...
RE: The second guessing of how the "intervention" should have been done.
Perhaps in a perfect world, the outcome might have been different had Steve Hassan or others more experienced in cult intervention been involved. But, I tend to think that the results would not have been different. And, dare I say, the way this intervention was done might have actually had more beneficial results.
Just speculating, but here goes. . .
If a "more professional" intervention had been done, the chances are very good that the COS would have cut off any further contact between Manuela and her friendly-loving-supportive interventionists. It seems quite obvious that Scientology policy would order her to disconnect from even speaking to them (on her own determinism of course, lol). If the interventionists attempted to make a 2nd contact, the COS would have grinned and gone to the police to file a stalking/terrorism complaint--in addition to seeking a court Temporary Restraining Order. Both of those events would have been trumpeted in the press as evidence of anti-Scientology "terrorism". Freedom magazine would have chronicled the "real story" of terrorists stealing innocent young adults away from their churches and families. The Religious Freedom Watch website would have shown glorious footage of police talking to the terrorists. It would have been wins galore for the cult.
On the other hand, assuming that the interventionists reasonably only had one chance to talk with Manuela, they went for it with sincerity and truth. Sure, what they were saying might have been too shocking or too much for the anaten dancer to have "confronted". Granted, it might not have been "real" to her. But, where is it written that a "whack on the side of the head" is always an ineffective method to wake someone up? Bryan Seymour used the classical confrontational approach of intrepid journalists (e.g. the ambush at her car) and there is no doubt that she was "enturbulated" but is that necessarily a bad thing?
A lot of cult members were likewise "enturbulated" by the ambush appearance of Anonymous at their orgs. Anonymous joked-and-degraded, spilled sacred secrets about Xenu onto the public walkways in front of cult buildings while Clears and OTs cowered behind curtain-drawn windows inside. Was it ineffective or was it effective? I think it is safe to say that for many, many cult members it was profoundly effective to personally witness the shock-and-awe of Anonymous in their face, saying the most abominably blasphemous things about their leaders (Miscavige, Hubbard) and their sacred tech (Xenu, Fair Game, Disconnection) and their crimes.
Many former Scientologists actually credit Anonymous as the inciting incident that sparked their eventual departure from the cult.
Yes, it's shocking. Yes, its horrific for a Scientologist to hear those "out reality" things from non-cult members, or heaven-forbid, from EX Scientologists.
I really think that in Manuela's case they had ONE CHANCE AND ONE CHANCE ONLY to try and reach her at some meaningful level. I think they probably succeeded in many ways--not to mention the fact that she certainly ended up in Ethics to handle all the SPs that she attracted to the org. Does anyone doubt that this might end up being the single factor that gets her out of the Sea Org? Not Manuela "cogniting" that the Sea Org is insane, but the Sea Org "cogniting" that having Manuela around is attracting international media attention and viral public outrage.
What I am saying, I guess, is that creating a big loud mess around Manuela might actually be the best thing that ever happened because they might offload her if the flaps continue.
Life always gets very weird around Scientology, so sometimes it's not a bad thing to break their policies and rules. Like one of their rules of happy living: "Only cause those effects on others that they can easily have." That rule clearly doesn't actually work when dealing with cult criminals and Ron-zombies, so I think the interventionists might actually have done a splendid job!