# Anna Stubblefield: Sexual abuse case involving facilitated communication **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2015, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296 "2015-10-20T23:34:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/21 "2015-10-21T01:13:47Z")
I would think that with certain patients having certain disabilities, the “Facilitated Communication” method might actually work. Specifically, if someone had pronounced physical weakness, but was still able to make small, purposeful hand movements. In that case, it would be sort of like a group of kids playing with a Ouija board, but one kid is _intentionally_ trying to make the pointer spell out certain things, but doing so very subtly to avoid detection. I would also think, however, that in any case where this technique actually worked, some other system of communication would probably work better and would give the patient more independence and privacy. If you can push someone’s hand around with gentle motions, then you can also probably operate a trackball or something. So why would you even be using FC? ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/22 "2015-10-21T01:30:35Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > 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. I think you’re overstating the case somewhat. With psychics, you don’t even need to test them to know that they’re bogus, because their claims are physically impossible. The certainty we (or rather, I) feel about the falseness of psychic claims is not based solely, or even mostly, on the lack of empirical support. The same goes for dowsing. There’s no plausible physical mechanism for it to work; the experimental proof that it doesn’t work is just icing on the cake. I guess what I’m saying is that empirical results aren’t everything. The presence or absence of a plausible explanation should also affect the degree of credence we give to a claim. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/23 "2015-10-21T01:37:08Z")
> [@WF\_Tomba](#): > > I think you’re overstating the case somewhat. With psychics, you don’t even need to test them to know that they’re bogus, because their claims are physically impossible. The certainty we (or rather, I) feel about the falseness of psychic claims is not based solely, or even mostly, on the lack of empirical support. The same goes for dowsing. There’s no plausible physical mechanism for it to work; the experimental proof that it doesn’t work is just icing on the cake. > > I guess what I’m saying is that empirical results aren’t everything. The presence or absence of a plausible explanation should also affect the degree of credence we give to a claim. So what is the plausible physical mechanism of FC? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/24 "2015-10-21T01:42:26Z")
The possibility the disabled person can actually think and control their arm somewhat, presumably. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/25 "2015-10-21T01:52:16Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > The possibility the disabled person can actually think and control their arm somewhat, presumably. But autistic individuals can typically control their arms just fine. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/26 "2015-10-21T01:54:58Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > 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? I agree that the anticipated sentence is too long, and also that it is hard to say why. I’m a little reluctant to say that harm is the measure. Some victims have unusual psychological resilience compared to others who suffered exactly the same violent criminal scenario. It doesn’t seem to me that this should ordinarily have an effect on sentencing. The question that can be asked is – what will it take to make reasonably sure she doesn’t do it again? Would six months of weekends in jail, accompanied by many years of random probation officer home visits, work? Probably. And, while not cheap, I’m sure it would be cheaper than a decade in prison (the Times implies it will be longer). If she breaks probation by starting in on an emotional involvement with another highly disabled individual, there would be time then to see probation failing, requiring resort to to real prison time. One thing that I think should be taken into account: Her method of committing a sex crime requires years of victim grooming. Probation could likely catch it before it went criminal. Another factor is that she meant well. On the one hand, that seems like it should be a big, big factor. On the other hand, what if a male rapist had, against all reasonable evidence, convinced himself that a female victim wanted it? I don’t think that should be a mark in his favor. But in many such cases, I would think the man is lying. Here, I don’t think there is a question but that she is telling the truth – without question, she thought she was giving the victim what he wanted. I believe the perpetrator here has what used to be called [monomania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomania). If she really does have to be locked up, a humane, albeit secure, mental hospital would be better than prison. Given the US incarceration rate, I feel that if there is any half-way reasonable excuse to avoid sending someone to spend years in prison, we should grab it. There seem to be several such excuses here. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/27 "2015-10-21T01:59:01Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > But autistic individuals can typically control their arms just fine. I’m not sure I understand your point. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/28 "2015-10-21T02:12:23Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I’m not sure I understand your point. WF Tomba suggested that I went too far in rejecting FC 100% and comparing it with psychics. He objected due to the assertion that there is no plausible physical mechanism for psychics. So, I asked what the plausible physical method for FC is. It has been developed and is nost typically used for individuals with autism. These children predominantly have intact motor skills - they are typically quite well able to perform the physical movements required to type on a keyboard without any help whatsoever. So, what is the plausible physical mechanism behind FC? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/29 "2015-10-21T02:18:38Z")
I think WF Tomba’s point is that there is no mechanism that would not involve re-writing of the laws of physics that could explain psychics and dowsers. It is not however physically inconceivable that disabled people could be capable of controlling their arm to a degree sufficient to impart some communication but not to a degree sufficient to do so independently. Don’t get me wrong, I think FC is 100% bullshit, but it’s not physically inexplicable at the level psychic powers are physically inexplicable. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/30 "2015-10-21T02:20:14Z")
> [@choie](#): > > 1. 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? Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/31 "2015-10-21T02:22:51Z")
The argument would be that these autistic people want to communicate, and are trying to do so, but their autism forces them to make weird repetitive movements that interfere with communication. Holding their hands might help focus their minds in some way. Or you could argue that the autism, as typically understood, isn’t the real problem, and that the patient’s ability to communicate is actually being blocked by some other disability related to motor control. I’m not saying that these are good or likely arguments. I’m saying that there are degrees of wrongness, and an idea that doesn’t violate the known laws of physics is less wrong than one that does. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/32 "2015-10-21T06:19:14Z")
> [@choie](#): > > 1. 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. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I agree that the anticipated sentence is too long, and also that it is hard to say why. It seems to me that cases where a person is actually killed (but not in a premeditated way) are possibly the only times when a 40-year sentence is appropriate. 40 years **might** be ok for truly extreme fraud. It would probably be ok for a serial rapist who is convicted of several different counts relating to several victims in one trial. But for somebody who has victimized only one person, even repeatedly, I don’t think that the offense rises to that level. I view that as one crime repeated, not multiple crimes. Thus 40 years is too harsh. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/33 "2015-10-21T11:43:29Z")
She hasn’t been sentenced yet. The prosecutor is asking for consecutive sentences, the judge could give her two 10 year sentences running concurrently. So is 10 years too much for the equivalent of serial child rape? I don’t think so, and again, if the genders were reversed I doubt many people would think that 40 years was enough. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/34 "2015-10-21T12:15:07Z")
> [@WF\_Tomba](#): > > The argument would be that these autistic people want to communicate, and are trying to do so, but their autism forces them to make weird repetitive movements that interfere with communication. Holding their hands might help focus their minds in some way. > > Or you could argue that the autism, as typically understood, isn’t the real problem, and that the patient’s ability to communicate is actually being blocked by some other disability related to motor control. > > I’m not saying that these are good or likely arguments. I’m saying that there are degrees of wrongness, and an idea that doesn’t violate the known laws of physics is less wrong than one that does. I take your point about supernatural explanations, but these mechanism are not plausible. They require such an ignorance about autism that they may as well be supernatual. Specifically, they seem to be predicated on the assumption that people with autism lack volitional motor conttrol, or are impaired by avolitional motor movements. Neither of these is true. The repetitive movements of autism are not constant, nor random, nor avolitonal. They do not impair other planful goal-directed behavior. There is simply no plausible mechanism by which loose physical support of the wrist would change anything about the autistic individual’s ability to engage with a keyboard. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/35 "2015-10-21T12:17:20Z")
The article is fascinating. Off topic slightly, but how did the case of Rosemary Crossley and Anne McDonald work? It seems Crossley was able to help McDonald spell something she wasn’t in the room for (with one error). ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/36 "2015-10-21T12:35:56Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > There is simply no plausible mechanism by which loose physical support of the wrist would change anything about the autistic individual’s ability to engage with a keyboard. Stephen Hawking can communicate and he can barely move at all. If a person has the cognitive abilities to communicate, there will be a way to do it without involving a second party who has to ‘interpret’ what they’re trying to communicate, or at a minimum being able to independently verify that the communication is correct. The thing about FC is that it is so trivially verifiable, it strains the bounds of credulity to think that she actually believed she was doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/37 "2015-10-21T12:41:12Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > The article is fascinating. Off topic slightly, but how did the case of Rosemary Crossley and Anne McDonald work? It seems Crossley was able to help McDonald spell something she wasn’t in the room for (with one error). I would be interested in knowing more about that instance. I’ve read that she “refused to play along” for two attempts to produce the words before finally being admonished about the seriousness of the situation. So, how was this attempt conducted? Were the words changed after each failure? Why did the word “quince” end up as “quit”? Seems like there’s a good bit of room for the violation of the blinding of the communicator between the first multiple failures and the eventual partial success. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/38 "2015-10-21T12:49:45Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > The article is fascinating. Off topic slightly, but how did the case of Rosemary Crossley and Anne McDonald work? It seems Crossley was able to help McDonald spell something she wasn’t in the room for (with one error). I don’t have much information on that case, but what I recall is that McDonald was not seriously mentally impaired and she was able to communicate in a variety of ways, and not solely through the facilitation of one individual. That’s the give-away for frauds like Anna, their subjects are unable to communicate with the facilitation of anyone else. In cases where people are able to communicate with assistance it will be obvious that person communicate in a variety of ways not dependent on physical contact with the assistant, something that can be readily established in a courtroom and in double-blind studies. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/39 "2015-10-21T13:18:21Z")
The verdict seems just to me. I can’t make myself care about the length of the sentence. But apart from the legal system, facilitated communication seems pretty easy to test - set up an experiment that excludes the “Clever Hans” effect. Put the facilitator in a different room, and show the patient one card from a standard deck. Then put all the cards face-up on a table, and bring the facilitator back, and have her facilitate the patient in pointing to the correct card. (Make sure that the person who showed the patient the card isn’t in the room as well, so that person’s body language doesn’t give anything away.) Repeat the experiment a hundred times, and see if the patient can communicate which is the correct card more than once or twice. If the patient can’t figure out what the experiment is about, that is equally evidence that the ideas being facilitated are originating in the facilitator’s mind. And if one cannot understand “pick a card, any card”, it seems clear that he couldn’t understand “do you consent to have sex” either. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296/40 "2015-10-21T13:27:20Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > But apart from the legal system, facilitated communication seems pretty easy to test - set up an experiment that excludes the “Clever Hans” effect. [Clever Hans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anna-stubblefield-sexual-abuse-case-involving-facilitated-communication/735296.md?page=3)