{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02090909090909091, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00909090909090909, 'mean_word_length': 4.983695652173913, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Critical Evaluation of the Factual Accuracy and Scholarly Foundations of The Witch-Hunt Narrative

We comment on The Witch-Hunt Narrative (TWHN) by Cheit. As its first hypothesis, TWHN argues that most of the famous ritual child abuse cases of the 1980s and 1990s were not really witch-hunts at all. In response, we criticize the TWHN definition of a witch-hunt as overly narrow and idiosyncratic. Based on the scholarly literature, we propose 10 criteria for identifying a witch-hunt. We rate four well-known ritual child abuse cases with these criteria and show they were classic witch-hunts. As its second hypothesis, TWHN argues that most defendants in child ritual abuse cases were guilty or probably guilty. In response, we point out many instances in which TWHN has omitted or mischaracterized important facts or ignored relevant scientific information running contrary to its hypotheses. We conclude that TWHN is often factually inaccurate and tends to make strong assertions without integrating relevant scholarly and scientific information. Scholars should approach the book with caution.