https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitated_communication

There is widespread agreement within the scientific community and among disability advocacy organizations that FC is a pseudoscience.Research indicates that the facilitator is the source of the messages obtained through FC, rather than the disabled person. The facilitator may believe they are not the source of the messages due to the ideomotor effect, which is the same effect that guides a Ouija board.

Studies have consistently found that FC is unable to provide the correct response to even simple questions when the facilitator does not know the answers to the questions (e.g., showing the patient but not the facilitator an object). In addition, in numerous cases disabled persons have been assumed by facilitators to be typing a coherent message while the patient's eyes were closed or while they were looking away from or showing no particular interest in the letter board.

List of people who have had their lives RUINED based on this "evidence" (many of which women were in charge of gathering this evidence) One example is where facilitator Janyce Boynton chose to "interpret" behavior such as "hitting, scratching" as as "reenactments of abuses occurring at home".

A list of several (not all) cases of false accusations, where fake science and the desire to portray one group of people as evil abusers ruined real lives:

The Wheaton Case:

"In 1992, the parents of Betsy Wheaton, a 16-year-old nonspeaking person with autism, were, through facilitated communication, falsely accused of sexually abusing their daughter. The facilitator, Janyce Boynton, who was trained in FC at the University of Maine, interpreted Betsy's hitting and scratching during facilitated sessions as reenactments of abuses occurring at home. Boynton reported these incidents to the Department of Human Services, and Betsy and her brother were removed from the home. The brother was also implicated. The parents' attorney hired Howard Shane of Boston Children's Hospital to conduct testing of authorship. It was determined through double blind testing that Boynton, not Betsy, was authoring the messages obtained through facilitation." Suzette Wheaton, of Maine, said it took years for her and her husband to overcome the trauma of their 1992 ordeal. Her son, who died 10 years ago, never let go of the anger he felt over how he was treated, Wheaton said."

The Cracchiolo case:

In 1993, Gregory Cracchiolo, a teacher of students with severe developmental disabilities in Whittier, California, was accused of sexually assaulting four of his students, with facilitated communication being the only source of evidence. The student making the allegation was unable to communicate by speech to verify these claims. Cracchiolo lost his job and faced 11 felony counts of forcible sodomy and forced oral copulation. He faced a maximum sentence of 88 years in prison. While authorship testing was not done, the charges were dropped after a month, because FC lacked the scientific evidence to determine its efficacy. The prosecutor continued to believe the abuses occurred. Cracchiolo's career as an educator was ruined.

The Lehman case:

"In 1993, David and Jean Lehman of Newmarket, Ontario, were charged with sexually abusing their 20-year-old son, Derek, based solely on evidence obtained through facilitated communication. At birth, Derek had been diagnosed with autism and severe mental retardation and, at the time of the allegations, lived in a group home. He was not able to speak but could use two hand signals: "please" and "toilet". He was not able to recognize numbers beyond three and was not aware of his own sex or that of others.

During authorship testing, conducted by Mary Konstantareas, psychology professor at the University of Guelph, Derek was not able to name an object that he had seen but his facilitators had not. After a year-long court battle, the charges were proven unfounded and dropped. The ordeal left the Lehmans in debt, nearly losing their business, and drove David Lehman to nearly committing suicide.

The Wendrow Case:

"In 2007, Julian Wendrow of West Bloomfield, Michigan, was charged with sexually abusing his daughter, Aislinn, and placed in jail for 80 days.His wife, Tali, was accused of severely mentally and emotionally abusing her children and was forced to wear an electronic tether. Their 13-year-old son was also named as a perpetrator. Both children were placed in foster care.

The allegations resulted from messages obtained via FC at school while an aide helped guide the girl's hand. The case was a "virtual rerun" of the 1992 Betsy Wheaton case. When lawyers questioned the girl without the facilitator present, she was unable to answer questions, including "What color is your sweater?" and "Are you a boy or a girl?"The case fell apart due to lack of physical evidence of abuse and facilitated testimony that contained information inconsistent with the Wendrow's family, lifestyle and living arrangements: relatives that did not exist, Christian theology attributed to observant Jewish parents, nonexistent rooms and photos.

Aislinn testified, through FC, that she was afraid of her father because of a gun. Police found no guns in the home. As a result, the charges were dropped and the children returned to their parents. Prosecutors continued to believe the girl was afraid of her father. A wrongful arrest suit was settled for $1.8 million, which, according to the attorney representing the Police Department, was a business decision made by the insurance company and was not an admission of wrongdoing or liability.

The Gigi Jordan case:

On February 3, 2010, Gigi Jordan of New York was found by police in the Peninsula New York hotel. She was incoherent from a drug overdose. Jude Mirra, her 8-year-old son, was also found, dead from a mixture of painkillers and anti-inflammatories which Jordan force-fed him. Jordan, at the time, was under the impression Mirra wanted to die because of alleged sexual abuse typed out during sessions involving FC. Despite testifying that she was "by Jude's side at all hours of the day", Jordan believed the biological father, her ex-husband, had been abusing the boy for years and that Mirra's diagnosis of autism was actually a catatonic psychosis brought on by the alleged abuse. To Jordan, the killing was "altruistic filicide"; a mercy killing.

Mirra, who was diagnosed with autism, was not able to speak. Jordan indicated that Mirra, through FC, had told her "I need a lot of drugs to die peacefully" and "I wish you do it soon." Although Jordan and Mirra communicated by typing together on a Blackberry, no witnesses ever observed Mirra type by himself. In reviewing typed messages provided by Jordan of her son's disclosures, court officials questioned whether Mirra had the capacity to understand or spell words like "aggressively" and "sadistic".

Jordan also believed her second ex-husband, a pharmaceutical executive, was stealing millions of dollars from her and wanted her killed. Both men denied the accusations. No evidence of any crimes committed in connection with the case were found against either of the two men. In November, 2014, the jury accepted Jordan's claim of extreme emotional disturbance and found her guilty of first-degree manslaughter in the death of her son.

The John Pinnington Case"

"In 1998, middle-aged John Pinnington changed careers to focus on the care and treatment of individuals with autism (inspired to make the change by his experiences with his own autistic step-son). After several years of work in the field, Mr. Pinnington was hired by Thomley Hall College, a specialist facility for students aged 16-25 with autism, where he was promoted to the position of Deputy Headmaster in 2004. At the time of his promotion the college was aware that between the years 2000 and 2002, two young adults with autism had accused Mr. Pinnington of sexual abuse. Those charges, made during facilitated communication sessions, had been investigated by the college and by the police and found to be without foundation and charges were made during a facilitated communication session.

Despite the dismissal of all charges by police investigators, the law in the UK required that a record of the allegations remain in Mr. Pinnington’s police record, and the charges came to light later in 2005 when a new set of background checks were mandated by a charity that had taken over the college. Despite the lack of any independent evidence of the abuse, and despite the fact that all allegations had been made during FC sessions, and despite the fact that one of the facilitators was the mother of an accuser, Mr. Pinnington was fired from his position by the charity.

Mr. Pinnington was unsuccessful in his attempts to have the abuse allegations expunged from his record, and in 2008, in a controversial landmark decision, his appeal to the High Court was denied, even though the court agreed that there was “strong doubt” about the veracity of the allegations. The baseless accusations, made during FC sessions, permanently ended Mr. Pinnington’s career as an educator and so seriously damaged his reputation that he has been unable to find employment of any kind.