The "mother of cult apologists", sometimes named "Camilla" by her critics. A well-known Moonie supporter, teaches at the "London School of Economics". (She teaches sociology, *not* economics!). Claims that INFORM "counsels" people, although no one, not even her supporters has ever been able to detail what this "counselling" is about. In media interviews, she says that the anti-cult movement is the problem.

In 1995 Reverend Thomas Gandow met her in Moscow. He asked her the question she probably hears often: "Eileen, who paid for your trip?". She answered "The Duma". Problem is that all people attending the hearing of the Duma had to pay the cost themselves, foreign experts had not really been planned. (Berliner Dialog 3/95, page 28; the article does not make any allegation about who actually did pay for the trip, but mentions that Moonies were selling her book "New Religious Movements") She spent so much time on the hearing attacking the people disagreeing with her work, that her time was over before she could present her *own* work!

Participated in the filing of an amicus brief in the Molko case "for" the APA/ASA (American Psychological Association / American Sociological Association). Both the APA and the ASA later withdrew their names.

She claimed in 1994 in an interview (The Independent, 9.10.1994) that INFORM is supported by the UK home office; but in her own annual report, she says INFORM is not. I did ask her about this on a mailing list where we both are, she did not respond. According to recent info from a critic, the home office pays £2000.00 for the use of the INFORM library.

Claimed under oath in the Moscow trial against Prof. Alexander Dvorkin that a person can belong simultaneously to scientology, the Moon organization, Krishna, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, CoG, the Local church (Witness Lee), Mother of God center, and the Vissarionites. (Dvorkin had made a booklet partly based on Steve Hassan's "questions for the educated consumer", and was sued by an inter-cult group. He won the lawsuit and it was upheld on appeal)