More Misinformation in the Media about the Keller Case

June 3, 2015

A Texas appellate court recently decided that Francis and Daniel Keller should not be declared innocent of child sexual-abuse charges from 1992. Those who promote the witch-hunt narrative have responded in high dudgeon. But their accounts of the case, like Radley Balko’s treatment in the Washington Post, are wrong in every particular. Specifically:

(1) The Kellers were never charged with, let alone convicted of, satanic ritual abuse. As explained in this article in the Huffington Post last July, those issues arose after the case was charged and involved children who were not part of the charges. The only reason those issues came into the Keller case is because the defense brought them up.

Dr. Michael Mouw, whose "recantation" has accepted without skepticism

Dr. Michael Mouw, whose “recantation” has been accepted without skepticism

(2) Dr. Mouw’s “recantation” did not negate all of the medical evidence of abuse in the case. As anyone who bothered to read his affidavit can see, Dr. Mouw still admits that the original girl in this case had a tear in her vagina. Cathy Young has dismissed this evidence with the wild assertion that vaginal tears are normal in non-abused children, but virtually all research of “normal” genitals contradicts this claim. The Keller case began with a genital injury that Dr. Mouw does not deny. His “recantation” of the other finding strains credulity. It relies on the claim that Dr. Mouw had a clear recollection of this genital exam many years after he testified that he had absolutely no recollection of the exam. 

(3) A civil complaint filed by the parents of one of the children who attended the Keller’s home daycare contains the allegation that a “longtime friend and confident” of Francis Keller was told about “Daniel Keller’s abusive habit toward children” (p. 2). If this allegation is true, it provides additional support for the allegations against the Kellers. But this evidence was never heard because the defendants were ultimately successful in convincing the Texas Supreme Court that such causes of action should not be allowed in Texas.

In sum, there was far more evidence in this case than has ever been acknowledged by those promoting the witch-hunt narrative. The “recantation” by Dr. Mouw made it impossible to retry the case, but a close examination of his affidavit makes it clear that Dr. Mouw is not credible. That probably explains why the appellate court did not exonerate the Kellers. Dr. Mouw’s statement simply does not add up. He claims to have had a clear recollection of the medical exam in this case many years after testifying; but when he testified under oath in 1993 he said that he had “no independent recollection” of the exam beyond his written records.