Message #13 board "P_Metaphysical (Mag Articles)"
Date : 22-Jan-93 15:58
From : Simon Novali
To : All
Subj : Lanning (10 of 11)
experienced in such interviews. Investigators must have direct
access to the alleged victims for interview purposes. Therapists for
an adult survivor sometimes want to act as intermediaries in their
patient's interview. This should be avoided if at all possible.
Adult survivor interviews are often confusing difficult and
extremely time-consuming. The investigator must remember however
that almost anything is possible. Most important the investigator
must remember that there is much middle ground. Just because one
event did happen does not mean that all reported events happened,
and just because one event did not happen does not mean that all
other events did not happen. Do not become such a zealot that you
believe it all nor such a cynic that you believe nothing. Varying
amounts and parts of the allegation may be factual. Attempting to
find evidence of what did happen is the great challenge of these
cases. *All* investigative interaction with victims must be
carefully and thoroughly documented.
-- d. 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.
-- e. EVALUATE CONTAGION.
Consistent statements obtained from different multiple victims are
powerful pieces of corroborative evidence - that is as long as those
statements were not "contaminated". Investigation must carefully
evaluate both pre- and post-disclosure contagion, and both victim
and intervenor contagion. Are the different victim statements
consistent because they describe common experiences or events, or
because they reflect contamination or urban legends?
The sources of potential contagion are widespread. Victims can
communicate with each other both prior to and after their
disclosures. Intervenors can communicate with each other and with
victims. The team or cell concepts of investigation are attempts to
deal with potential investigator contagion. All the victims are not
interviewed by the same individuals, and interviewers do not
necessarily share information directly with each other. Teams report
to a leader or supervisor who evaluates the information and decides
what other investigators need to know.
Documenting existing contagion and eliminating additional contagion
are crucial to the successful investigation and prosecution of these
cases. There is no way, however, to erase or undo contagion. The
best you can hope for is to identify and evaluate it and attempt to
explain it. Mental health professionals requested to evaluate
suspected victims must be carefully selected. Having a victim
evaluated by one of the self-proclaimed experts on satanic ritual
abuse or by some other overzealous intervenor may result in the
credibility of that victim's testimony being severely damaged.
In order to evaluate the contagion element, investigators must
meticulously and aggressively investigate these cases. The precise
disclosure sequence of the victim must be carefully identified and
documented. Investigators must verify through active investigation
the exact nature and content of each disclosure outcry or statement
made by the victim. Second-hand information about disclosure is not
good enough.
Whenever possible, personal visits should be made to all locations
of alleged abuse and the victim's homes. Events prior to the alleged
abuse must be carefully evaluated. Investigators may have to view
television programs, films, and videotapes seen by the victims. It
may be necessary to conduct a background investigation and
evaluation of everyone, both professional and nonprofessional, who
interviewed the victims about the allegations prior to and after the
investigative interview(s). Investigators must be familiar with the
information about ritual abuse of children being disseminated in
magazines, books, television programs, videotapes, and conferences.
Every possible way that a victim could have learned about the
details of the abuse must be explored if for no other reason than to
eliminate them and counter the defense's arguments.
There may, however, be validity to these contagion factors. *They
may explain some of the "unbelievable" aspects of the case and
result in the successful prosecution of the substance of the case.*
Consistency of statements becomes more significant if contagion is
identified or disproved by independent investigation. The easier
cases are the ones where there is a single, identifiable source of
contagion. Most cases, however, seem to involve multiple contagion
factors.
Munchausen Syndrome and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy are complex and
controversial issues in these cases. No attempt will be made to
discuss them in detail, but they are documented facts (Rosenberg,
1987). Most of the literature about them focuses on their
manifestation in the medical setting as false or self-inflicted
illness or injury. They are also manifested in the criminal justice
setting as false or self-inflicted crime victimization. If parents
would poison their children to prove an illness, they might sexually
abuse their children to prove a crime. "Victims" have been known to
destroy property, manufacture evidence, and mutilate themselves in
order to convince others of their victimization. The motivation is
psychological gain (i.e. attention, forgiveness, etc.) and not
necessarily money, jealousy, or revenge. These are the unpopular,
but documented, realities of the world. Recognizing their existence
does not mean that child sexual abuse and sexual assault are not
real and serious problems.
-- f. ESTABLISH COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS.
The importance and difficulty of this technique in extrafamilial
cases involving young children cannot be overemphasized. An
investigator must maintain ongoing communication with the parents of
victims in these abuse cases. Not all parents react the same way to
the alleged abuse of their children. Some are very supportive and
cooperative. Others overreact and some even deny the victimization.
Sometimes there is animosity and mistrust among parents with
different reactions. Once the parents lose faith in the police or
prosecutor and begin to interrogate their own children and conduct
their own investigation, the case may be lost forever. Parents from
one case communicate the results of their "investigation" with each
other, and some have even contacted the parents in other cases. Such
parental activity is an obvious source of potential contamination.
Parents must be made to understand that their children's credibility
will be jeopardized when and if the information obtained turns out
to be unsubstantiated or false. To minimize this problem, within the
limits of the law and without jeopardizing investigative techniques,
parents must be told on a regular basis how the case is progressing.
Parents can also be assigned constructive things to do (e.g.
lobbying for new legislation, working on awareness and prevention
programs) in order to channel their energy, concern, and "guilt".
-- g. DEVELOP A CONTINGENCY PLAN.
If a department waits until actually confronted with a case before a
response is developed, it may be too late. In cases involving
ongoing abuse of children, departments must respond quickly, and
this requires advanced planning. There are added problems for small-
to medium-sized departments with limited personnel and resources.
Effective investigation of these cases requires planning,
identification of resources, and, in many cases, mutual aid
agreements between agencies. The U.S. Department of Defense has
conducted specialized training and has developed such a plan for
child sex ring cases involving military facilities and personnel.
Once a case is contaminated and out of control, I have little advice
on how to salvage what may once have been a prosecutable criminal
violation. A few of these cases have even been lost on appeal after
a conviction because of contamination problems.
-- h. MULTIDISCIPLINARY TASK FORCES.
Sergeant Beth Dickinson, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department,
was the chairperson of the Multi-Victim, Multi-Suspect Child Sexual
