sexual assault stuff… there’s just not a very good framework within which to place a case like this. It makes perfect sense to me that you’d be conflicted and basically baffled about what to make of this, choie. I imagine everyone but the defense attorney felt more or less the same way (the defense attorney has a sort of privilege of intellectual purity that nobody else has, although this is a parenthetical phrase that I will understand the objections to).

I think it’s likely that you’re struggling in particular with the idea of a “guilty mind” in this case, which is fair. The particular way in which the mind of this defendant may or may not have been guilty is a way different, way more dramatically tortured way of being guilty than what you’d expect to see of a defendant going away for 40 years. It’s certainly not the typical sexual assault case, and while it’s not a good idea to recognize that and immediately say well OK then there should be no punishment, or whatever, it does matter. Hard cases make bad law, they say.

5

Another thing I meant to say was I doubt she was delusional, in the sense of having diminished capacity. Again I’m reaching this conclusion based on Randi’s comments about dowsers; he generally is fairly sympathetic to them and IIRC says they are often relatively smart people who have just managed to fool themselves. The ideomotor effect is to my understanding quite a powerful and convincing personal experience.

6

FC is 100% bullshit. There is no “90%”; there is no case-by-case. Yes, it is entirely the product of the facilitator. It may very well be subconscious due to the ideomotor effect. That’s no excuse.

7

Oy. What a mess.

I think if I look at it in components, the verdict was appropriate, and then I have to think the sentence was too. It cannot matter that she thought she loved him. She raped him, repeatedly. It’s horrifying.

8

She is supposed to be an educated person. She isn’t dowsing, she raped someone with the mental capacity of a toddler. How would you react if the genders had been reversed? Good intentions are no excuse for her deliberate disregard of science and reason. Among her excuses was a belief that the subjects of facilitation would not demonstrate their abilities in scientific studies, straight out of the psychics handbook. I won’t say she’s delusional in the sense of legal diminished capacity, but I will say she was delusional in that she did not care for this poor manchild at all, she only cared about herself.

9

This is a good example of why it is unethical for a health professional to be sexually involved with their patient. It is in essence wearing two highly profound hats at the same time with vastly different power differentials and expectations.

10

You are extrapolating inappropriately from my comments about what I believe to be the likely facts to assumptions about my views on her culpability.

11

Good points. It is tempting to say that the “guilty mind” (aka Mens Rea) of sexual assault includes an intent to cause sexual trauma or at least the knowledge that the sexual act that you intend to engage in will cause such trauma, but I don’t think that is actually included in most legal systems.

In other words, leaving issues of legal guilt aside for the moment, can we say with confidence that D. J. has been seriously traumatized by the events to such an extent that he now needs trauma therapy, STD treatment, or some other type of intervention to heal from his ordeal? If D. J. was not seriously harmed by the occurrence, can we say with confidence that what the therapist did was truly worthy of 40 years?

12

Okaaay, I guess my mistake was a) writing too long (always my problem) and b) not being clear on what my “90%” figure is including.

To make sure everyone knows my beliefs:

  1. FC, the version where someone lifts a person’s arm and “helps” them to point out or type letters, is false. I said so in my OP. I also said that it’s been repeatedly tested and 100% of the time the success of the alleged FC cannot be repeated. So yes, I know that is b.s.

  2. What I was including in my 90%/10% breakdown was, I guess, not Facilitated Communication™ but the situations where someone physically incapable of communicating is assisted through methods like someone holding up cards, reciting the alphabet, giving yes/no questions, and the patient blinks or grunts or gives some other indication of what s/he wants to say. To me that would fall under the broad umbrella of facilitated communication, using the definitions of each word. But maybe there’s another term for it? Assisted Communication?

Let me re-emphasize: I do not believe in the woo of Facilitated Communication.

But I most certainly know that it’s possible for someone to help a bedridden patient express him- or herself using the methods I described, whatever one would call that. I would imagine our own (sadly late) blinkie might have used such a method to indicate his consciousness when he first awoke. Whatever that is called, that’s what I was including in my 10% figure.

Princhester: OMG thank you for reminding me of the word ideomotor! I was trying to think of that term throughout my discussion of Derren Brown’s own debunking of Ouija boards and so on. (Should’ve remembered dousing, that’s a classic case too.) All I could come up with was ‘subconscious movements’ but I knew there was a single word with “motor” in it that I wasn’t able to recall. WHEW.

Jimmy Chitwood, I’m really grateful for your considered response and helping me understand why I’m finding myself conflicted and unable to make an utterly definite pronouncement like, say, Hentor the Barbarian did. At least I don’t feel filthy and bad for going back and forth. As you say, I know she should be punished, I know she’s guilty. I just read her words and mindset and I think: this is not a mentally healthy person; what’s her own capacity for understanding right and wrong, if she’s this delusional?

But ddsun is right too. Ignoring her mental health (which I find hard to do), her actions were repugnant and horrifying. Even if she hadn’t had sex with him, the level to which she was emotionally involved is antithetical to the ethics of her job. And of course, D.J. isn’t the only one affected, though he is the most abused; I can’t help but think of her children and husband, whom she seems not to have given a single thought to.

It’s almost as if she was under the thrall of her own alleged… well, powers, to use a supernatural term that I don’t think Stubblefield would agree with since she thinks it’s a science.

Creepy is too mild a word for it.

13

I didn’t extrapolate anything. I commented on your post and explained my reasons why I think there is no excuse for her behavior.

14

Those are the same circumstances as when a chronological child is raped. Why should it be different for someone older but with no more mental capacity.

15

I never said there were; but that doesn’t change my view of the likely facts.

16

I don’t think we really have an argument here.

17

The part of the verdict that makes sense to me is based on her relationship with DJ as something on par with a doctor/patient or student/teacher relationship. These relationships have too much potential for abuse and therefore sexual activities are wrong regardless of consent from either party.

If she really felt he was so independent and intelligent, then she needed to end the doctor/patient or student/teacher relationship and let other people facilitate his communication. The fact that other people could not take her place should have told her that the communication was not real, or at the very least not enough to consider DJ independent.

The story about DJ says that he’s capable of moving himself across the floor to a refrigerator because he likes food. That’s enough independent movement that an intelligent person should be able to make their desires known, even if it’s nothing more than a floor mat with a yes on one side and a no on the other so that he could scoot to the side with his answer. That he’s unable to even speak in that kind of manner should make it obvious there’s no great intelligence locked behind a terrible disability.

18

Well then I want my money back. I paid for the full half hour.

19

It is hard to overstate just how entirely discredited FC is. It absolutely fails any testing. When you show the subject one picture and the facilitator another, FC produces what the facilitator sees, not what the subject sees. It is never what the subject sees.

Suggesting that you cannot be 100% certain that FC does not work is like saying you cannot be 100% certain that psychics don’t work.

The problem with an “I can’t be sure it fails in all cases” is that then EVERY “case” will be sure they are the exceptional case. FC is pernicious because loved ones are desperate and facilitators are fooling themselves. It’s why so many first messages are “I love you, mom. I’m happy I can finally tell you.”

ETA: Using other means of communication is not Facilitated Communication. For example, using a PECS system with autistic kids is a perfectly legitimate technique. Calling them FC is incorrect and confusing.

20

I cannot imagine this thread if the genders were reversed. “Well, he really believed she wanted it …”

Christ on a crutch.

And as others have said, “Facilitated Communication” is utter bullshit.