While he does use my blogs, he also uses other material and explains why he believes this case is a sham:
Anderson believes Craft, like the defendants in the McMartin Preschool case and other child molestation panics of the 1980s and '90s, faces false charges based on testimony from child witnesses who have been coached by therapists, police, and prosecutors to "remember" things that never happened. Today's testimony by one of Craft's alleged victims reinforces that impression (Emphasis mine).He further points out:
Obviously, none of this (the trial events of the day) is conclusive one way or the other, but if this is the general quality of the testimony against Craft (and presumably the prosecutors led with their strongest witness), reasonable doubt will be inescapable. Anderson notes that the usual line from accusers in cases like this is that we must "believe the children," but it's clear from overturned convictions and academic research (not to mention everyday experience) that little kids frequently will insist that something happened when it did not, especially if they are repeatedly coached by adult authority figures (who themselves may sincerely believe that abuse occurred). Here we have a 9-year-old recalling what allegedly happened when she was 5, with who knows how many intervening conversations aimed at eliciting descriptions of abuse. Furthermore, Anderson reports, several children who were at Craft's house when some of the abuse allegedly occurred insist that nothing untoward happened. If so, "believe the children" does not bring us any closer to the truth.