There is absolutely no reason or excuse not to videotape all interviews conducted by any "professional" and any child when discussing an allegation of sexual abuse. Research on interviewing using electronic recording equipment shows that it does not interfere with the process of the interview. Persons, including children, readily adapt to the presence of equipment and appear to forget it is there. It is best if the equipment is relatively unobtrusive and that no operator be present. This situation is easily created and an interview can be managed by remaining within the range of a camera set up to cover most of the interviewing area.

At least eleven states now have legislation mandating videotaping of initial interviews of children when there is an accusation of child sexual abuse. There has been no report of any trauma caused to children from the experience of these states. The study of the experience in Texas from 1983 - 1987 is typical (DeLipsey and James, 1988). There has been no difficulty experienced because of the act of videotaping and it will clearly identify the use of leading and suggestive questions and coercion to make the child confirm certain information.

Following a review of several hundred videotaped interviews, Slicner and Hanson (1989) describe as one of the many advantages of videotaping interviews the subsequent critical review of the interview. They found a consistent pattern of serious errors committed by numerous interviewers.

A study involving scientific analysis of videotapes and audio tapes from 38 cases around the country demonstrated the high level of adult behavior toward children that is coercive, leading, and contaminates the information gained from an interview (Wakefield & Underwager, 1988; Underwager and Wakefield, 1989).

Videotaping should be done:

Videotaping or audiotaping an interview is necessary to assure accurate reporting of the interview itself. Several research efforts have shown that if there is no adequate and full documentation of an interview with a child, the interviewers' reports of the interview are inaccurate and misleading. Written accounts of an interviewer are not reliable (Herbert, Gram & Goranson; 1987; White, 1986; Wakefield & Underwager, 1988; Underwager & Wakefield, 1989; Raskin & Yuille, 1989).

The value and benefit of videotaping is not affected by whether or not the material is used in the courtroom as evidence. The admissibility of videotaped interviews is a separate question which is controversial and still being argued through the courts. However, the benefit to the child of having full and adequate documentation of interviews is not decreased if the material is not admitted as evidence. If such material is admitted into the courtroom the benefit to the child may be expanded but if it is not admitted the child still benefits in all the ways described here.

There simply is no evidence that videotaping or audiotaping an interview is a negative experience for a child. There is substantial benefit to the child from providing full and complete documentation of all adult interviews with a child. There simply are no good reasons for not videotaping interviews with children, only bad ones.

It is the general agreement within the scientific community that videotaping all interviews with children is necessary to understand the adult behaviors toward the child and to provide the most reliable information possible. The general consensus document drafted recently by a world wide gathering of professionals makes this very clear (Lamb, 1994).

References in support are as follows;

When considering issues on videotaping, see Why the Courts Must Insist on Electronically Preserved Recordings of Child Interviews.

You have accessed one of the many pages here at the Cowling Investigations, Inc., a False Allegation Defense Website. For an explanation of how we assist our clients who have been falsely accused, see Our Expertise, We Can Help. If you have been falsely accused, see What to Do - What Not to Do When Falsely Accused.