* Forwarded (from: CLIB-SIGTYR) by Lazarus Long using timEd 1.01.
* Originally from Lazarus Long (350:2/100.1) to All.
* Original dated: Nov 09 '95, 01:43
Cont. from part 1
The authors examine in detail the constellation of factors, gleaned from 
laboratory research and elsewhere, that can affect children's testimony.  
These include:
   * Interviewer bias -- when the interviewer (parent, therapist,
     investigator) believes he or she knows what happened and attempts
     to get the child to confirm it, ignoring anything the child says
     that does not conform with the interviewer's bias and encouraging
     anything that does.
   * Repeated questions -- children, especially younger children, are
     more likely to change their answers when asked the same yes or no
     question repeated during a single interview. Answers from
     children to yes or no questions repeated over several interviews
     are likely to become more firm and confident, regardless of
     whether they are correct.
   * Stereotype induction -- children's reports can be influenced by
     stereotypes suggested by the interviewer (or by others before the
     interview takes place). An interviewer telling a child that "[the
     suspect] is a bad man who does bad things" is an example of
     stereotype induction. Similarly, children can come to assume and
     report bad things about someone they had previously heard
     described in negative terms.
   * Encouragement to imagine and visualize -- when asked to "think
     real hard" about or to visualize events they don't remember,
     childrencan come to "remember" and then present a detailed,
     coherentnarrative of events that never occurred.
   * Peer pressure -- children's reports can be influenced by the
     application of peer pressure ("Johnny told me all about it, and
     he said you were there, too.") Studies also show that children
     can incorporate into their own memories experiences that their
     peers told them about, but which they did not witness themselves.
   * Authority figures -- children tend to regard adults generally as
     all-knowing and trustworthy, which can influence how they
     respond to questioning by adults. But they may also be sensitive
     to status and power differentials among adults -- an important
     issue when children are interviewed by police officers, judges
     and medical personnel.
   Much of what has been learned about the influence of suggestive 
interviewing techniques on children has come from laboratory research, which 
the authors acknowledge is not a perfect analog to real-life sexual abuse and 
real-life questioning. However, they also note that it would be ethically 
impermissible to interview children in the laboratory as intensively as they 
have been in real cases, much less to sexually abuse them in the name of 
science.
In a chapter on ethical and professional issues, the authors discuss the 
roles of mental health professionals as therapists, forensic interviewers and 
expert witnesses in cases involving children's testimony. They recommend that 
each of those roles be occupied by different people in a given case as each 
has a distinctly different job to do.
For expert witnesses, they offer suggestions on how both mental health 
professionals and social scientists can be most helpful to judges and juries 
(as opposed to the prosecution or defense), recommending that they thoroughly 
familiarize themselves with the relevant literature but learn only enough 
about the case at hand to assure that their expertise is relevant.
They note that studies have found very little agreement and very low rates of 
accuracy among expert witnesses who are asked to evaluate cases and make a 
judgment about whether children were or were not abused, and urged that 
attorneys and judges "put their feet to the coals, forcing them to provide 
scientifically adequate evidence for their interpretations. In light of the 
research, to do otherwise would seem akin to accepting the testimony of a 
forensic astrologer."
An inquiry into the handling of this case would help determine if the 
investigators were using improper techniques (and evidence was rejected by 
the courts as being compromised) and if those techniques were part of the 
official department protocol. If the investigators were following protocol 
and using scientifically invalid methods, then the onus of responsibility 
should fall on those who authorised those techniques. If the investigators 
were not following protocol, then those investigators should be held 
accountable for their actions and dismissed from service. They should also 
not be immune to civil action by the former defendants.
Furthemore such an inquiry would enable the Canadian Justice System to 
establish firm ground rules for the investigation of large scale or ritual 
sexual abuse. There have been many cases reported (McMartin DayCare in 
California, Little Rascals Daycare in North Carolina, MartensVille and an 
ongoing case in Wenatchee, Washington). In all of the resolved cases the 
pattern of events is strikingly similar.
From a report issued by the 1991-92 San Diego County Grand Jury in 
California, entitled CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, ASSAULT, AND MOLEST ISSUES...
"There is a strong belief among many social workers and police that children 
never lie about abuse, and that children must be repeatedly questioned before 
the truth comes out. Other professionals working in the field have concluded 
that ideas can be easily implanted in children's minds during interrogation. 
The longer the investigation, the more likely that "false" memories will be 
implanted. These ideas can be accepted by the child and become false memories 
of events in their past. Thus the children are not lying; they are telling 
the truth as they remember it to be; but the events never happened."(2)
continued....
Being intelligent is not a felony
But most societies evaluate it
as being at least a misdemeanour
... Those who trade freedom for security, receive neither.
--- timEd 1.01
---------------