Request for Analysis

On January 11, 2002, at the request of Mr. John Smith, attorney at law, I read the report of interviews conducted between 5-year-old Jane Doe, hereinafter referred to as "Jane," and "Female Interviewer," LPC, Clinical Therapist, conducted at the Unidentified Children's Advocacy Center, Inc., 123 North Anywhere Street in City, State on September 13, 2001 and, then again, on September 17, 2001. The report I was provided with contained basic background information the interviewer obtained prior to her interview with Jane, what was identified as a "transcript" of the interview conducted between Jane and the interviewer and the interviewers "findings" and recommendations.

My Basic Background

As a means of background, my name is Allen Cowling. As of 2009, I have practiced as a private investigator for the past 40 years and have had my offices in Jackson, Mississippi since May of 1975. In 1989, I began to devote my practice exclusively to studies and cases dealing with false allegations of child sexual abuse. Education has included attending numerous national seminars, a vast amount of legal research, case history studies and conducting interviews with experts worldwide, including child advocates, judges, attorneys, medical doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, research specialists, professors, investigators plus prior victims of false allegations and their families. In the past 20 years, I have actively participated in more than 300 trials and in more than 500 cases 49 states, Canada, the UK, France, Italy, Mexico, Brazil and Japan. During the past 20 years, my profession has basically changed from that of "private investigator," to that of a "defense strategist." My main involvement in these cases has been to provide a defense strategy for the falsely accused. This has included psychological and "sexual preference" testing for the accused, determining what "experts" were beneficial and then providing those "experts," analysis of medical reports and records and assisting in all phases pretrial and then during trial, which has included, but has not been limited to, jury selection, preparing my client for testimony and assisting the trial attorney during trial.

I have never attempted to qualify myself as an expert, or to offer any expert testimony in false allegation cases, simply for the reason that the experts I do refer are far more educated and intelligent that I would ever profess to be. My expertise is in knowing who these experts are and in my ability to provide the proper expert for the proper area.

As to interview techniques and the testimony of children, there are numerous qualified experts, many of whom are research psychologists. One of the best examples is a research psychologist named Maggie Bruck, on staff at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, MD. She and Stephen Ceci wrote the book, "Jeopardy In the Courtroom," a scientific analysis of children's testimony. That book, published by the American Psychological Association, is the definitive on child interview techniques and was the result of years of research and interviews.

As with Ceci and Bruck, there are numerous other experts who, over the past decade, have determined through careful research that improper interview techniques can actually result in tainting a child's testimony to the point where it has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Improper techniques include multiple interviews of a child and the improper use of leading and suggestive questioning during interviews. In short, these multiple interviews and leading and suggestive questioning can prompt a child to make a false allegation or expand on allegations they may have already made. In short, following the use of improper interviewing, how does one determine, based on the child's statements, what is real and what was induced by one or more interviewers?

Current Issue

While I was provided with a "transcript" of Jane's interview, I was not provided with the product from which the transcript was made; either audio or video tape. The problem is that the transcript, itself, is not an accurate depiction of what actually transpired during the interview. There are too many narratives and "fill-in-the-blanks" by whoever typed it. In addition, I had no ability to analyze the actions of the interviewer or Jane during the interview process, vital to any proper analysis.

Based solely only on the transcript, however, I did detect numerous and inexcusable errors. The main theme appears to be that the interviewer had a preconceived opinion that Jane had been sexually molested by her grandfather and she, in a completely biased manner, used her interview simply as a means of attempting to "validate" the alleged abuse, not to determine the truth or the real facts. This is clearly evidenced by the number of times that Jane actually denied any abuse and denied being touched, but since that was not what the interviewer wanted to hear, she ignored those statements and continued her barrage.

No interviewer will ever obtain the truth with questioning such as, "Jane, did anyone touch you, did papaw touch you, where was daddy when papaw touched you, who was there when papaw touched you, did papaw touch anyone else, did anyone see papaw touch you - on and on. How many times is it necessary for the interviewer to keep injecting the "theme" before the child is able to determine exactly what the interviewer wants and for the child to be able to respond appropriately?

There are also contradictory problems noted. The initial report states, on page 2, that there had been no change in Jane's eating pattern, yet later, in the same report, on page 3, "Jane has experienced loss of appetite during the past week, when she appeared not to eat like she used to." The later statement, regarding the fact that Jane's appetite had been affected was specifically noted in an area of the report where the writer was attempting to offer "supporting evidence" for the alleged abuse. It appeared with other statements, such as Jane was experiencing nightmares.

Unfortunately, many biased interviewers, attempting to validate sexual abuse, also attempt to show that symptoms, such as "nightmares or night terrors," "bed wetting," "loss of appetite," failing in school" and a sudden belligerent attitude on the part of the child are "characteristics" of a molested child. The fact is, there are no characteristics or symptoms of a molested child. They simply do not exist. That specific issue was well addressed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi in GOODSON vs. State of Mississippi and HOSFORD.

Another interestingly point in the interview/report was a statement identified in the initial synopsis. It was reported that Mr. Accused has a "growing flower that grows real big and has hair." At no time during the interview did she ever refer to a "penis" as a "growing flower," so where did that come from? Also consider several statements made within the overall report. "Maw-Maw saw Papaw abusing Jane and told him to get off" and her mother's own admission that Jane did not want to talk about the abuse allegations.

In my work, during the course of the past 12 years, I have been in a position to analyze hundreds of interviews with children who have made allegations of sexual abuse. Normally, when I enter a case, I analyze all material, determine what problems exist, if any, and then determine what experts would be required. Based on my study of interview techniques used, more often than not, I usually rely on research psychologists who specialize in the suggestibility of children such as Doctors Maggie Bruck, Debra Poole or Elizabeth Loftus. Without question and, as the information herein depicts, there are precise standards for conducting interviews with children who make allegations of sexual abuse. These standards have been implemented after years of study in which it has been determined that improper interview techniques can easily taint the testimony of a child to the point where the child has no credibility whatsoever. Whenever I attempt to assess the quality of the interview with any child who is making sexual abuse allegations, according to accepted practice and standards, I look for the following:

• Was the child exposed to multiple interviews? Multiple interviews serve as a "teaching" or "coaching" tool. On many occasions, when multiple interviews have taken place, a child's simple allegation can multiple many times. As a perfect example of personal experience, in a case in Cleveland, Ohio, a client was accused of "showering" with his step-daughter. The problem was, following multiple interviews, the client was then indicted on 14 counts, (12 GSI and 2, rape). Amazingly, the "child savers" who conducted those interviews actually believed that they were getting to the truth. It never occurred to them that the procedure they used was actually responsible for the increased allegations and, never once did it occur to any of them that the child might be lying. In that case, the accused was acquitted on all charges, but there could no better example of how and why allegations being made by a child can easily multiply.

• Were leading and suggestive questions used during the child's interview? This technique is used, more often than not, by improperly trained or inexperienced interviewers or interviewers who have a preconceived idea that the child they are talking with was abused and they are seeking only to validate that which they already believe. In other words, no child would lie about something as serious as being sexually abused so, it must have happened.

• Was the child introduced to the concept of "good" touch, "bad" touch and/or "secret" touch? This discussion can easily educate the child and tell them that what the interviewer wants to discuss is something of a sexual nature.

• Was the alleged perpetrator identified during the interview? A child that is asked, "Did Mr. Smith touch you there," has a two-fold problem. One, the interviewer told the child "who" they want the child to identify as the abuser and, two, the interviewer told the child "where" the alleged abuser touched them.

• During the interview, at any time did the interviewer ever tell the child, "Someone told me that this happened to you." This sends a clear message to the child as to exactly what the interviewer wants and what they expect the child to say, or rather "confirm."

• Were anatomically correct dolls and/or drawings used during the interview? Without question, these serve as a teaching or coaching tool for the child and, in many cases, give the child knowledge or information they may not have had prior to the interview.

• If, during the interview, the child states that nothing happened to them, did the interviewer continuously bombard the child with specific suggestive questions, such as, "Did he touch you there?", "Are you sure he didn't touch you there?" or "I'm here to protect you so you can tell me if he touched you there." This is often seen where the interviewer has a preconceived idea that the child they are interviewing was abused.

• What was the demeanor of the interviewer during the interview? Many improperly and untrained interviewers will allow their reactions to tell a child they are talking to that they either believe them or not. If, for example, one of these "child savers" is conducting the interview, they will normally treat the child as a "victim" as opposed to a "complainant," which, in reality, they are. When a child says something happened to them, it is not uncommon for these interviewers to develop the posture of, "Oh, you poor thing." A clear message to the child that they are "believed" by the interviewer. Another example would be when the interviewer acts hostile because they do not like what the child is saying, such as, "nothing happened." The cold, hostile demeanor quickly tells the child the interviewer does not care for what they are saying. In that many of these children have a desire to please their interviewer, they change their story to something that makes the interviewer happy.

• Did the interviewer allow the child to give a free narrative? In the greatest majority of false allegation cases, a narrative is non-existent.

• How much of what the child actually divulged during the interview was the child's story and how much information was, in reality, supplied to the child by the interviewer?

In this case, according to the transcript and narrative, the interviewer violated every possible standard for acceptable interview practice and, based on the entire report, it would be absolutely impossible for anyone to ever honestly determine if this child was abused or if they are simply telling a story that they have been "taught." This is a 5-year-old child who has been exposed to anything but neutral and unbiased interview techniques. It simply is not possible to know if what this child says is reality or information she has been provided with.

The transcript provides absolute facts to the improper interview techniques, but one must look elsewhere to determine if this child was interviewed on multiple occasions. According to the report from the Advocacy Center, under the heading, "Reason for Referral," on the first page, information advises that Jane was referred to the Advocacy Center by a social worker with the County Department of Human Services. It also advises that, prior to the interview of Jane at the Advocacy Center, Jane's grandfather, Danny Accused, had placed his fingers in Jane's vaginal area, that oral sex had been performed on Mr. Accused, although it was unclear by whom, and that vaginal penetration had occurred with Mr. Accused's penis.

Further in the report, under the heading, "Background Information," information identifies that Jane was accompanied to the interview by social worker, a sheriff's department detective and a representative of the County District Attorney's Office.

The question is, who had previously interviewed Jane prior to her arrival at the Advocacy Center. Depend on the fact she had been interviewed because of the allegations about what her grandfather had allegedly done to her. At the very least, Jane talked about her allegations to her mother, possibly other family members, a school nurse, a nurse during the time of her medical exam at the hospital and the social worker. She most probably also talked with the detective and the prosecutor. Amazingly though, consider carefully the wording in the report under the heading, "Reason for Referral." Even after she had been interviewed and/or discussed these allegations, prior to the Advocacy Center, no one could even determine "who" was supposed to have performed oral sex on the grandfather; Jane or her brother, Chet. We were, however, provided with two specific allegations; vaginal touching and the penile penetration by an adult male to a 5-year-old child. Certainly, if penetration was true, we would expect a medical examination to show scaring, tearing or lack of a hymen, depending on the depth of penetration. The fact is, the physical findings in the medical examination showed no such evidence. The doctor, who conducted the medical examination noted what he termed a "ruptured" vaginal area and the presence of an infection which he automatically attributed to "sexual activity."

As previously stated, leading and suggestive questioning was noted throughout Jane's interview and was totally improper because it actually "suggested" to her what the interviewer wanted her to say. Amazingly, even with this leading and suggestive questioning, again and again, the child said "no" and only changed when she was pushed by the interviewer.

Some specific examples of the leading and suggestive questioning used during Jane's interview were:

Interview One, September 13, 2001

• Page 5, Jane, are there places no one should touch a girl? (pointing to anatomical drawings.)

• Page 5, Jane, has anyone touched you here? (pointing to the vaginal area on the female drawing).

• Page 6, Jane, has anyone ever touched your booty?

• Page 6, Jane, someone said you might have got touched on your cookie monster.

• Page 6, Jane, did papaw touch you there? (pointed to the vaginal area on the female drawing)

• Page 6, Did papaw touch you with part of his body?

• Page 6, When papaw touched you, what did he touch you with?

• Page 6, Have you ever had to touch a boy's pee-pee?

• Page 6, Someone said you got touched in your cookie monster. Is that true?

• Page 7, Jane, did someone touch your cookie monster?

• Page 7, What did he touch your cookie monster with?

• Page 7, Did he touch you somewhere else?

• Page 7, Where were you when Papaw touched you?

• Page 7, Jane, does anyone know Papaw touched you?

• Page 7, Did someone touch you?

• Page 7, Did Papaw touch anyone else?

• Page 7, Did anyone see Papaw touch you?

• Page 7, Where was Chet when Papaw touched you?

• Page 8, Did Papaw touch you with part of his body?

• Page 8, What did he touch your cookie monster with?

• Page 8, When Papaw touched your cookie monster, did he have pants on?

• Page 8, Did he ever touch under your clothes?

• Page 8, Jane, how old were you when Papaw touched you?

• Page 9, What did Papaw's pee-pee do to your cookie monster?

• Page 9, Jane, did Papaw touch you one time or more than one time?

• Page 9, Did he say anything about the touching?

• Page 9, Did Papaw hurt you when he touched you?

• Page 10, Did someone touch you when you bounce?

Interview Two, September 17, 2001

• Page 10, Do you get bad touches?

• Page 10, Has anyone ever given you a bad touch?

• Page 11, Jane, did someone touch your cookie monster?

• Page 11, Did someone touch your titty?

• Page 12, Jane, can you tell me if Papaw touched your cookie monster?

Based solely on the examples of the leading and suggestive questions above, note that again and again, the interviewer continuously "hammers" her "theme" to this young child, "you got touched." This is clearly evidenced by the fact that several questions are asked repeatedly, and that was simply because Jane was not providing the interviewer with the responses she wanted.

Interview One, September 13, 2001

• Page 5, Jane, are there places no one should touch a girl? "Jane pointed to the vaginal area on the female drawing." Without benefit of seeing the tape itself, if Jane identified the vaginal area, she knew that was an area that should not be touched.

• Page 5, Jane, has anyone touched you here (pointed to the vaginal area on the female drawing? "No, nobody at all." "Only my mamaw." Keep in mind that Jane had just identified that the vaginal area of a female should not be touched and, clearly, here she states that only her Mamaw has touched her in that area.

• Page 6, Jane, has anyone ever touched your booty? "Shakes head from side to side," No.

• Page 6, What would you do if anyone ever touched your cookie monster or booty? "Tell somebody."

• Page 6, I need to know how Papaw touched you. "I don't know."

• Page 6, Show me where Papaw touched you (Presented the female anatomical drawing). (Pointed to the eye on the female drawing) "Eye, my hair and my titties and my belly button and that's all he touched me." "And my hands and my hair."

• Page 6, Jane, did Papaw touch you there (pointed to the vaginal area on the female drawing)? "No, he didn't."

• Page 6, Did Papaw touch you with part of his body? "No."

• Page 6, When Papaw touched you, what did he touch you with? (Pointed to the buttocks on the male drawing) And that's all he did."

• Page 6, Have You ever had to touch a boy's pee-pee? (Shakes head from side to side) "No." "Anybody I've never touched it."

• Page 6 and Page 7, Someone said you got touched in your cookie monster. Is that true? (Nodded head up and down) "When I pee, it hurts and Papaw does touch me." Touch you where? "My belly button." Where else? "Cookie monster." The "disclosure" came only after the interviewer told Jane that "someone said she was touched in her cookie monster. Up until that point, Jane had denied any allegation of abuse. At that point in the interview, it is identified that Jane wanted to go to the bathroom, did, but was not there long enough to have actually used it. It appears obvious that Jane simply did not like discussing the matter and used the bathroom as an escape, however, as soon as she returned to the interview room, the first question from the interviewer, "Jane, did someone touch your cookie monster?" to which Jane replied, "Yes, Papaw."

• Page 7, Did someone touch your cookie monster? "Yes, Papaw."

• Page 7, What did he touch your cookie monster with? "I don't know." Jane knew pee-pee and, allegedly had told others prior to this interview that her Papaw stuck his pee-pee in her cookie monster and in her mouth. Also, allegedly, Jane is supposed to have made the statement that Mr. Accused has a "growing flower that grows real big and had hair," so quite obviously, she supposedly knew the terminology, yet when the interviewer asked Jane what Papaw "touched" her cookie monster with, her response was, "I don't know." When she was pushed by the interviewer for, "Did he touch you somewhere else?" she responded, "No, he touched me somewhere, I don't know."

• Page 8. Obviously, the interviewer is not satisfied with the responses she had been getting from Jane, so, back to square 1. "Did Papaw touch you with part of his body?" "No."

• Page 8, "What did he touch your cookie monster with?" (Shrugged shoulders) She simply had no answer.

• Page 8. The interview continues with the examiner seemingly becoming slightly frustrated. She states, "Jane, I wasn't there, so I need to know what Papaw did to you." Jane responds, "His pee-pee," but then states Papaw "bounced her on it and he put it on her mouth." She did not know what happened then but did say it did not taste like anything.

• Page 8. Jane was asked if she had her clothes on. She stated, "Yes," after which she was asked if anything had happened to her clothes. She stated, "No (continued to talk about her drawing) then said, "I think yes, but I think no."

• Page 8. Jane was asked if Papaw touched her cookie monster on her skin, on her clothes, or something else. Jane's response was very clear. "On my clothes." She even went so far as to say "No," when the interviewer asked her if he had ever touched her under her clothes.

• Page 8. When Jane was asked, "Where did his pee-pee touch you?" she again shrugged her shoulders and talked about her drawing. Amazingly, based on Jane's responses that her Papaw never "touched" her "under" her clothes, not once did this interviewer ever even consider that the allegations about inserting his penis into her vagina were, at the very least, suspect.

• Page 9. The interviewer left the interview room to consult with the observers and, when she returned, she asked Jane to circle all the areas on the anatomical drawing, identifying where her Papaw touched her. She circled the breasts, vaginal area, foot, head, back and leg. On the male drawing, she circled the eyes, hair, penis and foot. Note that the stenographer identified the areas where Jane made the circles, but only the tape would show how the areas were circled and what might have been said when she was circling the various body parts, which could be vital to the case.

• Page 9. After Jane circled the male and female drawing, the interviewer immediately went back to the same line of questioning. "What did Papaw's pee-pee do to your cookie monster?" to which, once again, Jane responded, "I don't know."

• Page 9. Continuing the interview, Jane states that Papaw's penis stayed still, he touched her "one" time, a long time ago, that he said sorry a million times and that he hurt her "feelings" when he touched her, but in direct response to the interviewer's question, "Did he hurt your body?" she did say that he "hurted her body; her cookie monster."

• Page 9. When the interviewer asked Jane to tell her about Papaw "bouncing" her, Jane pounded the eraser on the chalkboard. At that point, the interviewer stated, "Jane, look at me." Obviously frustrated, the interviewer said, "Tell me about Papaw bouncing." Jane told the interviewer that Papaw bounced her around and around until she got dizzy. Jane said she was scared because she didn't want him to bounce. She also told the interviewer that she was wearing pajamas. The balance of the interview conducted that date was regarding the "bouncing" and produced every result other than what was desired by the interviewer, so the interview was concluded. Amazingly, not one statement, provided by Jane during the initial interview supported any of the allegations Jane was alleged to have made prior to that interview.

Interview Two, September 17, 2001

• Page 10. The second interview was conducted on September 17, 2001. As soon as they entered the interview room, the interviewer asked Jane what they discussed the last time Jane was with her. Jane's immediate response was, "Bad touchings, good touchings, bad touches." Again, I did not have the actual tape this transcript was based, however, if this was the immediate response from this child, without question, someone coached her immediately prior to the second interview. The specific wording, "bad touchings," good touchings," "bad touches," was never mentioned or used in that manner at all during the initial interview.

• Page 10, "Do you get bad touches?" "No."

• Page 10, "Has anyone ever given you a bad touch?" "No."

• Page 10, "Last time, I thought you said someone touched you." "I don't think so." "I just thought of it, that's all."

• Page 10. Jane clearly says she has not told anyone that she has had a bad touch and then the interviewer asks Jane if she can "read" her what she said the last time.

• Page 11. Again, Jane denies that anyone has ever touched her cookie monster or her titties.

• Page 11. When the interviewer asked Jane to tell her about the tickle game, Jane says she can't tell anyone except a police officer about the tickle game because if she does, her Papaw will get mad.

• Page 11, continuing with the interview, the interviewer continuously pushes Jane to tell her what happens to Papaw's pee-pee when he bounces her around on it and Jane repeats again and again, "I don't know."

• Page 12, clearly, Jane tells the interviewer that she can tell a police officer if anyone touches her cookie monster, titties or booty.

It would be hard to even imagine any better example of an interview being conducted where the interviewer is attempting to "force" a story from a child, or any interview where, without question, the child is saying nothing happened. Nothing in either interview is even remotely supportive of prior allegations that Mr. Accused has put his penis into Jane's vagina or mouth, yet, the interviewer, in her assessment, states that, in her opinion, Jane was molested by her grandfather and, further, that Jane was credible in her allegations. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Acceptable Interview Techniques

A proper interview provides every opportunity for the child to relate his/her own version of the events. These interviews should be conducted in a non-leading, non-suggestive, and non-contaminating manner so as to produce reliable and complete information from the child. The interviewer does need to understand what names the child has for their body parts and private areas, but the interviewer should never identify the body part allegedly touched by the suspect. At no time should the child be introduced to the concept of good and bad touches, the names of private parts and/or any other labels for any body part of the child. Allow the child to provide the names for body parts independently, without suggestion. To reduce anxiety the child often experiences when identifying private areas, a possible approach would be:

• Can you tell me why people wear swimming suits?
• What parts of your body does your swimming suit cover? Why should those parts be covered?
• What do you call the body parts you use when you go to the bathroom?

The interviewer should never identify the name of the suspect. This should be done by the child independently. At no time should the child be interrupted during their free narrative. If the interviewer does think of questions, contradictions or inconsistencies, they should make a note for later reference. Under no circumstances should an interviewer ever correct, interpret or challenge during the child's narrative phase. If the child does stop, the interviewer should encourage them to continue with use of simple statements or questions, such as "What happened then?"

The interviewer needs to be very patient during all phases of the interview, tolerate pauses from the child and keep a relaxed tone during the entire interview process. They also need to be careful in their attempt to clarify previous answers or statements the child may have made and/or in their attempt to gain more specific information from the child about the alleged incident of abuse. Generally, when real abuse has occurred, children will discuss these issues, but there are some children who refuse to discuss the abuse, are unable to provide details of the abuse, yet continue to make statements that they have been abused. Rephrasing certain questions may provide the child with an opportunity to describe details about the alleged incident. The interviewer should be very cautious in rephrasing questions and never introduce information they may have obtained from any other source. Under no circumstances should any interviewer ever tell a child that another person has disclosed details of the alleged incident to them. At no time should the interviewer ask any question that will provide information about what was supposedly done.

When a child does not provide any details of the alleged abuse, but makes general statements that they have been molested, the interviewer should carefully analyze what they are told and attempt to determine what the child has told others. This may indicate that they have either overheard something, been coached, or are simply incapable of providing the true aspects of the incident. Keep in mind that no child can provide details to events that never took place.

For whatever reasons, many interviewers fail to understand that the use of anatomical pictures and dolls are most probably different from basically anything that the child has previously seen and the use of these are very likely to produce strong emotional reactions in the child. They can also easily give the child the message that the interviewer is interested in discussing matters related to naked bodies and this serves to draw the child's thoughts, fantasies, and feelings into that path. Whether the interviewer uses the pictures or the dolls, a significant contamination has been introduced at the outset, a contamination that already makes it unlikely that the interviewer will truly find out whether the child has been genuinely abused. After exposure to these pictures or dolls, one cannot know whether the child's verbalizations about sex abuse were the result of an actual experience or were stimulated by the naked human figures. Without question, these anatomically correct "drawings" and "dolls" serve as a teaching or coaching tool. Consider this. An interviewer is talking to a young girl who says "daddy put his pee-pee in my pee-pee. If the allegation is the truth, the child can easily describe a penis simply because she has seen one. If, however, the allegation is false, possibly the child cannot describe a penis because she may very well have never seen one. Her allegation may simply may be the telling of a story that she was instructed to tell. The question is, could viewing an anatomically correct drawing or doll, provide the child with the knowledge of what a penis is and where it is located? Could viewing the drawing or doll assist the child in providing details that she never could have provided otherwise? Unfortunately, many interviewers are nothing more than validators. In other words, they have already accepted, at face value, the fact that the child was molested and they are simply looking for a means to validate the abuse. These, untrained and biased interviewers will use drawings and dolls as a means of "helping" the child make the best story possible and, it never occurs to them that the child's allegation could be completely false. Simply put, they are not looking for any sign that the allegation is not true because they have already accepted the fact that it is.

On numerous occasions, these untrained interviewers/validators appear to be totally oblivious to the important techniques in child evaluation and treatment. Many will zero right in with their leading questions. Almost invariably, these direct the child to talk about sex abuse. A typical example might be a three-year-old girl, who has placed her finger in the vagina of an anatomically-correct doll. Unfortunately, many interviewers almost invariably consider that to be "proof' that some adult perpetrator has placed his/her finger in the child's vagina. The examiner, without any previous discussion about the child's father, says, "Does your daddy put his fingers in you just like that?" The child may not have been sexually abused and may never even have thought about her father doing such a thing, yet, the question plants a seed in the child's mind that such an event could possibly take place.

Another example would be an interviewer holding up the chart of a naked woman, allegedly to find out what names the child uses for the various body parts. The interviewer asks, "Has your teacher ever touched you there?" The child may never have been abused by her teacher or anyone else. The question, however, introduces the visual image of such an encounter and contaminates all further inquiry regarding sex abuse, by the teacher or anyone else for that matter. After that, regardless of whether the answer was yes or no, one will never really know whether or not such an event actually occurred or if the child has responded due to fantasy after viewing the picture and hearing the interviewers question.

Taint Hearing in Criminal Cases

Reliability is necessary in determining the admissibility of evidence. It is a due process violation to allow the conviction of a defendant on the basis of unreliable evidence. If children are interviewed repeatedly using suggestive and coercive interview techniques, the child's memory of the alleged events may be destroyed by the interview process. When this happens, the child's statements are not reliable.

Reliability must be differentiated from credibility. Credibility implies that the speaker knows whether what is said is true or false. A person who is not credible may be lying. Reliability, however, is comparable to accuracy. When the person's memory of events is changed or lost, the person may not know what is true or false. When the person then gives unreliable information, the person may not be aware of it. In such cases, the person cannot be said to be lying. A child who has been suggestively interviewed may be unable to distinguish the memory of a real event from that of being "taught" by the interviewer. Therefore, the testimony the child gives is not reliable.

This is an important distinction in terms of expert witnesses. Experts are not permitted to testify as to the ultimate issue and thus cannot comment as to a child's credibility, but they can generally testify about factors in interviews and investigations that risk making a child witnesses' statements unreliable.

Always consider a taint hearing:

• When the interviewers have a pre-existing bias rather than keeping an open mind about what happened and exploring alternative hypotheses.

• When there have been multiple formal and informal (by parents, etc.) interviews of the child.

• When the interviews are not audio taped or video taped.

• When the child is asked leading or suggestive questions rather than asked open questions and encouraged to provide a free narrative. This is especially problematical when the interviewer provides information to the child.

• When questions are repeated when the child denies or says "I don't remember."

• When the interviewer uses threats, bribes, or selectively reinforces responses of the child.

• When the interviewer criticizes or vilifies the alleged abuser.

• When more than one interviewer questions the child.

• When unsupported interview techniques, such as anatomical dolls are used.

• When the child has been in disclosure-based sexual abuse therapy.

Medical Considerations in the Diagnosis of Child Sexual Abuse

As a result of Jane's allegations, she given a medical examination by a physician at a local hospital. According to the notes, Jane was sedated during the exam and made no statements to the doctor regarding any abuse. The doctor's "medical" findings were that Jane's vagina appeared "ruptured", and she appeared to have some sort of "infection" which indicated to him that she had experienced some sort of sexual activity. The issue here is very simple. Since the doctor was going strictly by physical findings, why was he able to provide a specific medical opinion that the "rupture" and the "infection" were directly associated with sexual activity. The question for him would simply be, "Are you saying there is no disorder, other than sexual activity, that would have caused what you observed? What basis are you attributing your findings to "sexual activity?"

There are no physical signs of abuse to be found in the vast majority of sexual abuse cases. Medical findings supporting or proving abuse are not as clear cut as may be expected. Many of the medical indicators advocated are frequently found in non-abused children. The ubiquitous practice of describing completely normal examination findings as being "consistent with abuse" is likely to be misunderstood in a courtroom as evidence supporting an allegation. Lay people serving as jurors are particularly apt to be misled by medical experts giving such testimony.

Doctors called upon to perform forensic sexual abuse examinations should have up-to-date information on the range of normal for nonabused children. They should be very cautious on how they interpret their findings, and insure that they have an empirical basis for their claims. Children can be seriously harmed both by invasive investigative practices and by subsequent interventions when the allegations are unfounded.

Physicians examining a child for possible sexual abuse are likely to have been briefed by other workers who have already decided that the child has been sexually abused. Many social workers and psychologists believe that false allegations are extremely rare and that "children never lie about abuse," and see their role as a "validator" that the abuse has occurred. Once a belief that sexual abuse has taken place has become entrenched, very little can be done to sway the believers otherwise. To even suggest the possibility of a false allegation is often to invite an emotional outburst and accusations of condoning or even colluding with abuse. Actions and decisions may subsequently be made without scientific substantiation of the allegations.

As previously stated, most cases of sexual abuse are diagnosed on historical and behavioral evidence and not on physical findings, however, investigation of sexual abuse will often involve a medical examination to look for physical evidence of abuse. Such information will be eagerly sought by the prosecution, as physical findings represent relatively "hard" evidence compared to psychological assessment and "disclosure" interview findings. Also, the courts will generally give considerable weight to a physician testifying in support of an abuse allegation.

The majority of sexual abuse cases involve activities such as genital fondling and not penetration of the vagina or anus, and do not cause any marks or damage to the tissues. A diagnosis of sexual abuse is therefore infrequently made solely on medical findings. Obviously, sexual activity can be proved if an underage pregnancy has occurred, or if a sexually transmitted disease is detected, but these are relatively rare events. Finding semen on the genital area also indicates sexual contact, but this is only possible if the child is examined soon after the alleged event, within 72 hours at the outside. In reality, the vast majority of alleged abuse cases present weeks, months or years later.

If a young child does have the vagina or anus penetrated by fingers or a penis, bruising, tearing and bleeding are likely. It seems probable that the child would also suffer considerable discomfort for the next couple of days or so, especially when urinating or defecating. Anal penetration, by the penis, normally results in severe pain when the child next attempts to have a bowel movement, but keep in mind that the perineal region has a good blood supply, and usually heals rapidly.

Whether such injuries cause permanent scars detectable months or years later is currently being researched. McCann, Voris and Simon (1992) studied three children who had suffered genital lacerations from a single isolated episode of assault, one requiring suturing. They used a camera and colposcope to record their findings and followed up the appearance of the injuries for up to three years. They found that in these cases, there was very little scar formation and signs of damage were difficult to detect after a couple of months.

Children who have been sexually abused on an ongoing basis may well show more obvious signs of trauma. The vaginal and anal orifices might remain more open and show signs of scarring, although research evidence in this area is still sparse also.

Children's genital regions have not been routinely examined in medical examinations, and until the last decade virtually nothing was written on what normal vaginas and anuses looked like in childhood (Pokorny, Pokorny, & Kramer, 1992; McCann, Voris, Simon & Wells, 1989; McCann, Wells, Simon, &Voris, 1990).

In 1983, Cantwell examined and measured the hymens of nearly 250 girls under 13 years of age who were treated at a Crisis Care Unit in Denver. She reported that 75% of those with horizontal openings greater than 4mm had been sexually abused. Four years later she amended this figure to 80% (Cantwell, 1987). This paper is often quoted by medical experts in court rooms and in the absence of any other studies, a horizontal hymen size greater than 4mm has been considered an indicator of sexual abuse.

Examination of this study reveals it seriously flawed, however. First, the method of substantiating abuse was not made clear, and appears to include a number of girls who denied that they were victims.

Second, measuring hymenal size is not a simple procedure, and different examiners are likely to get different results. To establish the diameter, a child's legs must be spread at the hips and the vaginal lips gently parted to expose the hymen. Varying the amount of lateral pressure used to part the lips will distort the shape of the hymen and change the apparent diameter. In addition, the method used for examination, supine with labial separation, supine with labial traction, or knee-chest, affects the measurement of the hymenal orifice diameter (McCann, Voris, Simon, & Wells, 1990).

Hymenal shape is very variable (Heger, 1985; Hyden, Gallagher, 1992). Some have several openings, they may be crescent-shaped, slit-shaped (horizontal or vertical), or very irregular. The hymen might be thick and fleshy or a very thin membrane. Not only is measurement impossible with any degree of accuracy, but Dr. Raine Roberts, Manchester, reported in the British Medical Journal in 1989 that "the hymen can vary, in the same child, from a pinhole to a centimeter, depending on whether she is relaxed or apprehensive, warm or cold." A medical finding of a dilated hymenal opening must therefore be interpreted with great caution.

The diameter of an average index or middle finger is about 15 to 20mm. An erect penis is 25 to 40mm in diameter. The hymen is not a very elastic tissue, but even allowing for some stretching, the belief that any hymenal diameter greater than 4mm is an indicator of abuse is not commonsense. The Royal College of Physicians (1991) states that a hymenal diameter of 15mm is supportive of abuse, although it should not be used as the sole basis for a diagnosis.

Unfortunately, the belief that hymenal diameters greater than 4mm indicate sexual abuse has permeated the field. On many occasions, vaginal examinations where hymenal sizes less than 10mm have been reported by the examining physician as indicating probable abuse.

Examining doctors often claim that rashes and redness around the vaginal area are "consistent with sexual abuse." While this may be technically true, there are so many other common causes of such findings that such a claim is likely to mislead a court into believing these findings mean sexual abuse has probably occurred. In fact, such genital irritation is also consistent with no sexual abuse. Scratching, masturbating, inadequate washing, irritating soaps and bubble baths, tight-fitting underpants, threadworm, thrush and other nonsexually transmitted infections can all result in redness and irritation. So can a number of less common causes such as foreign bodies inserted in the vagina.

Medical testimony regarding physical indications of sexual abuse is critical. Testimony that physical findings indicative of sexual abuse exist in the alleged victim is very powerful and cannot be underestimated by the defense. To the fact finder, physical evidence is "real" evidence. While there may be reluctance to find abuse based upon statements alone, there is none when there is corroborative physical evidence.

Generally, there are only two questions for the trier of fact to consider: (1) Was the child sexually abused? and, (2) Who did it? If there is medical testimony asserting physical evidence of abuse, it is just a short step to a finding of abuse if the child is naming the defendant as the abuser. Also, in alleged interfamily abuse, corroborative physical findings make it much more likely that criminal charges will be brought. Prosecutors often feel that physical evidence is needed to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden required for criminal conviction. Without such evidence they are much more likely to allow the case to be handled in family or juvenile court where a "preponderance of the evidence" standard applies.

It is also important to be prepared for the unusual circumstances that sometimes surround medical testimony in sex abuse cases. Ideally, doctors come to court in order to give unbiased, accurate information as an aid to the fact finder. Unfortunately, in the area of child abuse, too often the doctor acts as an advocate when delivering an opinion. Doctors will sometimes testify that certain findings are indicative of abuse even though the doctor well knows, or should know, that they are not. In the absence of an informed defense attorney, such evidence is very persuasive and, if the doctor is the only one testifying on the issue, the testimony is likely to be conclusive on the question of whether or not abuse occurred.

In order to deal effectively with medical testimony, the defense lawyer must be completely conversant with the research on what is and is not indicative of abuse. He or she must be aware of the importance of normality and the role of normative studies in medicine. Incredibly, there are still many physicians practicing who are ignorant of such landmark studies as the work by McCann and his colleagues (McCann, Voris, & Simon, 1992; McCann, Voris, Simon, & Wells, 1989; 1990; McCann, Wells, Simon, & Voris, 1990).

A thorough and searching cross-examination is the best tool for truth seeking, and each and every aspect of the medical evaluation should be carefully analyzed for cross-examination purposes. The attorney must understand that physicians are not trained as scientists. The practice of medicine is an art, not a science, although physicians may be consumers of science. Physicians are often unsophisticated and unskilled in dealing with statistics and causality. Even though medical testimony is often given considerable weight by fact finders, the attorney must make it clear that physicians' expertise is limited and quite narrow.

Do not overlook a complete evaluation of the testifying doctors. Obtain current CVs. Do a complete library search and obtain copies of anything they have written. If you can, find out where and from whom they learned about physical examinations for sexual abuse, who they consider authoritative on the subject and then obtain, read, and understand everything that the doctor, their teachers, or their own recognized authorities have written. In the zeal of advocating their position it is not unusual for doctors to contradict their own printed statements and you must be prepared to take advantage.

Usually, doctors will be asked if they have an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether or not the examination did nor did not indicate sexual abuse. Here, on cross-examination you must be very probing. Usually, it turns out that the opinion is based on the totality of the exam which includes an interview of the child or a history from a caretaker. If the history taken indicates abuse, it becomes part of the basis upon which the opinion is formed.

This inclusion improperly slants the testimony. Doctors are seldom expert in interviewing, and often admit on cross-examination that they assume the truth of what the patient tells them. The testimony is presented as if the doctor's opinion is based on physical findings when it is not. It is often largely or wholly based on statements made, a far different basis than objective findings upon examination.

The attorney must sort out all data which contribute to the doctor's opinion and focus in on the objective physical findings which the doctor claims are indicative of abuse. In many cases, findings in false allegation cases have never been indicative of abuse when examined closely. Instead, they consist of such nonspecific findings as thickened areas of the hymenal edge, vascular changes, nonspecific discharges, irregular hymenal edges, hymenal openings in excess of 4 mm, etc. which are all also found in large numbers of nonabused children.

Often an examination will be said to be "consistent with" abuse. Be very careful of such a statement. The phrase "consistent with" should be probed with vigor. If physicians make statements embodying the concepts of "consistent with" or "typical of" they have exceeded their area of competence. These are issues of probability and the laws of statistical inference. Physicians are not trained in these areas. Almost always, physicians will confuse correlation with causation and assume that if something is associated with something else it is a causal relationship. This is erroneous.

A normal exam is "consistent with" abuse since most sexual abuse leaves no physical findings. I have seen reports which indicate "normal exam, consistent with abuse based on history." Most exams are also "consistent with" nonabuse. The key here is to distinguish between "consistent with" and "indicative of." Certain findings, such as a hymenal tear, healed scars, and the presence of sperm are strongly suspicious for abuse. Most of the findings said to be "consistent with" abuse are, in fact, nonspecific findings which occur in nonabused children as well as abused children. This must be made clear on cross-examination. Sometimes the doctor will go to absurd lengths to maintain the "consistent with" argument and getting what seems a perfectly straight-forward admission can be very difficult.

Every note, mark, drawing, and measurement in the doctor's records must be rigorously checked and re-checked. Fundamental errors are made so to avoid this, if the hymen was measured, determine exactly how was it measured; by eye, ruler, colposcope scale, etc.

Myths Regarding Child Sexual Abuse

Children do not lie about their experiences of sexual abuse; therefore, when they express such allegations, their willingness to disclose them verifies the veracity of their statements.

• This myth profoundly underestimates the most serious problem related to investigating allegations of child sexual abuse. Certainly, children can recall trauma accurately (Jones & Krugman, 1986), but they can also tell the examiner what the examiner wants to hear. It is not surprising, then, that a child involved in the Jordan, Minnesota case, which turned out to be a tragic hoax, later admitted to fabricating stories of abuse explaining, "I could tell what they wanted me to say by the way they asked the questions" (Aric Press, 1985; Campbell 1992a).

• A great deal of scientific inquiry has gone in to attempting to understand how children come to believe the preposterous and make statements about events that never happened (e.g., Benedek & Schetky 1987a, 1987b; Ceci, 1994; Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Ceci, Ross & Toglia, 1987a, 1987b; Cole & Loftus, 1987; Davies, 1991; Doris, 1991; Ekman, 1989; Johnson & Foley 1984; Johnson & Howell, 1993; Loftus, 1993; McGough, 1991). Goodman and Clarke-Stewart (1991) describe a study conducted by Clarke-Stewart, Thompson and Lepore (1989) with 5 and 6-year-old children. The children interacted with a confederate named "Chester" who posed as the janitor and followed one of two scripts. In both scripts, Chester cleaned the room. Following this, in one script, Chester cleaned the toys and especially a doll, while in the other script Chester handled the doll roughly and suggestively.

• Each child was then questioned about the event by an interviewer who was either accusatory in tone, saying Chester had been inappropriately playing with the toys instead of cleaning; exculpatory in tone, suggesting that Chester was just cleaning the toys and not playing; or neutral and non-suggestive. Each child was then questioned a second time by an interviewer who either reinforced or contradicted the first interviewer.

• When the children were given a neutral interview and when the interview was consistent with what they had observed, the children were accurate. But when the interviewer contradicted the script, the children's stories quickly conformed to the interviewer's interpretation. At the end of the first interviews, 75% of the children's stories about Chester were consistent with the examiner's script and 90% of the children answered at least some of the interpretative questions in agreement with their interviewer's script as opposed to what happened. When the second interview was of the same type as the first, only one child gave fewer than 6 out of 6 responses in line with the interview. When the second interview was contradictory to the first, most children changed their answers to conform to the second interview.

• Research by Ceci, Ross, and Toglia (1987a, 1987b) yielded similar results. They found that children are very susceptible to modifying their story based upon an adult's post-event suggestions, however, children are even susceptible to suggestions by older children.

• Leichtman and Ceci report on an experiment with a character named "Sam Stone." Sam Stone was described to 3 to 6-year-olds over a one month period as someone who was clumsy and who broke things that belonged to others. After this stereotype-induction period, Sam Stone visited the children's nursery school where he spent two minutes amiably interacting with the children during story time. He did not behave clumsily or break anything. The day after the visit, very few children accused "Sam Stone" of being the culprit responsible for a book being ripped or a teddy bear soiled. But, after a series of leading questions where the children were interviewed once a week for two minutes over a ten week period, 72% of the children said "Sam Stone" had ruined at least one of the items. When explicitly asked, 44% of the 3 and 4-year-olds said they had actually seen him do these things.

• Perhaps the most noted of memory researchers, Elizabeth Loftus, has explained the process of reconstruction and how people can come to believe firmly in events that never happened. Truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memories, are not objective facts but subjective, interpretative realities. We interpret the past, correcting ourselves, adding bits and pieces, deleting uncomplimentary or disturbing recollections, sweeping, dusting, tidying things up. Thus our representation of the past takes on a living, shifting reality; it is not fixed and immutable, not a place way back there that is preserved in stone, but a living thing that changes shape, expands, shrinks, expands again, an amoeba like creature with powers to make us laugh, and cry, and clench our fists. Enormous powers; powers even to make us believe in something that never happened (Loftus & Ketcham, 1991, p. 20).

Physical examinations frequently provide reliable evidence of sexual abuse.

• Until recently, studies comparing the genitals of sexually abused children with those of nonabused children were characterized by their conspicuous absence. Without normative data provided by studies of nonabused children, the significance of any physical findings on a child suspected of being abused cannot be assessed. In 1989, Paradise estimated a false positive rate of 65% when assessing penetration and 73% when assessing digital penetration. Since that time, physicians all across the country have worked to determine what is normal and what is not (Berenson, Heger, Hayes, Bailey, & Emans, 1992; Fay, 1991; Finkel, 1988, 1989; Heger & Emans, 1990, 1992; McCann, Voris, & Simon, 1992; McCann, Voris, Simon, & Wells, 1989, 1990; McCann, Wells, Simon, & Voris, 1990; Paradise, 1989; Paul, 1990).

• In 1987, Emans, Woods, Flagg, and Freeman found a large range of hymenal openings in their subjects and reported that the genital findings of sexually abused girls were similar to nonabused girls in their study. McCann and his colleagues have now conducted research on over 300 prepubertal children who have been screened to rule out sexual abuse. They report a high incidence of nonspecific findings such as erythema, tags, fissures, scars, adhesions, notches, thickening, and anal relaxation in their sample of nonabused children. They have also found a large range of vertical and horizontal hymenal orifice diameters and report that this varies by age group and by the techniques used to examine the child.

• Prompted by this research, Coleman (1989) analyzed almost 200 medical examinations performed on children in cases of alleged sexual abuse. He reported that almost all of the "findings" described as abuse were found in the McCann studies with normal children. Such research has prompted the American Medical Association (1993) to issue specific guidelines for sexual assault examinations in young children. Krugman (1989) observed the medical diagnosis of sexual abuse usually cannot be made on the basis of physical findings alone. With the exception of acquired gonorrhea or syphilis, or the presence of forensic evidence of sperm or semen, there are no pathognomic signs for sexual abuse (p. 165-166).

Children who demonstrate a level of sexual knowledge beyond their years have likely been sexually abused.

• Rosenfeld and his colleagues (Rosenfeld, Bailey, Siegal, & Bailey, 1986; Rosenfeld, Siegal, & Bailey, 1987) stress getting normative information on nakedness, genital touching, and bathing practices before deciding whether any of these behaviors support a suspicion of sexual abuse. They surveyed parents of 2 to 10-year-old children and found considerable variability in family bathing practices, although children were more likely to bathe alone as they grew older. Touching a parent's genitals was associated with the child's bathing with the parents, and genital touching of parents on an incidental basis was not uncommon even among 10-year-olds. They conclude that bathing with a child or letting the child touch the parent's genitals should not be used as evidence of sexual abuse unless these behaviors are accompanied by more extensive and persuasive evidence of abuse.

• Haugaard and Tilly (1988) observe that 28% of male and female undergraduates reported having engaged in sexual play with another child when they were children. Cooke and Cooke (1991) note that bathing, toileting, blowing on a youngster's stomach, and tickling have been distorted into sexual abuse by a parent bent on winning a custody dispute. Friedrich, Grambsch, Broughton, Kuiper, and Beilke (1991) report a wide variety of sexual exploratory behaviors in their sample of 880 nonabused children between 2 and 12 years of age.

• Mannarino, Cohen, Smith, and Moore-Motily (1991) report no differences in sexual behavior between abused girls and a clinical control group of nonabused girls. Kendall-Tackett, Williams, and Finkelhor (1993) found that the frequency of sexualized behavior in sexually abused children (including frequent and overt self-stimulation, inappropriate sexual overtures toward other children and adults, and compulsive talk, play, and fantasy with sexual content) is somewhat difficult to determine. They report that across six studies of preschoolers (the children most likely to manifest such symptoms) an average of only 35% exhibited sexualized behavior.

Psychotherapy can assist children to recover previously repressed memories of sexual abuse by alleviating their repression.

• Unfortunately, psychotherapy for children thought to have been sexually abused can convince them of their supposed abuse when, in fact, it never occurred. (Lindsay, Johnson, & Kwon 1991; Campbell, 1992b, 1992c, 1992d). Treatment for children in these circumstances typically involves play therapy, or other similarly expressive modalities.

• Like any other psychotherapy orientation, the direction of play therapy responds to the theoretical convictions of its practitioners. lay therapists endorse a tension-reduction treatment model that enthusiastically embraces cathartic experiences. As a result of their therapist's selective reinforcement, children in play therapy learn when they are expressing "angry feelings" and how significant such expressions supposedly are. In circumstances of alleged sexual abuse, play therapists will often encourage children to direct dramatic expressions toward the supposed perpetrator; draw pictures of the perpetrator and tear them up, or write angry letters to the alleged perpetrator.

• Such activities obviously arouse a great deal of imagination and fantasy, and data related to source monitoring demonstrate that children frequently find it difficult to differentiate between events they actually experienced and events they only imagined. Play therapists also resort to a standardized interpretive formula that explains to children: "You are experiencing A because you were sexually abused, and you are experiencing B because you were sexually abused, and you are experiencing C because you were sexually abused." Inundated with this kind of unrelenting propaganda week after week, and month after month, children frequently revise their memory to conform with the input of this trusted adult.

• As early as 1975, Grice described conventions of child-adult conversations with what was called the "principle of cooperativity." Since that time, researchers have found that children perceive adult conversation partners as truthful and cooperative (Garvey, 1984; Nelson & Gruendel, 1979; Romaine, 1984). Researchers have also discovered that children provide their adult conversation partners with the type of information they think the adult wants (Ervin-Tripp, 1978; Read & Cherry, 1978).

• Many researchers have examined the effects of misleading children through the interview process. (e.g., Dale, Loftus, & Rathbon, 1978; Foley & Johnson, 1985; Loftus & Davies, 1984; Loftus & Zanni; 1975). King and Yuille (1987) suggest that if an interviewer gives signals as to what the interviewer is searching for in an answer, children are very responsive to such signals. Relative to adults, children are more suggestible because they find themselves in more situations in which they are unfamiliar. As a consequence, children are likely to pay attention to anyone (especially an adult) who they believe knows how to behave in that situation.

• Petit, Fagan, and Howie (1990) examined how an interviewer's information about events affected their style of questioning and the accuracy of 3 to 5-year-old children's reports. The children participated in a staged event in their school and were later interviewed about it. Three sets of interviewers were used. The first set of interviewers was given full and accurate details about the staged event, the second set was given inaccurate information about the staged event, and the third set was given no information about the staged event at all.

• All of the interviewers were told to question each child until they found out what had happened, but were cautioned against the use of leading questions. On average, the children were asked 50 questions each in 20 to 30-minute interviews. In this way, the children were put under a great deal of pressure to provide information.

• Petit and others report that, despite the cautions to avoid leading questions, 30% of all the questions were leading and 50% of these were frankly misleading. Interviewers with no information at all asked higher and higher numbers of leading and misleading questions. As their interviews wore on, they obtained higher and higher percentages of inaccurate information from the children.

• Interviewers with inaccurate information asked four to five times as many misleading questions as the other interviewers. Children who were questioned by the misled interviewers provided the most inaccurate information. And across all groups, the children agreed with 41% of the misleading questions.

• Benedek and Schetky (1987b) discuss how otherwise well-intentioned examiners can mislead children. They believe that several factors can influence children to provide misleading information: (1) adults may misinterpret what a child states; (2) the possibility of abuse may lead to hysteria; or (3) an adult may have malicious motives. In addition, as a result of the media coverage of sexual abuse, parents and the professional community are more likely to suspect sexual abuse as a cause for symptom formation, even when sexual abuse has not occurred.

• Clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, Richard A. Gardner, who has written widely on issues of child/examiner interaction, points out how less-than-well-trained examiners can contaminate child victims. Not only do the examiners make frequent use of leading questions, but they use leading gestures. Although leading questions can easily be seen on the transcripts of these interviews, the leading gestures are rarely described by the transcriber. These gestures play an important role in what is actually taking place and in the "programming" that occurs with these dolls. Leading stimuli, which refer to dolls (especially anatomical), body charts, and other instruments can also contaminate the interview by encouraging the child to talk about sexual issues (1992a, p. 145).

• Leading Stimuli are instruments that are generally used in interviewing by mental health professionals, especially psychologists and psychiatrists. They all involve an external stimulus that serves as a focus for the interviewee's verbal response (1992a, p. 145).

Clinical psychologist Sue White and psychiatrist Kathleen Quinn (1988) discuss critical issues of investigatory independence in child sexual abuse evaluations:

• External independence requires that an interviewer maintain an objective stance of not allying himself/herself with any particular individual involved in the investigation of the allegation. Practically, this requires the evaluator to deal equally with all involved parties (p. 269).

• Internal independence is the evaluator's internal ability not to be biased relative to the allegations. The lack of internal independence is exhibited in two major categories: (1) the verbal content of the interview and (2) the interviewer's behavioral influences (p. 270).

• Describing examiners who are in pursuit of an agenda, White and Quinn define leading questions: "leading is used to refer to a question in which the answer is expected to be in the question." Drawing on Black's Law Dictionary, they distinguish "suggestive questions" where the presentation of an idea especially indirectly as through association of ideas, bringing before the mind for consideration in the nature of a hint. The example, "Your daddy did put his finger in your vagina, didn't he?" should be considered leading, but a question such as "Did your daddy put his finger in your vagina?" should be classified as suggestive (p. 271).

According to White and Quinn, "Leading should be considered to have occurred when the interviewer introduces any material that the child has not previously revealed to that interviewer" (p. 271). They discuss the use of "Yes-No" questions and multiple choice questions and describe "disconfirmation" as a technique frequently used by adults to influence a child's decisions: For example, a mother may ask, "What do you want to eat?" to which the child responds "Candy." Dissatisfied with that answer, she then disconfirms the child's answer by saying, "You don't want candy. How about some soup?" (p. 273). Leading the child away from her answer, telling the child she is wrong or simply ignoring the child's answer are all examples of disconfirmation.

White and Quinn describe the coercion that often happens in children's interviews. They note that when interviewing suspected victims of sexual assault, truth-lie paradigms, positive or negative rewards, repetitive questioning, and threats may clearly "compromise the evaluation because of their directive nature" (p. 274-275). They recommend that any fact finder assess the investigatory independence manifest in the interview process. A fact finder must ask:

• Has the evaluator made a thorough review of all primary sources which document the child's original complaint and made an analysis of the family history, a psycho-social history, examined alternative explanations for the child's presenting behaviors?

• Has the evaluator distorted the data by the pursuit of his or her own agenda?

• Has the evaluator aided in the incorporation of data from outside the child's experience into the child's memory of events?

• Has the evaluator contaminated the child's memory by repetitive leading questions and gestures, causing the child to encode memory supplied by the evaluator?

Quinn, White and Santilli (1989) discuss the impact of physical cues, investigatory materials, and emotional interactions, such as tone of voice and nonverbal communication. They note that many reforms have been instituted to improve the prosecutability of child sex abuse cases. But these very reforms coupled with a zeal to "protect" children by less-than-well-trained examiners can have confounding and contaminating results. One unpublished Hawaii opinion ruled that two children were disqualified from testifying in a sexual abuse case, based on an expert's opinion that each child had been subjected to layers and layers of interviews, questions, examinations, etc., which were fraught with textbook examples of poor interview techniques. State v. McKellar, No. 85-0553 (Haw. Cir. Ct. Jan. 15, 1983), cited in Bulkley (1989).

Based solely on the material I examined and, based on 12 years experience with child abuse investigations, it is absolutely impossible for me to give any credibility whatsoever to the allegations made by Jane. In reality, there is not one ounce of proof that Jane actually made the allegations. Based on everything I have read, adults claim that Jane accused her grandfather, but I have seen nothing that indicates to me that Jane has actually said anything, short of the interview transcripts. Even considering those transcripts, I see absolutely no validity to the allegations, simply because it is not possible to know what allegations are hers and what allegations were inadvertently put into her head during the entire investigative and interview process. Clearly, the interviewer at the Advocacy Center was of the opinion that Jane had been abused, even before she talked with Jane. She used her interview simply as a means of validating what she had already been told and, on at least two occasions, appeared to become frustrated with Jane because Jane was not providing the responses she desired.

Again, based on the information supplied in the report, Jane has most probably either been interviewed or discussed the allegations with no less than 5 people and there is no telling on how many occasions. In a case of this nature, when an allegation surfaces, one, proper interview, conducted by an unbiased and experienced examiner, is the recommended protocol.

In addition to questionable interview techniques, there are other issues we have been faced with that may provide assistance to a defense attorney who may not be familiar with the proper techniques.

Department of Human Services

• Any time social services is involved in a false allegation case, I normally recommend that the defense attorney subpoena the Department of Human Service's Policy & Training Manuals. These manuals normally consist of some 500 pages, but there is a great deal of information in them and it is very rare that "social workers" actually adhere to their own guidelines.

• As previously stated herein, depending on the participation of the interviewed children, or lack of same, if questionable interview techniques were used by social workers, the defense attorney should consider Motions in Limine and move for Taint or Frye-Daubert Hearings. If statutory laws allows for a Taint Hearing, they can be invaluable whenever questionable and unscientific interview practices of allegedly abused children has taken place, such as leading and suggestive questions, reinforced behavior, yes-no or closed-ended questions, forced response questions or guided imagery. The current research suggests that interviewers use free narrative, open ended questions. Most of this research has been authored by Ceci, Bruck, Lamb, Poole, and Lindsay. The proper way to get good information into evidence is to hold a Taint or Frye-Daubert, pre-trial Hearing and call your suggestibility expert in to testify on the witness stand.

• Federal Rule of Evidence 403 is another vehicle which can be used by either the defense or prosecution to keep out information when undue prejudice versus probative value.

Child Abuse Accommodation Syndrome

• This "syndrome" has been used excessively to explain "denial", "recantation" and "disclosure" by children after they have spent months in therapy. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Com vs. Dunkle 604 A.2d 30, 1992, reversed the lower court and found that admission of expert testimony on this syndrome was reversible error. The Court noted that the expert did not relate any of her testimony to the child in question. Finding that abused children react in myriad ways and that abused and non-abused children often exhibit similar behavior problems, the court found that the existence of a child abuse syndrome as either a generally accepted diagnostic tool or as relevant evidence is not supportable "and therefor inadmissible." The court also determined that the expert's testimony failed to meet the threshold determination of relevance and probability.

Motion to Compel

• In attempting to obtain an audio/video tape, held by the prosecution, if a Motion to Compel Production doesn't work ask for an In Camera Review by the court and cite PA v. Ritchie, 107 S.Ct. 989, 480 U.S. 39, (1987). Use of this Motion has proven invaluable in providing the defense with a great deal of beneficial material they would never have seen otherwise, regardless of whether it was being held by the prosecution, social services or others.

Defense Denied Independent Psychological Examination

• On many occasions, where there have been multiple interviews of children, questionable interview techniques have been used or it appears that the child may be being "coached" by one parent to make allegations against another, I usually recommend that the defense attorney consider a Motion for Independant Psychological Evaluation.

• See U.S. v. Rouse, U.S. Ct. Appeals, decided 11-12-96, 100 Fed. Rptr. 3d Series, pp. 560-586. This case was landmark in its recognition of children's suggestibilities and shoddy interview techniques and forensic pediatric examinations. Dr. Ralph Underwager testified for the defense and the Court found that the defense was denied its right to an Independent Psychological Examination of alleged child victim.