Satanic Ritual Abuse - fundie horseshit or troof?

[ViolentPanda]

You say 'may exist' but I'm still not seeing much in the way of evidence of their existence.

And let's face it, on the "occult scene", every fucker knows every other fuckers' business.
IIRC, in one of the more minor "Satanic panic" child protection snatches (N.E. Wales, IIRC), the "devil worship" boiled down to some incestuous hill-farming fuck raping his children while wearing a blanket wrapped around his shoulders. The "child protection specialists" had blown up "daddy wears a blanket" to "daddy wears his demon cloak and dances before an altar" etc.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes these moral panics surface from time to time. They tend to get wildly overblown and exaggerated. But I don't think they come out of absolutely nothing. One might draw an analogy with fears of pandemics like AIDS, or SARS. Yes the fear goes a bit crazy, but there has to be a disease in the first place to trigger the fear.

Well, there's the rub: There doesn't have to "be a disease in the first place". We have ample historical evidence of: Moral panics being based on fiction/stereotypes; moral panics being designed by the media to drive the interests of the media and/or state; of minor public order incidents being sensationalised into moral panics.
In other words, the disease doesn't need to exist. There doesn't need to be even a kernel of real concern about a real issue. Everything is manufacturable.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

And let's face it, on the "occult scene", every fucker knows every other fuckers' business.
IIRC, in one of the more minor "Satanic panic" child protection snatches (N.E. Wales, IIRC), the "devil worship" boiled down to some incestuous hill-farming fuck raping his children while wearing a blanket wrapped around his shoulders. The "child protection specialists" had blown up "daddy wears a blanket" to "daddy wears his demon cloak and dances before an altar" etc.

I think the key point here is that the occult scene that features in SRA accusations is almost entirely imaginary.

The real occult scene in which every fucker knows every other fuckers business is largely irrelevant to SRA accusations.

At least until they lose their job, or social services show up to take their kids away because of stuff the imaginary satanists did.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Satanic panic in the late 80s was partly created by this book, which claimed there were Satanic covens which abducted and murdered people.

Great read at the time I believed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapham_Wood_Mystery

In 1972, missing Police Constable Peter Goldsmith's body was found hidden in a patch of thick bramble. In August 1975, missing pensioner Leon Foster was found in the woods by a couple searching for a lost horse. In 1978, the missing Reverend Harry Neil Snelling's body was found by a Canadian tourist. In September 1981, the body of Jillian Matthews, a homeless schizophrenic was discovered, having been raped and strangled.[2]

In their 1987 book The Demonic Connection, authors Toyne Newton, Charles Walker and Alan Brown claimed that the woods were used for rituals by a Satanic cult calling itself the "Friends of Hecate".[2]



An article by Charles Walker, which details his long investigation into strange phenomena and black magic activity in the Clapham area of Sussex

http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/england/occult/black-magic-in-clapham-and-sussex.html

I always thought Clapham Woods got blown out of proportion, given that other large wooded areas had just as much horribleness found in them (Epping for example).
As for the whole "Friends of Hecate" thing, a properly "Satanic" cult wouldn't name itself after a Greek deity.
IIRC (Bernie Gunther may know better), the only occultists at the time doing anything with regard to Hekate were Kenneth Grant and some of his friends from the Typhonian OTO.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think the key point here is that the occult scene that features in SRA accusations is almost entirely imaginary.

The real occult scene in which every fucker knows every other fuckers business is largely irrelevant to SRA accusations.

At least until they lose their job, or social services show up to take their kids away because of stuff the imaginary satanists did.

Like poor old Gerry S getting hounded out of his job.

 

[angelraven]

I'm not terribly impressed your misunderstanding of what exactly constitutes evidence.

Haha, cute. But you're arguing that a statement given by a suspect to police is not evidence? Why then do the police say to suspects, “You do not have to say anything. However, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

As I freely admit, the quality of this evidence is very much up for debate. But it's still evidence.

Get off your high horse!

 

[8den]

Haha, cute. But you're arguing that a statement given by a suspect to a police is not evidence? Why then do the police say to suspects, “You do not have to say anything. However, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

No. I'm explaining that a statement given to police is a statement.

Using your logic if I told the police I was a astronaut or King Philip of Spain, you'd claim that was evidence that I'd slipped the bonds of earth or was a 16th century Spanish monarch.

When in fact it's nothing more that a statement I made.

As I freely admit, the quality of this evidence is very much up for debate. But it's still evidence.

Once again I meet someone on urban who I hope is never called for jury duty. This man's clam that he was on his way to sex orgy as part of his secret religous cult is evidence of nothing more than what he was claiming to do.

I have similar evidence that I met bigfoot riding a griffin. Or that Nick Clegg is just 2,000 hamsters shoved into a suit.

Get off your high horse!

For the last time I'm a Centaur!

 

[angelraven]

I personally don't think that musings about a person's fantasy life have to conform to the standards of an experimental science, or that anything less than experimental science is cod psychology, but if you're going beyond describing the possible internal world of an individual to suggest something has taken place at an external, organisational level you won't get very far here without evidence that is recognised as such.

There's an inherent difficulty here though, isn't there, because once someone has been convicted as a serial child rapist, finding objective witnesses to corroborate their stories is not going to be easy (given that most of the witnesses were either victims - of which there were plenty in Jersey - or would be likely to incriminate themselves by their statements). We know from Kincora, Bryn Estyn, etc., that when powerful networks are involved, the investigations seem to run out of steam after a small number of convictions of the people either most directly involved (care home employees) or caught red-handed (like Paisnel).

All I have been saying on these threads is that if, as we now know, powerful networks have been connected to serial violent rape, torture, even murder of children who were not known to them, then it does not seem to me such a huge step psychologically to think that for at least some of those individuals these activities might have been tied up with an interest in the occult. Very speculative of course, but that does not mean it has 0% chance of being true until some conclusive evidence is produced. And I want to emphasise one last time that I expect only a tiny minority of child abusers to have such an interest, because most abuse is more mundane (but no less tragic of course) and happens within the family.

Over and out. I will continue reading these forums because I find them interesting, but with the exception of Red Cat and one or two others, I have not found the users very welcoming (or even polite) when I posted here.

 

[8den]

Oh have a chocolate fucking hob nob.

 

[free spirit]

No. I'm explaining that a statement given to police is a statement.

Using your logic if I told the police I was a astronaut or King Philip of Spain, you'd claim that was evidence that I'd slipped the bonds of earth or was a 16th century Spanish monarch.

When in fact it's nothing more that a statement I made.

Once again I meet someone on urban who I hope is never called for jury duty. This man's clam that he was on his way to sex orgy as part of his secret religous cult is evidence of nothing more than what he was claiming to do.

I have similar evidence that I met bigfoot riding a griffin. Or that Nick Clegg is just 2,000 hamsters shoved into a suit.


For the last time I'm a Centaur!

tbf, a police statement under caution is evidence. It's just not proof of something.

 

[free spirit]

There's an inherent difficulty here though, isn't there, because once someone has been convicted as a serial child rapist, finding objective witnesses to corroborate their stories is not going to be easy (given that most of the witnesses were either victims - of which there were plenty in Jersey - or would be likely to incriminate themselves by their statements). We know from Kincora, Bryn Estyn, etc., that when powerful networks are involved, the investigations seem to run out of steam after a small number of convictions of the people either most directly involved (care home employees) or caught red-handed (like Paisnel).

All I have been saying on these threads is that if, as we now know, powerful networks have been connected to serial violent rape, torture, even murder of children who were not known to them, then it does not seem to me such a huge step psychologically to think that for at least some of those individuals these activities might have been tied up with an interest in the occult. Very speculative of course, but that does not mean it has 0% chance of being true until some conclusive evidence is produced. And I want to emphasise one last time that I expect only a tiny minority of child abusers to have such an interest, because most abuse is more mundane (but no less tragic of course) and happens within the family.

Over and out. I will continue reading these forums because I find them interesting, but with the exception of Red Cat and one or two others, I have not found the users very welcoming (or even polite) when I posted here.

we tend to be a bit in your face with people who come out with complete tosh like this, particlarly when they start off by waving their credentials about. If you're a professional you really should know better, and you also should be aware of the seriously negative history that psycologists have with this precise line of thought, that's rsulted in dozens of people having their lives ruined, kids taken away from them, jail time etc. as well as acting as cover for what was actually going on - the very stuff being discussed on the other thread.

So that's why you got a frosty reception here, and you really should have a bit of a think about how irresponsible it is to make such giant leaps of logic based on zero evidence beyond your own imaginings as a psychologist. Your profession has blood on its hands on this exact subject, so I'm shocked to find someone claiming to be a professional psychologist broaching the subject in such a cavalier way without even the barest scrap of evidence beyond some form of professional gut feeling or something.

Satanic abuse is a 'myth', a government-backed inquiry has concluded. No evidence was found to substantiate any of the 84 cases in which it was alleged that children were sexually abused in bizarre black-magic rites.

The findings, exclusively revealed by the Independent on Sunday in April, were published yesterday after a three-year inquiry conducted by Jean La Fontaine, emeritus professor of social anthropology at the London School of Economics.

The report blames Evangelical Christians and self-proclaimed 'specialists' for the scare which led to police investigations across Britain from 1988 to 1991.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...gations-rosie-waterhouse-reports-1420013.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23958348
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ritual-abuse-families-tell-of-years-of-hell-1575174.html

 

[angelraven]

Satanic abuse is a 'myth', a government-backed inquiry has concluded.

(emphasis mine)
All I'm saying is that given these recent revelations, at some point it may be worth reevaluating whether the 'myth' line has been pushed too far. It is unfortunately in the nature of these things that they tend to swing like a pendulum rather than quickly settling in the middle.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Do you have any evidence to support the suggestion that the 'myth' line has been pushed too far in respect of SRA?

For example any evidence of actually existing SRA?

 

[8den]

Satanic abuse is a 'myth', a government-backed inquiry has concluded.

(emphasis mine)
All I'm saying is that given these recent revelations, at some point it may be worth reevaluating whether the 'myth' line has been pushed too far. It is unfortunately in the nature of these things that they tend to swing like a pendulum rather than quickly settling in the middle.

Who do think should run this enquiry? Batman? These Clowns http://itccs.org/

 

[DotCommunist]

We could get the church to investigate....wait...

 

[8den]

tbf, a police statement under caution is evidence. It's just not proof of something.

I know. Technically it's merely evidence of what you say happened (ie the suspect claimed he was in bed at 11pm but eyewitnesses put him at the scene at 11:30pm) Angelraven was misusing the word. At the time I didn't realise they were also claiming to be a practising psychologist which makes their inability to understand this mind boggling. What Gillian McKeith esque institute handed out that degree!

 

[ViolentPanda]

we tend to be a bit in your face with people who come out with complete tosh like this, particlarly when they start off by waving their credentials about.

You can be arrested for that!

If you're a professional you really should know better, and you also should be aware of the seriously negative history that psycologists have with this precise line of thought...

I'd argue the toss there, and say it's not psychologists per se who are to blame (cos we're a fairly disparate tribe, as someone else mentioned earlier), it's clinical psychologists and psychotherapists who used techniques that had little scientific validity (we still don't, for example, know enough about memory and dissociation to be able to pinpoint the mechanism by which the mind sometimes entirely dissociates from an event).

that's rsulted in dozens of people having their lives ruined, kids taken away from them, jail time etc. as well as acting as cover for what was actually going on - the very stuff being discussed on the other thread.

I totally "get" that many of the original social workers, clinical psychologists and psychotherapists were absolutely sincere in their beliefs, but I'm still utterly amazed at how so many professionals ended up buying into this shit.

So that's why you got a frosty reception here, and you really should have a bit of a think about how irresponsible it is to make such giant leaps of logic based on zero evidence beyond your own imaginings as a psychologist. Your profession has blood on its hands on this exact subject, so I'm shocked to find someone claiming to be a professional psychologist broaching the subject in such a cavalier way without even the barest scrap of evidence beyond some form of professional gut feeling or something.

To be fair, no-one thinking logically can make "giant leaps". That's almost always a leap of faith, not logic! "Gut feelings" and "faith" don't prove or disprove cases, even if they do occasionally provide the mechanism by which a "hunch" can be investigated.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I know. Angelraven was misusing the word. At the time I didn't realise they were also claiming to be a practising psychologist which makes their inability to understand this mind boggling. What Gillian McKeith esque institute handed out that degree!

Probably the same one that handed out mine!

 

[UrbaneFox]

We know from Kincora, Bryn Estyn, etc., that when powerful networks are involved, the investigations seem to run out of steam after a small number of convictions of the people either most directly involved (care home employees) or caught red-handed (like Paisnel).

Over and out. I will continue reading these forums because I find them interesting, but with the exception of Red Cat and one or two others, I have not found the users very welcoming (or even polite) when I posted here.

Hello angelraven new member, male, joined yesterday and has posted intensely only on threads concerning child abuse, and is now a psychologist.

I wonder if, by any chance, you are related to BubblesMcGrath (female) who posted a lot on child abuse related threads, seemed to revere psychologists, and got into a lot of tit-for-tat arguments with members.

And before BubblesMcGrath, was posting on similar threads (Maxine Carr) with a username Nessa123 (three other numbers).

I noticed a new name on this thread and looked through a few of the posts you have made since you joined yesterday lunchtime.

The pattern was the same. I noticed that you said you were not familiar with the Ian Watkins case, which was covered extensively, recently, and yet you know a lot about Kincora, Bryn Estyn, Paisnel.

I am not familiar with the details of Watkins's case; perhaps more information will emerge over the next few years as to whether he too saw himself as part of a cult.

For a new member you seem quite au fait with how to use the boards, quote people, multiquote them, and generally seem very confident as a new member.

Do I have to dig out more examples of your being BubblesMcGrath?

 

[UrbaneFox]

On a similar, though not precisely relevant note I have been idly curious about allegations of satanism. I haven't seen that mentioned much (if at all) on urban75 forums - though I only came to them recently

I mean, as a professional psychologist it strikes me that ..... I'm assuming it is likely to have been addressed already somewhere on these forums and would appreciate a pointer for the n00b.

I distinctly remember suggesting to you, in your BubblesMcGrath days that, rather than asking u75 members for the answers, why don't you ask your colleagues? Admittedly they probably would not know where to find the answers for U75 related questions.

Yes I think you're both right, and I've been thinking myself that this wasn't the best thread for this (it was late ). Don't particularly feel like starting a new thread though. I'll just keep an eye on the dripfeed of allegations and see if there's anything that could be linked to occult practices, broadly defined. As I said I was mainly just wondering if it had been discussed seriously anywhere else on these forums, but it seems no-one is able to point out a location for that.

Good idea. You would not be expected to start a new thread on this subject, particularly as you joined only yesterday.

 

[UrbaneFox]

I admit that I certainly have no specialist insight into the minds of child abusers, if that's what you were trying to imply.

I would expect a professional psychologist to have some insight into the minds of child abusers.

If you people don't have it then who does?

OK, I can't resist one more reply, sorry...

The defensiveness was mainly because you completely ignored the rest of my post and just asked me what kind of psychologist I was. Seemed a bit passive-aggressive to me.

But also I don't want to be too specific because I don't really want to be identified (I have a fairly significant web presence as a psychologist). On a forum dealing with very sensitive allegations, you will surely be aware that people don't particularly want to be identified, no?

You haven't explained why you find it implausible that he is a satanist (assuming that you do find it implausible).
Why ask for evidence for one and not the other?

All too familiar.

 

[UrbaneFox]

There was some suggestion of putting the troll on ignore, but I see you have worked your way around that one.

 

[Frances Lengel]

<snip>For a new member you seem quite au fait with how to use the boards, quote people, multiquote them, and generally seem very confident as a new member.

Do I have to dig out more examples of your being BubblesMcGrath?

TBF, it's a piece of piss to suss out how to use quotes and that. Maybe agelraven is bubbles - I'd like to see evidence rather than speculation though. And I'd bet a small amount of money that Nessa123 was neither of them. But honest to god can we not do these fucking boring oh-aren't-I-fucking-clever returner/sockpuppet accusations? It really is shit. Anyway, fuck it, my speculation if we're going to do it is that angelraven is our very own liverworst firky, trying to discredit BMcG by getting people to thing she is him or he is her. Or something.

Tell you what though, when people refer to the Rochdale SRA case of 1990

This one...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4602302.stm

In 1990, families on a council estate in north Manchester woke up to every parent's worst nightmare. With no warning, police and social workers had come to take their children.

Sixteen youngsters from the Langley estate near Rochdale were taken in to care - for what was to be a total of 34 years and four months. It was alleged they had been forced into devil worship and sexually abused.

At the time, there was a steady stream of newspaper stories based on rumours of secret satanic abuse taking place in Britain. But, after a year long investigation, the Rochdale parents were proved to be completely innocent.

It rankles slightly coz it all happened on an estate called Langley, which was/is an overspill estate run at the time by Manchester council on the edge of a place about five miles out of Rochdale called Middleton and, although technically in the borough Rochdale, it's just a place on it's own and has/had very little to do with the actual town of Rochdale. You might think I'm needlessly splitting hairs but given what's come recently out about grooming in Rochdale/Cyril Smith/Knowl View School (all of which happened in the actual town and all of which were, unfortunately proved to be true), bringing up talk of satanic abuse in Rochdale, in a way it besmirches the name of the Langley people (by association with Rochdale IYSWIM) who were all found to be completely blameless.

 

[Lurdan]

However, here's Alexander Cockburn excoriating various elements of the radical feminist press for going along with this stuff uncritically and using detail derived from Nathan's book.

Link broken - do you mean
http://www.counterpunch.org/1999/10/26/katha-s-silence/

That was written in response to Katha Pollitt's article here :
http://www.thenation.com/article/finality-or-justice
(In fairness having belatedly acknowledged the issue Pollitt continued writing about the ongoing injustices it had produced where Cockburn and Counterpunch seemed content to exhibit SRA as a campaign medal).

Now here's Bea Campbell in Marxism Today (...) Key message here being 'believe the children' a message also insisted on by both the fundies and feminists in the US cases and an explicit call to reject 'common sense' concerns about SRA stories along with criticism of the police for trying to challenge test the validity of these allegations.

Always seemed to me that the politics of Campbell's own stance owed less to feminism and more to the continuity arrogance underlying her brand of "rainbow coalition" post-eurocommunism. "Listen to the Children" actually meant listen to the middle-class professionals who know how to interpret and articulate what they actually mean and what they have actually experienced. This had nothing to do with feminism in any obvious sense but represented a re-valorization of the expertise of professional's and of 'leadership'. What possible part does feminism play, not simply in her ongoing defence of David Southall but in the manner in which she conducts it ?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/06/david-southall-gmc-mandy-morris

This touches on the other thing that distinguishes Campell for me. Far from acknowledging that any part of her activities had been misguided, or retreating into silence, or even just rebranding her arguments (like most of the non-batshit American SRA advocates), she has continued to assert that she was fundamentally right all along and doggedly defends herself and her fellows. (In fact it reminds me a lot about trying to argue with some former C.P. members).

I note some of the anti-SRA resources online have gone and some have seemingly slipped towards conspiraloon territory. Bit of a shame since far from going away this nonsense has simply been waiting for a suitable opportunity to crawl out. (Alongside the homophobia, antisemitism etc. etc.)

 

[angelraven]

Do you have any evidence to support the suggestion that the 'myth' line has been pushed too far in respect of SRA?

For example any evidence of actually existing SRA?

I've said in other posts that I would drop the 'satanic', I don't think it's a helpful label (because too specific) for the sort of thing I'm referring to.

The La Fontaine report did find three or four cases of ritualistic abuse. They concluded that the ritual was in the service of the abuse (e.g. to induce fear in a victim by convincing them that the perpetrator had magical powers) rather than vice versa, but this seems somewhat conjectural.

BTW, to open another can of worms I have studied social anthropology as well as psychology. La Fontaine being a social anthropologist, it does not surprise me that she would think of SRA as being 100% invented. The standard anthropological model of witchcraft in societies such as the Azande is that no-one actually thinks that they themselves are a witch, people just go around accusing other people of being witches. So she was just applying the same model to SRA. It always struck me as rather implausible though. Where do the beliefs about what witches do come from in the first place? And given that a society believes that there is this power out there called witchcraft, wouldn't a few warped people actively try to make use of it?

 

[Greebo]

angelraven, kindly desist from mentioning satanism and witches in a way which implies they are usually the same thing. They're not, unless you're a christian fundamentalist. Thank you in advance.

Ritual abuse, where it took place was abuse of power, with a few bits of stagecraft to enforce the psychological and emotional facets of the abuse.

 

[captainmission]

BTW, to open another can of worms I have studied social anthropology as well as psychology. La Fontaine being a social anthropologist, it does not surprise me that she would think of SRA as being 100% invented. The standard anthropological model of witchcraft in societies such as the Azande is that no-one actually thinks that they themselves are a witch, people just go around accusing other people of being witches. So she was just applying the same model to SRA. It always struck me as rather implausible though. Where do the beliefs about what witches do come from in the first place? And given that a society believes that there is this power out there called witchcraft, wouldn't a few warped people actively try to make use of it?

Apart from La Fontaine took no such approach...

... she is open to the possibility that evidence of satanic abuse may yet be uncovered. Commenting on the much-quoted words of Virginia Bottomley, then health secretary, who said that the report "exposed the myth of Satanic abuse", La Fontaine says: "I told them beforehand that to talk about 'exposing the myth' was unfortunate and overdramatic. I didn't find any evidence in the 84 alleged cases which I investigated. My conclusion was that there was no evidence of satanic abuse in these cases."

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/94959.article
​

Being such a highly educated polymath have you ever considered that beliefs in witchcraft and satanist networks come about because it gives power and influence to those that seek out, protect against and judge witches and satanist?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've said in other posts that I would drop the 'satanic', I don't think it's a helpful label (because too specific) for the sort of thing I'm referring to.

The La Fontaine report did find three or four cases of ritualistic abuse. They concluded that the ritual was in the service of the abuse (e.g. to induce fear in a victim by convincing them that the perpetrator had magical powers) rather than vice versa, but this seems somewhat conjectural.

"Seems somewhat conjectural"? You're not writing an academic essay that needs to be hedged with qualifications!
Besides, the La Fontaine report necessarily relied on a degree of conjecture, lacking 1st-hand experience in many of the matters investigated, so castigating conclusions as conjectural is a bit like stabbing yourself in the eye for the sake of it.

BTW, to open another can of worms I have studied social anthropology as well as psychology. La Fontaine being a social anthropologist, it does not surprise me that she would think of SRA as being 100% invented. The standard anthropological model of witchcraft in societies such as the Azande is that no-one actually thinks that they themselves are a witch...

Unless you studied Social Anthropology in the '50s or '60s, you wouldn't use Evans-Pritchard's musings as an example of anything except drunken credulity and fevered imagination.

people just go around accusing other people of being witches. So she was just applying the same model to SRA. It always struck me as rather implausible though. Where do the beliefs about what witches do come from in the first place? And given that a society believes that there is this power out there called witchcraft, wouldn't a few warped people actively try to make use of it?

Except that, IIRC, La Fontaine specifically counsels that she is not applying a standard model to SRA, that the standard social anthropological, sociological and psychological models didn't have enough utility.
As for society's belief, what provokes belief, and who promotes belief are important questions to answer, rather than merely stating that "a society believes".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Apart from La Fontaine took no such approach...

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/94959.article
​

Being such a highly educated polymath have you ever considered that beliefs in witchcraft and satanist networks come about because it gives power and influence to those that seek out, protect against and judge witches and satanist?

And, lets be frank, to some of those who profess to be witches or Satanists or whatever.

 

[Pickman's model]

I've said in other posts that I would drop the 'satanic', I don't think it's a helpful label (because too specific) for the sort of thing I'm referring to.

The La Fontaine report did find three or four cases of ritualistic abuse. They concluded that the ritual was in the service of the abuse (e.g. to induce fear in a victim by convincing them that the perpetrator had magical powers) rather than vice versa, but this seems somewhat conjectural.

BTW, to open another can of worms I have studied social anthropology as well as psychology. La Fontaine being a social anthropologist, it does not surprise me that she would think of SRA as being 100% invented. The standard anthropological model of witchcraft in societies such as the Azande is that no-one actually thinks that they themselves are a witch, people just go around accusing other people of being witches. So she was just applying the same model to SRA. It always struck me as rather implausible though. Where do the beliefs about what witches do come from in the first place? And given that a society believes that there is this power out there called witchcraft, wouldn't a few warped people actively try to make use of it?

nothing there i note about the malleus maleficarum, which might have answered some of your questions, not to mention nothing there about witchcraft on the european periphery (see eg ankarloo). and no critique of social anthropology's 'standard model' being the azande as though their particular experience could be extrapolated universally.