Counselor at Insight Counselors, P.A. in Tampa, Fl. Co-presenter with ISSTD past president Kathy Steele on various topics. Carol Crow provided “counseling” to the non-verbal autistic Jude Mirra, accepting the discredited technique of “Facilitated Communication” to gain “self-reports” by which she diagnosed him with Multiple Personality Disorder. Crow’s unforgivable incompetence — accepting false self-reporting to support a discredited diagnosis — helped inspire Jude’s mother’s delusions that Jude was being abused by a hidden Satanic cult, later leading the mother to kill Jude in an effort to save him from further Satanic activity.
From the Grey Faction report on the Jude Mirra case:
Jude was 7 years old when Florida-based “trauma therapist” Carol Crow diagnosed him with Multiple Personality Disorder (more recently known as Dissociative Identity Disorder [DID]). It’s a diagnosis that is problematic even in ideal therapeutic settings, as the condition enjoys no scientific validation and is largely viewed as discredited. In Jude’s case, however, such a diagnosis is further complicated in that it was arrived at by analysis of the boy’s own self-reports — reports he was clearly unable to convey in reality, but that were manufactured in his name via “facilitated communication”.
Facilitated Communication (FC) is defined by Oxford’s Dictionary of Psychology  as “A teaching method and therapeutic technique in which facilitators or partners help people with severe developmental disabilities to communicate by providing sufficient manual guidance to enable them to convey messages through a keyboard, a picture board, or a speech synthesizer.” This method “often appears to reveal unexpected literacy and a far higher level of intellectual functioning than the person was believed to possess, but single-blind studies and double-blind studies have revealed that disabled people are unable to respond intelligently to stimuli that are unseen by their facilitators and that the facilitators unwittingly control the responses.”
Over 20 years ago, scientific debate concerning FC was already quite settled. In 1995, the journal American Psychologist published a paper titled A History of Facilitated Communication  noting that, “Controlled research using single and double blind procedures in laboratory and natural settings with a range of clinical populations with which FC is used have determined that, not only are the people with disabilities unable to respond accurately to label or describe stimuli unseen by their assistants, but that the responses are controlled by the assistants.” The authors were blunt in their conclusion: “FC is a pseudoscientific procedure serving antiscientific ends.”
Convinced that her child’s apparent autism was actually a grossly improbable psychophysiological response to traumatic sexual abuse, Ms. Jordan believed she could facilitate Jude’s articulate cries for help. Helping guide Jude’s hand over a computer keyboard or Blackberry device, Jordan would “assist” him in producing typed conversations. As one witness testified, a nurse and forensic interviewer attempted communication with Jude and determined that his alleged typed responses were fully attributable to Jordan, and “not at all in any way, shape, or form Jude.”
“[Jude] was, basically, very lethargic and not even looking or paying attention to what was going on, and Miss Jordan was guiding his hand on the buttons to push on the laptop computer.”