Case 15a: Assessing Allegation Validity of Sexual Abuse
I was contacted by an attorney to ascertain the reliability of the videotaped examina- tion of a minor, Cynthia, conducted by Detective Lynn Huron, from the prosecutor’s office, concerning the allegation of sexual abuse by her father, on June 1, 1999.
The attorney, representing Dad (defendant), asked me to watch and consider the videotaped interview of this minor, and also the pertinent records and documents concerning the allegation of sexual abuse of this 5-year-old by her father, and pro- vide my opinion. I agreed to the procedure.
Materials reviewed included (1) St. Paul’s Hospital for Children medical records, June 2, 1999; (2) sexual abuse records (SAR), clinical chart, July 23, 1999–December 8, 2000; (3) court transcripts concerning child custody matters, as well as marital council report; (4) videotaped (and written) interview of Cynthia by Detective Lynn Huron, June 5, 1999; (5) sexual assault/under 6; report of Detective Huron, June 4, 1999; and (6) Police Department, investigation report, June 18, 1999.
The report on suspected child abuse states that Cynthia commented, “My coochie is infected because my dad put chocolate stuff on me… he hit my coochie with a little bat… he stuck his finger in my mouth and then in my coochie… I said, ‘Stop it’… he didn’t have any pants on.” Cynthia also said that it happened on several other occasions. Mom added that Cynthia told her that “cream came out of the hole in his privates.”
Cynthia was wearing the same underwear she wore in Dad’s house. She was reportedly quite active and playful in the emergency department, even laughing and joking with the medical and nursing staff. Cynthia’s genital exam did not reveal any abnormality, trauma, or forced entry. Mom said that her daughter told her that her dad placed his finger in her vagina.
The “diagnosis” arrived at was “Child Sexual Abuse.”
Mom said that she and her fiancée picked Cynthia up from Dad’s house at 3:45 PM. Later that night, she disclosed to Mom about the sexual abuse by Dad. Mom
176
said Cynthia mentioned, “Daddy put his finger in my mouth…then in my coochie.
This was the fourth time.”
According to Mom’s report, Cynthia also said to her, “Daddy has a hole in his coochie and white creamy stuff came out.” Cynthia added that it happened every day when she wakes up.
Material obtained from the SAR clinical chart, August 26, 2002–March 25, 2003, noted that Mom told the counseling social worker that her daughter said,
“Daddy licked off” her genitalia a chocolate liquid he had applied on it. Mom added that her daughter told her that her father’s penis was erect. Mom also said that Cynthia disclosed to her the sexual abuse when they were in the car on the way to the lake they would frequent and that her fiancée immediately turned the car around and drove them home. Mom said that Cynthia did not know that what happened to her was wrong.
Cynthia “was very cheerful today.” Her mental status exam was unremarkable.
The clinical diagnosis that SAR arrived at was “Sexual Abuse of Child (by biologi- cal father).” Despite not finding any abnormal psychiatric component, Cynthia was
“diagnosed” by the counseling social worker as suffering from PTSD. Cynthia was trusting and accepted directions from adults, was friendly and outgoing, and had good self-esteem. The girl showed “no sign of aggression and no difficulty separat- ing from her mom.”
During her counseling visits, Cynthia spent an hour with the counseling social worker. Her “affect was appropriate and her mood was happy.” Contrary to Mom’s reports, “her play is not aggressive.” She wanted her mom to wait outside. Cynthia reported her mom would pull her hair if she was bad.
Notes from January 7, 2004 stated that she did not return to “counseling” until December 2, 2000, which was her last visit. Cynthia had no symptoms or signs of psychological turmoil. She was very productive and creative during her last visit and feeling very proud of it. The counseling was terminated.
Mom reported Cynthia as clingy, hanging on mom’s legs, and crying. Yet, the opposite was revealed during counseling. Mom reported both that Cynthia would describe monsters and that she has never shown fear of monsters before. Mom also stated that her daughter did not show signs of distress when exposed to situations, places, objects, or people that reminded her of the abuse.
Records of the court hearings and decision concerning child custody matters, as well as Marital Council Report Information Sheet, indicate the presence of a spite- ful relationship between Cynthia’s parents.
The videotaped interview of Cynthia and the text of such by Detective Lynn Huron, from the prosecutor’s office, represented Ms. Huron as conducting the meeting as if in a hurry, having the quality of an interrogation rather than an interview. The rapport building stage consisted on the examiner praising Cynthia for her physical appear- ance. Detective Huron took for granted that this 5-year-old girl was able to read.
Cynthia introduced a curious thought: “I live with a man from next door some- times,” which called the attention of the examiner but did not pursue it. Detective Huron was not interested in learning about who their neighbor was, when learning that he lived in her home.
15 Allegation Assessment
177
Far from feeling any negative emotion toward her dad, Cynthia wanted to be next to him. Cynthia showed no sign of sexual overstimulation. Detective Huron did not ascertain whether this 5-year-old girl appreciated the difference between true and false. And only 2 min into the examination, and in a spontaneous fashion, Cynthia told the investigator, “I’m going to tell you right now what happened.”
Cynthia then said, “My dad put chocolate stuff on my cooch.” She responded to her being asked to elaborate, by saying, “He hit me with the tiny bat next.” She added that their clothes were off. Detective Huron did not ask how it happened that she was naked. She did not ask, at any time, for Cynthia’s feelings, while the sequence Cynthia reported was unfolding. Next, the girl told that her dad licked his hand and inserted in her “cooch.” This last event happened more than once, but Detective Huron did not inquire as to the rate or the frequency. Cynthia went on to say it happened in her dad’s bedroom and on his bed.
Detective Huron then asked the child if she saw any part of Dad’s body that she was not supposed to. To which she replied, “his cooch.” When asked to say more, Cynthia stated, “Chocolate stuff spitted up his cooch.”
All this exchange took place, spontaneously within the first few minutes they were together.
Detective Huron went back to the “drawing board” and asked Cynthia to recog- nize the girl and boy figures. She correctly named the girl’s body parts. Before going over the boy’s, she, of her own accord, sheepishly added, “I’m naked” and
“sometimes yes and sometimes no.” Detective Huron did not follow these signifi- cant leads but asked Cynthia to follow her agenda, instead.
While going over the boy’s body parts, the examiner mistakenly repeated what the girl said, “eyes” as “your eyes,” and from then on Cynthia followed Detective Huron’s suggestive leads and referred to the rest of the male body parts as, “my nose, my mouth, my boobie, my belly button, my coochie.” When the detective reversed the trend she established, the girl followed her influence again.
Cynthia said that Dad poured the “chocolate stuff” on her “cooch” and that she rubbed it in. She also stated, “Dad put his hand on my stomach, and not in my cooch.” She then added that Dad also drew on her body. She could not describe her father’s penis as erect, as she had reportedly told her mother.
The detective asked Cynthia if Dad ever showed her movies that he wasn’t sup- posed to. Cynthia answered, “Yeah.” She was asked to describe them, and the child talked about “lots of animals that were playing, fighting, and talking too much.”
Reportedly, this examination took place 4 days after the girl first disclosed to anyone about something bad that had happened to her and that person was her mother. Cynthia had already forgotten who she told first about these events.
As the interview was coming to an end, Cynthia denied that her dad told her to touch his body and also denied that she actually touched his body.
Based on my examination of the material, including the videotaped (~25-min- long) examination of Cynthia, it is my opinion, within a reasonable degree of medi- cal probability, that the examination performed by Detective Lynn Huron is not reliable as a source of valid and incriminating information concerning the allegation of child sexual abuse of Cynthia, by her father.
Case 15a: Assessing Allegation Validity of Sexual Abuse
178
Based on the report of Mom and daughter, and despite lack of evidentiary confir- mation, the hospital changed the initial diagnosis of “r/o (rule out) Child Sexual Abuse” to “Child Sexual Abuse.” This took place before the videotaped interview.
One indicator of unreliable interview is presenting leading questions, which pro- mote, at least, inaccuracy in the young examinee’s answer. There was little if any rapport built between Cynthia and Detective Huron. For example, during the ana- tomical identification section of the interview, Cynthia followed the detective’s lead, when concretely (as children this age are) identified the body parts, including the penis, as her own.
The investigator did not remain objective, skeptical, or open to all information and alternative explanations. She did not pursue crucial details provided by Cynthia, such as the inconsistencies, like “Dad licking off the chocolate stuff…Dad drawing on my body…inserting his finger in my or his mouth…rubbing my cooch…,” and her recall having been so phenomenal for details of the abuse and at the same time not recalling that just some days earlier, she first disclosed to her mom, either at Mom’s house or the lake house.
Detective Benet chose not to follow Cynthia’s leads with inquisitive remarks, for instance, “How did she end up naked? Where does she sleep? How did she end up on Dad’s bed? How did she feel during, after, and when she reportedly narrated the abuse?”
During the entire videotaped interview, Cynthia stayed on facts that could have been learned from other sources. Indeed, she was equivocal on many aspects and extraordinarily clear on others, not expected of a child her age. Detective Huron discouraged emotional expressions that could have proven valuable by adding cred- ibility to her reporting.
Within the first few minutes of the meeting and following Detective Huron’s prompt, Cynthia announced, as if ready to take the exam, that she was about to tell everything the interviewer wanted to know. Cynthia then embarked in sequencing details of abuse, requiring inordinate attention, focus (sequencing), capacity to abstract (reference to having an infection, to dad’s penis resembling a pencil), and recall, not seen in an otherwise naïve, 5-year-old girl. Detective Huron did not use the opportunity to ask about the discrepancy in the narrative. Children this age do not have the capacity to reflect on past experiences, such as, “it happened four times in the past.”
Traumatic memories are not verbal but harbored in emotional turmoil and behav- ioral manifestations. None of this was evident in Cynthia, as it should have been expected of a sexual abuse that has just occurred. There was no symptom or sign of psychological trauma or even discomfort in this little girl that, according to the mother, knew that something bad had happened to her and even tried to stop her dad from perpetrating sexual abuse. There was no sign of conflict, emotional or physical pain, bitterness, or shame, otherwise typical and expected in these reported circumstances.
The only time during the interview in which Cynthia showed uneasiness was when uttering, “I’m naked,” projecting herself onto the female doll. Detective Huron ignored this significant statement, which Cynthia repeated twice.
15 Allegation Assessment
179
This child did not appear to be under any psychological pressure from the descriptions she offered. Cynthia appeared with remarkable recall for details and of the chronological sequence of their evolving, much more developmentally mature than would feasibly be expected at her age and in her situation. Cynthia appeared not to be numbed by the experience she reported or sexually overstimulated by it;
again these would be common expressions for many children of her age and who suffered the events she described.
Detective Huron demonstrated bias when announcing some “bad situation…that was not supposed to happen.” She took that Cynthia understood and appreciated the moral meaning of that phrase, despite Cynthia showing a total lack of appreciation, when she described watching a movie with animals depicting their ruckus playing and fighting (perhaps understood by her as bad behavior) as what was “not sup- posed to happen.” It would have been more conducive to ask Cynthia, “What kind of movies do you and Dad watch together?” The same applies to questions concern- ing how the “chocolate stuff” got on Cynthia, rather than improperly asking what part of Dad’s body he used to apply the substance.
Detective Huron did not ask Cynthia about attitudes and practices in her Mom’s house, between Mom and her live-in boyfriend/neighbor, regarding privacy, nudity, and sexuality. Detective Huron came to the interview with this girl, with the knowl- edge that she had been medically diagnosed as having been sexually abused by her dad, without new clinical data to change the presumptive diagnosis of “Rule Out Child Sexual Abuse” to the definitive diagnosis of “Child Sexual Abuse.”
A faulty evaluation may lead to the misdiagnosis of sexual abuse.
Case 15a: Assessing Allegation Validity of Sexual Abuse
181
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
A. M. Goldwaser, E. L. Goldwaser, The Forensic Examination, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00163-6_16