|
The |
|
|
All names amended to match the
pseudonyms used in A City Possessed Part B Molly Sumach (DoB Sept 84) Age at
interview 7 yrs 8 mo
1.1 Interviewer: a) Potentially suggestible questions,
includes social influence b) Introduces topics indirectly in ways
that could be suggestive c) Uses prop (body diagram) in way that
could prove suggestive d) Briefed by mother e) One interview 1.2 Possible sources of external
contamination: a) Maternal questioning b) Punishment may possibly have motivated
initial allegation 1.3 Child's demeanour: a) Presents as histrionic, intelligent,
verbally skilled, good comprehension. b) Little evidence of emotion or distress in
describing alleged abuse, laughs occasionally in amused way. c) Uses dramatic voice and eye-movements
often to emphasise points.
2.1 Origin of allegations 2.1.1
It appears that the allegations were
first made in the context of Molly being punished for not wanting to stay at
a fireworks display (Transcript p9). The date and location of the display are
not evident from the interview, but it is possibly Guy Fawkes 1991 and may
have been at the Civic Creche. Molly stated that when her parents asked her
why she hadn't wanted to stay, that ". Teter was mean to me there."
(p9). 2.1.2
Much of the early description
(pp9-15) of 'mean' events at creche relate to alleged forceful interactions
with children and rhyming name-calling. In respect of these Molly stated
(p14), "Ah no no no, He, I did like him, but one day we were just found,
I found out he was a mean bugger." 2.1.3.
Molly describes Peter Ellis' visit to
her home on her mother's birthday. She alleged Peter Ellis commented on the
absence of knickers on a doll (pp16 & 18), describing this with much
dramatic emphasis of face and voice. Molly, in response to a prompt from the
interviewer using social influence ("Yeah and then you told mum
something about ah something else that
happened at the party too when you and Peter were somewhere else in the
house." p18) says he "frightened" her with his imitation of a
crocodile's jaws, having read her 'Peter Pan'. (pp19-20). A further
suggestive prompt, again using social influence ("Right, its just that
you said something to mum about urn something about ah having your hair
done?" p20). This elicited the report about an exaggeratedly noisy,
possibly intended-in-fun, kiss by Peter Ellis on Molly's cheek after he had
done her hair. Further prompting questions including elements of social
influence (p21) failed to produce additional allegations. 2.1.4
Molly alleged (pp27-28) that Peter
Ellis had knocked her off the jungle gym and that her friends had jumped on
his back The interviewer challenged the accuracy of Molly's report. Molly insisted
that she was "..not making anything up." (p28). 2.2 Allegations re indecent touching 2.2.1
The interviewer lead Molly into the
topic of tickling by asking a direct question and using social influence,
"Right, OK, one of the other things that
you talked to mum about was
that you said urn you said that you didn't like him and urn something about
something about tickling. You remember telling mum something about
tickling."(p29) Molly responded (p30) "Yeah." and,
subsequently, "He tickled me and Kilt"; "Lots and lots of
times." ; "We couldn't stop giggling half the time.". Body
parts tickled included "Under the arms." (p30) and "...on the
heels" (p31). 2.2.2
This is followed up with a question
probing "tickling and stuff" on other parts of the body (p31).
Molly responded "Well, he'd poke you in the crotch." ; "And I
would say 'Please don't do that Peter, I don't I don't like it very
much.", "So Peter stopped doing that.". Molly indicated her
groin, and when asked what she called that area, said, "Urn
vagina." (p32). She demonstrated the alleged action with hand partially
closed and cupped (Note: From the demonstration, this action would be
difficult to perform unless standing behind the child. No indication of the
location of the adult is sought or given.). Molly alleged that this happened
also to two other children (Kiri and Henry) inside the creche "When the
other teachers were at the other end looking after the deaf children."
(Note: The deaf children are likely to be attending 2.2.3
The topic was addressed further later
in the interview (pp46, 48-49) when after recapping on the statement details
(p46). After checking that the alleged touching was on top of the clothes
(affirmed), she explored how it felt, suggesting options (hurt, tickly, sort
of nothing), Molly chose "It hurt." (p46) and added "A weeny
bit.", going on to allege "When I got home I had a little cut on my
vagina." (p46), to which the interviewer commented "Oh really. So
it must have been quite hard!". Molly comments "His nail was
long." (Note: The likelihood of this occurring through layers of
clothing has to be open to question). Comment: The
interviewerleads the child into the topic using social influence and
suggestive questioning relating to tickling. The notion of 'tickling and
other stuff on parts of the body not yet described by Molly produces an
allegation of 'poking in the crotch' and the action demonstrated by the child
is one more suitable either to self-touching or to an approach from behind
the child. No detail on the circumstances or context is sought by the
interviewer. The child appears to provide conflicting statements concerning
the stopping or continuation of the alleged action, which she says occurred
six....teen times. Somehow, deaf children from Molly's primary school appear
get interpolated into the narrative. A multiple choice question about feeling
produces the selection of the option "hurt", but immediately
moderated to "A weeny bit." The likelihood of the cut occurring
through clothing might well be small. These behaviours allegedly occurred in
the open creche area, which made detection more probable and complaint more
likely (there is no indication of threats), as other workers would likely be
in the vicinity. The interviewer puts little effort into obtaining context
and related detail which might have clarified the circumstances of the
alleged behaviour. 2.3 Allegation
of indecent exposure 2.3.1
The interviewer subsequently
(pp35-37) produces a body parts diagram and goes through the various female
and male characteristics, getting Molly to identify them and note gender
differences. Included were vagina, tummy button, breasts (p35), chest (male),
bottom (poohs), vagina (wees) (p36), tummy buttons, and penis (p37). 2.3.2
The interviewer introduced the
notion of seeing penises (p37) and asks whose penises Molly has seen
("My dad's.") ("Yeah, yeah, anyone else's) which resulted in
Molly saying, "Urn, yeah, Peter's, because I saw him pull down his
pants."(p38). 2.3.3
Molly indicated that this happened
"in front of the toilet "and added "We saw him pulling out his
penis from his pants."- which suggests he had not pulled down his pants,
as first alleged. She went on (pp38-39) to suggest that this was observed by
her and two male peers (Henry and Hugh) without Peter Ellis' knowledge
("Because we were peeping." p39). This latter statement was
accompanied by laughter, as is a subsequent statement about a boy urinating
in front of girls at school (p40). Comment: Given the
nature of the alleged events and the child's reaction (i.e., laughter), it
appears unlikely that this allegation, if true, represents either an
intentional 'indecent exposure' or a traumatic event for Molly. This latter
point is supported by her subsequent (p41) response to the following
question, "If, if urn somebody, you know, if somebody wanted to show you
their penis or, or something like that..?" to which Molly responds
"I would be glad to see it (Gleeful laughter).". The topic is
introduced via suggestive use of the body-parts diagram and direct and suggestive
questions. The child acknowledged that Peter Ellis was unaware of their
presence. Given the usual design of toilets, it is difficult, without
detailed diagrams, to envisage how three children could position themselves
to observe the alleged event. Typically, one would expect the toilet bowl to
be against the back wall of a narrow room, making the alleged observation of
"him pulling out his penis from his pants." very difficult from the
open doorway. 2.4 The
allegation of 'Peeping" 2.4.1
The interviewer introduces (p40) the
topic of seeing others' vaginas, "And what about vaginas, have you seen
many vaginas?". Molly indicates she has seen her own, her mother's and
her grandmother's. The interviewer appears to give permission or approval for
this activity (p41), "Right. Well it's, it's urn, it's interesting to
see other people's isn't it, don't you think?". Molly agrees at first,
but indicates that it is private. (Note: The introduction of this topic
appears intentional, leading up to the notion that others may have seen
Molly's vulva). 2.4.2
Subsequently, Molly is asked (p41)
who has seen her vagina. She identifies herself (p41), her parents (p42), a
male creche worker called Danny (pp42-43) assisting her on the toilet and
alleges Peter Ellis "peeked" (pp43-44). Comment: Whether, if this event actually occurred, Peter
Ellis a) peeked at Molly's vagina as she claimed, or b) would have seen
anything if he had, is open to question. Molly made it clear in her
description of toletting (pp33-34), that adult assistance was limited to
holding children on the toilet and assisting them off. She insisted that
wiping was done by the children themselves. No questions were asked about
help in rearranging clothing, which presumably would have provided the only
opportunity for any 'peeking' of the sort alleged. Molly gives no indication
of distress or emotion, nor any indication of difficulty in making her
allegation. She does use dramatic voice and actions. 3.0 Conclusions: The interviewer
in this case has been briefed by the child's mother and attempts to elicit
the information already shared by the child with parent. It is not possible
to ascertain the process of information-gathering used by the mother or to
estimate the extent to which this may have contaminated evidence. The child
appears first to have made the allegation after being punished for not
wanting to go to a fireworks display. One possibility is that the initial
allegation may have functioned to redirect or cancel parental displeasure,
and thus terminate a punishing situation. The interview is punctuated by
suggestive s questions which, along with social influence (e.g., "You
told your mum..") is used to initiate reports on a variety of topics. In
addition, topics that lead to particular types of disclosure are
strategically introduced by the interviewer, often initially indirectly. The
child appears to provide the required responses to such questioning
techniques in most instances, although at the end of the interview (pp47-48),
more is sought, without success, through an invitation to think over whether
everything has been told. The
emotion displayed by the child is primarily positive throughout, with
occasional breaking into amused laughter when talking about sexual topics.
There are no overt indices of distress or trauma in the opinion of this
writer, even when disclosing what was allegedly the most serious event, the
"poking" of her crotch. There is drama in the voice and in the
actions occasionally, but very much of what the writer perceived as an acted
quality. The interviewer failed to explore this allegation adequately enough
for a clear sense of the context and circumstances of the event to be
obtained. The child's demonstration of the alleged action leaves questions as
to the likelihood of an adult choosing this way to touch a child, but this
may be because she is demonstrating on herself. There are important details
missing from the investigation of the other allegations (indecent exposure,
'peeking').
|
