I think that I am a far more reliable witness now than I was when I was still a follower of SSB because I now realize much more than before the importance of intellectual accuracy, the influence of wishful thinking, and the realization that things are often more complicated than they seem and do not fit easily in a simple theoretical or metaphysical framework.

Dr. Bryan Wilson is an Oxford University sociologist
who specializes in the study of religion. Quoted from his 1999 letter to the Evangelical Times of Darlington, which letter may be read in its entirety at:
http://pub28.ezboard.com/fexaminingprotestantismfrm2.showMessage?topicID=420.topic
"The first duty of those who wish to present a fair picture of a
religious fellowship is to seek the views of those who are faithfully committed to it and to undertake a first-hand study of their lifestyle."
MY COMMENT: I basically agree but it depends a bit on the fraction of defectors to the faithful. Defectors should be given a proportional saying. When there are many defectors they should be given more space. I think they should be given much space in the case for e.g. Sathya Sai Baba and Jehovah Witnesses because of the many defectors of this group. Besides Wilson forgets to mention that the coterie of the cult leader is small and that only defectors of the coterie have inside information that may give more insight to the cult leader's credibility.

"The disaffected and the apostate are in particular informants whose evidence has to be used with circumspection. The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to reconstruct his own past, to excuse his former affiliations, and to blame those who were formerly his closest associates. Not uncommonly the apostate learns to rehearse an 'atrocity story' to explain how, by manipulation, trickery, coercion, or deceit, he was induced to join or to remain within an organization that he now forswears and condemns."
MY COMMENT: The disaffected try to understand his past, not
necessarily re-construct. Most former followers also blame themselves for being naive and stupid and do not put all the blame on the cult. In many cases, an apostate is just somebody who was so deeply involved that he cannot simply forget and move on. (If I could, then I would.) Wilson forgets that in many cases ardent followers leave only when they feel that they have no choice because of reasons written down by David V. Barrett in his book the "New Believers", who writes that leaving can involved a psychological trauma for several reasons.

"Academics have come to recognize the 'atrocity story' as a
distinctive response of those who abandon a former allegiance. Such a defector typically represents himself as having been especially vulnerable, and under coercive pressure to conform to the requirements of his former religion and as having 'come to his senses' when he abandoned it. By such a representation of the case, he relocates responsibility for his earlier affiliations, and seeks to reintegrate with the wider society which he now seeks to influence, and perhaps to
mobilize, against the group that he has lately abandoned."
MY COMMENTS: As I said before in many cases people admit that they have been naive and stupid Of course people are angry when they feel cheated by the cult and in many cases they are genuinely interested in providing consumer protection for other spiritual seekers. Naturally, people join NRMs when they have unfulfilled psycholgogical needs, which could be classified as being vulnerable. I did not need to reintegrate into wider society: I did not live in a commune and had a job.

"It is well known that one atrocity story tends to generate others. They become a distinctive genre, particularly when seized upon by the mass media. Newspapers readily recapitulate earlier sensationalist accounts when locating new allegations in similar vein about particular movements. By this means, the dramatic import of each apostate's story is reinforced, to the detriment of objective and ethically neutral enquiry[.]"
MY COMMENTS: may be atrocity stories then to generate others because there happened to be others who experienced the same. That explanation should be preferred following Ockham's razor. I admit that some newspapers like exaggerated, simplistic and dramatic stories about cults.

"Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard a defector as a credible or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias against both his previous religious commitment and his former associates. If he is anxious to testify against his former allegiances and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to re-gain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been a victim who has subsequently become a redeemed crusader."
MY COMMENT: It is completely crazy and highly offensive to say that such a broad, diverse category of people is unreliable. Wilson seems to advocate ad hominem attacks on former members. A former member may have good reasons not to get involved in court, for example other former members may still be his friends. I do not have bias against my former associates. On the contrary, I still consider them my friends that I do not like to alienate by a painful court case.