Child Witnesses: Reliability, Suggestibility, and Interview Techniques

Children as Witnesses: Reliability and Suggestibility

Likelihood of Fabricated Sexual Abuse Cases

  • Studies examine the likelihood of children fabricating sexual abuse allegations, especially in sexual abuse cases.
  • One research approach involves interviewing children post-pediatrician appointments to check for false reports of sexual touching.
  • Example Study:
    • Five and seven-year-old girls underwent either a genital examination or a back examination.
    • Follow-up interviews included abuse-related and non-abuse-related questions.
    • Without leading questions, only one out of 71 five-year-old children made a false report related to abuse, suggesting low likelihood of unprompted fabrication.

Impact of Leading Questions

  • The study also explored the impact of leading and misleading questions.
  • Children who had back examinations were asked about genital touching, and vice versa.
    • Three children (out of 35), who had back examinations, incorrectly reported anal or vaginal touching.
    • Even after a month, most children remained accurate in their responses.
    • However, 20% of children who had genital examinations incorrectly reported back touching.
  • Conclusion: Generally, children are not easily misled into making false statements about sexual touching unless influenced by suggestive questioning.

Hesitancy in Reporting Actual Abuse

  • A concerning finding was that some children in the genital examination group did not report the touching, even with leading questions.
    • Only 22% and 11% of girls in the genital examination group admitted to vaginal or anal touching when asked three recall questions.
    • Even with direct leading questions (e.g., "Did the doctor touch you here?"), some still denied the touching.
  • This raises questions about why children are hesitant to disclose actual abuse and what can be done to address this.

Anatomical Dolls

  • Anatomical dolls were once used to aid children in reporting abuse, but their use is now less frequent due to several problems:
    • Suggestibility: The dolls themselves are highly suggestive and can lead children to say things that did not happen.
    • Individual Differences: Children's play styles vary; some may play aggressively with the doll without having been abused.
    • Lack of Consistent Pattern: There is no reliable pattern of interaction with the dolls that distinguishes between abused and non-abused children. Experts cannot accurately determine abuse based solely on doll play.

Factors Influencing Disclosure

  • Individual Temperament: A child's emotionality and temperament play a role in disclosure.
  • Family Dynamics: If the abuser is a family member, the child may fear the consequences of reporting (e.g., the abuser going to prison).
  • Manipulation: Abusers may manipulate victims into silence through fear or secrecy.
  • Guilt and Shame: Children may feel guilt or shame, believing they are somehow responsible for the abuse.
  • Age: Younger children are less likely to disclose abuse than older children.

Putative Confession Technique

  • The "putative confession technique" involves telling a child that the suspect has already confessed, aiming to remove the barrier of worrying about getting the person in trouble.
  • Abusers often manipulate victims by saying:
    • Telling them that revealing the abuse will lead to harm towards their family.
    • Framing the abuse as a secret "game" that cannot be revealed.
  • The suspect confessing can alleviate these concerns in the child's mind.
  • Example Scenario:
    • A child and adult play on a laptop; the adult accidentally breaks it and tells the child to keep it a secret.
    • Children are interviewed about the incident. Some are told the adult confessed, while others are not.
    • Results show that children told of the confession are more likely to accuse the adult.
  • This technique has not been tested in sexual abuse cases due to ethical concerns, but it illustrates how disclosure might be encouraged with credible evidence.

Accuracy in Descriptions

  • Similar to adults, children are more likely to report hair color and clothing when describing someone.
  • They are more accurate at describing exterior features (hair, clothing) than interior features (eye color, nose shape).
  • However, children are even less accurate with interior details than adults.
  • Adults typically remember around seven descriptors, while young children remember one or two, and older children, two or three.
  • Studies often involve mock crime videos or live experiences (e.g., a robbery during a field trip) to assess descriptor accuracy.

Exceptions and Notable Cases

  • In real-world cases, some children provide surprisingly detailed descriptions.
  • Example: Rachel W. Case:
    • A nine-year-old girl in Brighton, England, was abducted, sexually abused, and left for dead but survived.
    • Her detailed description of the car, its contents (including tools), and the perpetrator's appearance was instrumental in his arrest and conviction.
    • The perpetrator was linked to other murders and sexual abuse cases.

Lineups and Identification

  • Lineups are used to see if a child witness can identify a suspect.
  • In target-present lineups (where the perpetrator is actually in the lineup), young children are as accurate as older children and adults (approximately 60% success rate).
  • Children struggle more with target-absent lineups and are more likely to misidentify an innocent suspect.
  • Potential reasons include:
    • Weaker memory, leading to being misled by similar-looking faces.
    • Social compliance, feeling compelled to choose someone even if the right person isn't present.

Mystery Card Technique

  • To address the issue of social compliance, researchers propose using a "mystery card" in lineups - a silhouette with a question mark.
  • Children are told to point to the card if the perpetrator is not in the lineup.
  • This gives them an alternative response, reducing the pressure to choose someone.
  • This technique has been tested in both the U.S. (photo arrays) and the U.K. (video lineups), showing positive results.
  • Results: False identifications are significantly reduced (e.g., from over 70% to around 30% in target-absent lineups) without negatively affecting target-present lineup accuracy.
  • The mystery card shows greater benefits for younger children, with strong evidence suggesting that it is a beneficial tool for police investigations without negative impacts on correct identifications.

Real-World Impact of Child Identification

  • Children's identifications have been crucial in many convictions.
  • Example: Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping:
    • Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her bedroom in Utah.
    • Her younger sister, Mary Katherine Smart, identified the kidnapper, Brian Mitchell.

Interviewing Children: Best Practices

  • During free recall (simply asking, "Tell me what happened"), children as young as four are as accurate as adults, but they provide very limited details.
  • Follow-up questions are essential but can introduce the risk of improper questioning techniques like close-ended or suggestive questions.

Types of Follow-Up Questions

  • Open Prompts: Asking for elaboration in an open-ended way (e.g., "Tell me more about that").
  • Directive Questions: WH-questions (who, what, where, when, how). These can be open-ended if framed carefully and are not necessarily suggestive.
  • Option Posing: Closed-ended questions that restrict possible responses (e.g., yes/no questions, multiple-choice questions). These provide more information but often lead to inaccurate responses.
  • Suggestive/Leading: Suggesting information to the child that they have not already volunteered. This can be correct leading (leading in the right direction) or misleading (leading in the wrong direction).

Challenges in Interviewing Children

  • Children are in an unusual situation where they know the answers, and the adult doesn't.
  • They are typically encouraged to provide responses, even if wrong, in everyday life because adults will correct them.
  • Children under age five may not have developed a theory of mind, meaning they may not fully understand that others have different knowledge than they do.

Structured Interview Formats

  • Interviewing practices have improved since the daycare hysteria cases of the 1970s and 1980s, thanks to structured interview formats.
  • These formats help investigators conduct interviews and use evidence-based best practices.
  • Achieving Best Evidence Protocol (England and Wales): A quality inspection protocol where researchers analyze police interview transcripts and code questions by type (free invitation, directive, option posing, suggestive).

NICHD Protocol

  • The most researched and widely used interview format is the National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) protocol.
  • This protocol is suggested (but not mandated) in all U.S. states and is used in many other countries. It has seven stages:
    1. Introduction and Ground Rules: Explain the rules (e.g., don't guess, say "I don't know") and test the child's willingness to follow them. Use test questions (e.g., "What's my dog's name?") and correct the child if they fail the test. Verify that the child is able to discern truth from falsehood.
    2. Rapport Building: Ask basic "get to know you" questions to make the child feel comfortable.
    3. Episodic Memory Training: Conduct a practice interview about a recent event (birthday, vacation) to get the child used to providing detailed information.
    4. Transition: Tell the child why they're here (what happened).
    5. Investigation: Investigate the incident using a funnel approach, starting with open prompts and progressing to directive questions as needed.
    6. Break: Give the child a break.
    7. Continuation: Continue the interview if more information is needed.

Evidence Supporting NICHD Protocol

  • Numerous studies worldwide compare interviews using the NICHD protocol versus those without it.
  • Example Study (UK):
    • Before the protocol, only 7% of questions were free invitations, and 8% were suggestive.
    • After the protocol, 33% were open invitations, and 6% were suggestive.
  • These findings are consistent across numerous examples worldwide.
  • The protocol increases the use of open-ended questions (most likely to generate accurate, reliable responses).

Child Responses and NICHD Protocol

  • The protocol impacts not only question types but also the type of information children provide.
  • Example Study (UK):
    • Before the protocol, only 14% of the child's responses were in response to free invitations.
    • After the protocol, over half of the child's responses were in response to free invitations.
  • The use of the NICHD protocol is effective in promoting better interviewer practices.

Implementation Challenges of NICHD Protocol

  • Actual implementation varies significantly depending on location.
  • In some areas (e.g., Phoenix, LA), researchers have established strong connections with police, and investigators receive regular training and follow best practices.
  • However, in many other places, investigators may not fully implement the protocol (e.g., skipping the practice interview stage due to concerns about time and fatigue).
  • Skipping the practice stage is counterproductive because it leads to the witness providing more information in the forensic interview and also a shorter interview overall due to the reduced need for follow-up questions.

Case Study: Jimmy Gard

  • A nine-year-old girl (Centimeters) was almost kidnapped after getting off the school bus.
  • Initial Description: She described the attacker as Hispanic, with dark hair, facial hair, wearing white shoes, a black baseball cap, jeans, and a black t-shirt with a picture of wrestler Steven Austin.
  • Detective Jensen's Interview: He built rapport and obtained a similar description but added that the attacker had a baseball cap with the letter "A" on it, was chubby, had afro hair, and was taller than one officer but shorter than another.
  • Lineup: Detective Jensen presented a photo lineup, and Centimeters identified Jimmy Gard as the suspect.
  • Search Warrant: A search of Jimmy Gard's house revealed no clothing matching Centimeters' description, and the only running shoes found were blue.
  • Alibi: Jimmy Gard claimed he was at the library and was served by a red-haired barista. Detective Jensen found no such barista.
  • Private Investigator: Hired by Jimmy Gard, the PI found a red-haired barista who remembered the incident, and the video footage supported his alibi but was mysteriously deleted.
  • Other Witnesses:
    • A 10-year-old friend saw the incident from a distance but couldn't identify Jimmy Gard.
    • A neighbor (Mr. Good) saw a Hispanic man following schoolgirls and identified Jimmy Gard from a photo.
    • Another witness saw a man run past her house and said Jimmy Gard "could have been" the man. Note: No lineups used, just a photo being presented.
  • Trial: Centimeters and the other three witnesses testified. Centimeters now claimed the attacker wore blue running shoes (matching those found in Jimmy Gard's house). The defense's request to present expert testimony on eyewitness memory was denied.
  • Conviction and Appeal: Jimmy Gard was convicted based on the testimony and the supporting witness's statements. His appeal was denied.

Discussion Points on Jimmy Gard Case

  • Reasons to be confident in Jimmy Gard's guilt:
    • Centimeters' sequential lineup identification was spontaneous.
  • Reasons to be skeptical of his guilt:
    • The private investigator supported his alibi.
    • Other witnesses were far away or only saw him briefly, and their identification method was potentially leading.
    • There was no matching clothing found, and Centimeters' courtroom description of the shoes changed.
    • He passed a polygraph test.
  • Should expert testimony have been allowed?
    • The judge stated that the testimony would be granted if the 5 criteria of the witness are credible; opportunity to view, attention during crime, capacity to observe and recall, made the identification spontaneously, and the nature of the crime.
  • Jimmy Gard served 15 years and maintains his innocence. It's a complex case with conflicting evidence.

Post-Release Information

  • Jimmy Gard stated that there was no choice other than to be not guilty.
  • Jimmy Gard maintained that he was at the library on the day in question.
  • Security footage was erased.
  • Dr. Dodd was not approved to testify.
  • Gard served a 15-year sentence and was out on parole in 2020. He is required to register as a kidnap offender.
  • The family hired a private investigator to reach out to Centimeters, but her lawyer would not allow her to speak to the private investigator.

Important Considerations for the Case

  • The video footage did not have high-quality resolution and could not discern with high certainty if the clothing matched Gard.
  • There was an argument of whether there was a degree of bad faith on the part of the investigators.
  • The attorney sent an investigator who dispatched the negative findings and yet the private investigator was able to return with a different result.