Witness confidentiality and accompanying issues were recently explored on this blog in the post, 'Security of Budd Hopkins Archive Called into Question, David Jacobs Shares Responsibility'. Peter Robbins subsequently chose to voice some perspectives about the piece and make some related assertions. Carol Rainey chose to respond. Rainey's response was received in an email today and is published with her permission:
Carol Rainey’s Response to Peter Robbins, January 4, 2015
I would like to
respond to Peter Robbins’ categorical statement below, which was
posted to Sacha Christie’s Facebook page on January 1st:
“For the record – Budd Hopkins NEVER allowed the release of any
tape recording or confidential file except to the individual
themselves. David Jacobs has always followed this policy as well –
except in single case of the event in question [the release of Larry
Warren’s tape to Col. Halt].”
Budd Hopkins’
supporters have shown a disturbing commitment to turn him into “a
saint” by revising and sanitizing every act and event of his life.
Budd was a human being – often warm and caring, but also often
thoughtless and careless about other people’s safety and needs. So
are most of us divided between our good and our selfish impulses. So,
please, folks, there is no need to attempt to present him as perfect
and without flaw – in retrospect. That simply is not who he was. We
were married for ten years, most of those happily, and long enough
for me to know his character and his work.
Prior to his
death, however, Budd did not make adequate provisions for the
posthumous safety and protection of his subjects’ records. In other
fields, a researcher’s archives are often given in trust to an
academic institution or major library. The archives are transferred
to these safe havens along with strict legal contracts that specify
who, why, and how other individuals with serious research projects
may or may not use them. If I had been one of Budd’s subjects, that
would have been my strong preference for where my records would have
ended up.
Peter is simply
and utterly wrong when he asserts that Budd “NEVER allowed the
release of a tape or file to anyone but the individual themselves
[sic].” What would Peter call the fact that Budd allowed David
Jacobs, at some point in the late 1990’s, to take hundreds of Budd’s
hypnosis tapes back to his home in order to make copies of those
confidential “patient records?”
And we both know
that Budd, in his studio or living room, often played excerpts of his
subjects’ regression sessions to visitors like Col. Halt, Roger
Leir, John Mack, and others. I saw him play these regression tapes
for journalists, for television producers, for other abductees. He
also played a videotaped interview with John Cortile, aged eight or nine when it was shot, in his studio for outsiders to see, although he’d
promised John’s mother that he would not.
It’s public
knowledge that in his first interaction with John Mack, Budd handed
him a stack of his unopened, personal mail. These were letters, often
up to eight pages long, that had been sent to him in confidence by
people who spilled out their deepest fears that their anomalous
experiences meant they might be abductees. The names and addresses of
these confidential letters (often marked “Confidential” on the
envelopes) were fully in view. John has mentioned this in his writing
and in conference presentations. Greg Sandow, too, has posted on the
Web about Budd handing him, early on, a stack of unopened letters as
a way of convincing him to take the phenomenon seriously.
In his last year of life, Budd (or his assignee) handed over to one of his supporters videotape to be publicly posted on a website that defended the “Witnessed” case. The unfortunate facts are that what Budd handed over to be made public was footage that belonged to me, footage that I’d shot with alleged abductees and witnesses for a documentary. I had obtained proper releases from each for inclusion in my film. But Budd had no release or contract whatsoever with the individuals on my film. Yet he was apparently untroubled by the ethical concerns of having handed over stolen material to be posted on a supporter’s site in full violation of my copyright -- not to mention the rights of the subjects who were then publicly “outed.”
Although I have
less knowledge of David Jacobs’ policies and procedures, I am aware
that Emma Woods has objected strongly, in the past, about his passing
along the audiotapes of her own regressions to be listened to and
transcribed by other alleged abductees.
In summary, I’d
suggest to people concerned about such matters to familiarize
themselves with the strict U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services HIPAA regulations. More information about privacy rights for
healthcare information can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/complaints/index.html.
Carol Rainey
New York City,
2015
..................................................................................................
Related posts:
