ASSESS AND EVALUATE VICTIM STATEMENTS.
This is the part of the investigative process in child sexual
victimization cases that seems to have been lost. Is the victim
describing events and activities that are consistent with law
enforcement documented criminal behavior, or that are consistent
with distorted media accounts and erroneous public perceptions of
criminal behavior? Investigators should apply the "template of
probability". Accounts of child sexual victimization that are more
like books, television, and movies (e.g. big conspiracies, child sex
slaves, organized pornography rings) and less like documented cases
should be viewed with skepticism but thoroughly investigated.
Consider and investigate all possible explanations of events. It is
the investigator's job, and the information learned will be
invaluable in counteracting the defense attorneys when they raise
the alternative explanations.
For example, an adult survivor's account of ritual victimization
might be explained by any one of at least four possibilities: First,
the allegations may be a fairly accurate account what actually
happened. Second, they may be deliberate lies (malingering), told
for the usual reasons people lie (e.g. money, revenge, jealousy).
Third, they may be deliberate lies (factitious disorder) told for
atypical reasons (e.g. attention, forgiveness). Lies so motivated
are less likely to be recognized by the investigator and more likely
to be rigidly maintained by the liar unless and until confronted
with irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Fourth, the allegations
may be a highly inaccurate account of what actually happened, but
the victim truly believes it (pseudomemory) and therefore is not
lying. A polygraph examination of such a victim would be of limited
value. Other explanations or combinations of these explanations are
also possible. *Only* thorough *investigation* will point to the
correct or most likely explanation.
Investigators cannot rely on therapists or satanic crime experts as
a shortcut to the explanation. In one case, the "experts" confirmed
and validated the account of a female who claimed to be a 15-year-
old deaf-mute kidnapped and held for three years by a satanic cult
and forced to participate in bizarre rituals before recently
escaping. Active investigation, however, determined she was a 27-
year-old woman who could hear and speak, who had not been kidnapped
by anyone, and who had a lengthy history of mental problems and at
least three other similar reports of false victimization. Her
"accurate" accounts of what the "real satanists" do were simply the
result of having read, while in mental hospitals, the same books
that the "experts" had. A therapist may have important insights
about whether an individual was traumatized, but knowing the exact
cause of that trauma is another matter. There have been cases where
investigation has discovered that individuals diagnosed by
therapists as suffering from Post-Vietnam Syndrome were never in
Vietnam or saw no combat.
Conversely, in another case, a law enforcement "expert" on satanic
crime told a therapist that a patient's accounts of satanic murders
in a rural Pacific Northwest town were probably true because the
community was a hotbed of such satanic activity. When the therapist
explained that there was almost no violent crime reported in the
community, the officer explained that that is how you know it is the
satanists. If you knew about the murders or found the bodies, it
would not be satanists. How do you argue with that kind of logic?
The first step in the assessment and evaluation of victim statements
is to determine the disclosure sequence, including how much time has
elapsed since disclosure was first made and the incident was
reported to the police or social services. The longer the delay, the
bigger the potential for problems. The next step is to determine the
number and purpose of *all prior* interviews of the victim
concerning the allegations. The more interviews conducted before the
investigative interview, the larger the potential for problems.
Although there is nothing wrong with admitting shortcomings and
seeking help, law enforcement should never abdicate its control over
the investigative interview. When an investigative interview is
conducted by or with a social worker or therapist using a team
approach, law enforcement must direct the process. Problems can also
be created by interviews conducted by various intervenors *after*
the investigative interview(s).
The investigator must closely and carefully evaluate events in the
victim's life before, during, and after the alleged abuse.
Events to be evaluated *before* the alleged abuse include:
(1) Background of victim.
(2) Abuse of drugs in home.
(3) Pornography in home.
(4) Play, television, and VCR habits.
(5) Attitudes about sexuality in home.
(6) Extent of sex education in home.
(7) Activities of siblings.
(8) Need or craving for attention.
(9) Religious beliefs and training.
(10) Childhood fears.
(11) Custody/visitation disputes.
(12) Victimization of or by family members.
(13) Interaction between victims.
Events to be evaluated *during* the alleged abuse include:
(1) Use of fear or scare tactics.
(2) Degree of trauma.
(3) Use of magic deception or trickery.
(4) Use of rituals.
(5) Use of drugs.
(6) Use of pornography.
Events to be evaluated *after* the alleged abuse include:
(1) Disclosure sequence.
(2) Background of prior interviewers.
(3) Background of parents.
(4) Co-mingling of victims.
(5) Type of therapy received.