Independent educational reading about belief, conscience and coexistence
Religious Tolerance
Historical archive · ritual-abuse allegations

The “Believe the Children” ritual-abuse list

A careful summary of a 1995 list of cases associated with claims of ritual abuse, with attention to evidence, legal outcomes and the limits of historical reporting.

Archive context
The source list was circulated during a period of intense public concern about alleged ritual abuse. This page presents it as a historical document, not as a current finding.
Overview

What the historical record shows

Believe the Children was an organization that sought public attention for child abuse, including claims described at the time as ritual abuse. The last documented activity identified in the archive was a conference held in Arlington Heights, Illinois, from 16–18 June 1995. The organization later became inactive.

At that conference, the group circulated a list of 18 convictions that it believed involved ritual abuse. Fifteen were in the United States, with one each in Canada, England and New Zealand. The list was subsequently reproduced on several websites.

Reading this page responsibly

The allegations and conclusions below belong to a historical source. They should not be treated as current legal findings or as proof of events. Some records are incomplete, and later appeals or reviews may have changed the status of individual cases.

Patterns identified in the archive

Available accounts differ substantially. In several better-known cases, later reviews raised concerns about interviewing practices, suggestibility and the reliability of recovered or elaborated memories. In other cases, ritual claims appeared in reporting or courtroom discussion without enough documented evidence to establish what occurred.

The original list marked some entries with an asterisk because the compilers had not obtained supporting information. That uncertainty is important: absence of documentation is not confirmation of either the allegation or its rejection.

Cases named in the 1995 revision

  • Santa Rosa, California: Darryl Ball and Charlotte Thrailkill. Ritual-abuse claims were mentioned during the prosecution’s opening statement.
  • Akron, Colorado: Philip and Michael Schmidt. A newspaper account referred to allegations involving a child.
  • Miami, Florida: Francisco and Iliana Fuster. The Country Walk case involved child-abuse allegations; the archive disputed the ritual-abuse characterization. Case details
  • Malden, Massachusetts: The Amirault family, associated with the Fells Acre case. Case details
  • Niles, Michigan: Allan Barkman. Case details
  • Edenton, North Carolina: Robert Kelly, Kathryn Wilson, Elizabeth Kelly and Willard Privott. The archive records that convictions were overturned on appeal. Case details
  • Smithfield, North Carolina: Patrick Figuered and Sonja Hill. Case details
  • Roseburg, Oregon: The Gallup family. Case details
  • Olympia, Washington: Paul R. Ingram. Case details
  • Martensville, Saskatchewan: The Sterling family and Jane Doe. Case details
  • Nottingham, United Kingdom: A group of nine adults convicted in 1989 of non-ritual offences against children; the archive describes a later dispute over additional ritual-abuse claims. Case details
  • New Zealand: Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis. Case details

Other cases in the original list were recorded only briefly, with limited information available to the compilers. A wider set of allegations is discussed in the archive’s additional case index.

References preserved by the archive

  1. Believe the Children, historical case list and conference material, 1995.
  2. SMART newsletter, July 1995, issue 3.
  3. Archived copies of the organization’s ritual-child-abuse conviction list.
Reader guide

Frequently asked questions

Is this list a current legal source?

No. It is a historical archive of a list circulated in 1995. Readers should consult current court records and reputable legal reporting for present status.

Does an allegation establish that ritual abuse occurred?

No. An allegation, a media reference and a conviction are different kinds of information. Each requires careful examination of the underlying evidence and later proceedings.

Why does the page discuss interviewing practices?

Questions about suggestibility and interview methods became central to several historical debates about how children’s accounts were obtained, interpreted and documented.

Why are some entries marked as uncertain?

The historical compilers did not have supporting information for every case. The archive preserves that limitation rather than filling gaps with speculation.

Where can I find related material?

Use the linked case pages, the ritual-abuse menu, and the site’s broader archive on law, news and public questions.