|
The |
|
|
All names amended to match the
pseudonyms used in A City Possessed Part C Eli Laurel (DoB ) Age at interview
2.1.2 ......................down when he did
wees in the..?"; "So were they [Peter's hands) on his sides or were
they somewhere else?"; "Yeah, was it [Peter's penis] hanging down
or was it a standing up penis?". In essence the response to these and
other more open questions produced reports that allege Peter Ellis was
standing up, the child was sitting on the toilet, that Peter had his pants
and underpants pulled down and had his hands by his sides. Eli alleges that
Peter's penis is "standing up" in response to the suggestive
question about this (Note:
Demonstration of this is out of camera view as Eli has his back to the
camera), he adds "Just going across. (p26)" to the description, but
the meaning of the statement is not explored by the interviewer. (Note: The issue of how a child could
make this observation and have a clear view of the activities in the toilet
is not explored. The design and layout of the toilets is not disclosed, so
the likelihood of clear observation of all events is not questioned, nor the
likelihood of being seen observing either by the alleged perpetrator or the
other creche staff. Further, the question of the alleged perpetrator actually
pulling his pants and underwear down to perform this raises the issue of ease
of being caught, literally with his pants down, and thus increasing the
chances of being discovered in the act, needs to be considered.). 2.1.3 In response to a series of mainly
suggestive multiple choice questions (p27), Eli indicated that Peter did not
say anything to the children involved, that the urine went only in their
mouths, that it happened to more than one child, he estimated five or six and
stated that he had seen Peter Ellis doing that "quite a lot of
times"(p27). 2.1.4 In an effort to identify children
involved, the interviewer prompts Eli to provide information (27-28). A
multiple choice question, "Which kid did it happen to the most? Did it
happen to a girl the most or a boy the most?", gets the response
"Ah, a girl."(p27), but Eli cannot produce a name. Further
suggestive multiple-choice questions are used in an attempt to check whether
boys or Nicholas are involved (p28). Eli responds that boys are involved, but
still cannot identify them. 2.1.5
The interviewer then uses
multiple-choice questions to probe whether or not Eli is reluctant to
disclose names because of some threat or because he had forgotten. He
indicates the latter and is put under some pressure, using social influence,
to tell more, "Because I heard that um that it did happen to someone
that you know." (p28). Eli responded, "Who? Um, Don't know." 2.1.6
Further focus on 'mean things' that
Peter allegedly did are traversed by the interviewer (p29) during which Eli
indicated that he either did not know about or did not see any other 'mean'
things. As a result, a specific suggestive multiple choice question is put to
Eli, "So Eli, um, did Peter, ah, did Peter do anything bad to you or
not?". Eli's response is, "No.". This negative response
leads to the interviewer using social influence, apparently in order to get
Eli to make an allegation, "Because I heard that he did some bad
things to you." (p29). Eli does not answer immediately, but then
appears to seek further elaboration, "Like?" (p30), to which the
interviewer responded suggestively, "Like,um, Well, what were the bad
things he did to you that you
don't like?" Eli still is uncertain, "I don't know." As a consequence a
specific, direct prompt is used, "Yeah it is. When um you know when
Peter did things in the kids mouths?"; " Was there ever a time when
there was just you and him there?"(p30). Eli answered,
"No.", adding "Some other kids." 2.2 Allegation
that Peter Ellis put his penis in Eli's mouth. 2.2.1
After a return to the issue of
whether Eli feels under some threat about disclosing additional information
that the interviewer appears to know about from his parents (pp30-32), Eli is
again asked to tell what he had told his parents, "So when you told mum
though, when you told mum and dad, what did you say? What did you say to mum
and dad?"(p32). Eli reiterated the events described thus far and said,
"Um, that's all.". The interviewer again applied social influence,
"So I heard, I heard that Peter
had done something mean to you as well."; "Tell me what that
was.". Eli responded, "He done wees.". This response was then
personalised and elaborated in a suggestive question, "wees, yeah, Where
did it go on you? (Note: At no
stage thus far has Eli volunteered that he personally was involved, or that
Peter Ellis had done this to him, indeed he had denied any other things than
already previously described had happened.). Eli changed his evidence at this
point and said, "In my mouth. " Comment: The making of the allegation came after
considerable use of suggestive, direct, and multiple-choice questions,
including the use of social influence and was only made after specific
personalised reference ("Where did it go on you") was made by the
interviewer. In the writer's opinion, this allegation was the product of a
sustained process of suggestive questioning and would be difficult to
describe as having been volunteered. 2.2.2
Questioning
now began to focus on the detail 'of the allegation (pp32-40) In response to
these questions, Eli indicated other children were present (p32), but that he
cannot name them (p33), that it tasted 'yucky', and that iL happened in the
toilets. He used a doll to demonstrate himself seated on the toilet, and in
response to a multiple-choice question concerning his pants, "Were they
up or down?" (p34), indicated they were down (Note: The transcript (p34) records up, but careful listening
indicated the word down). Comment: The
interviewer has elicited a description of a situation in which the child is
seated on the toilet; with Ellis allegedly standing in front of him, with his
pants around his ankles and his hands at his side (He was thus in a
particularly vulnerable position). The interviewer may have misconstrued the
child's answers to critical questions, the child has a tendency to be
distractible and inattentive, and this was a situation in which non-suggestive
questioning was imperative. The interviewer has
effectively suggested that the penis went in Eli's mouth. She does not
attempt to put this event in any context by establishing whether the toilets
had doors and, if so, whether the door was open or shut, what the height of
the toilet bowl was (creches often have much lower bowls for children). No
attempt was made to establish how the penis got in his mouth, given
the description of Ellis' hands being at his side, or whether the child had
to struggle, was forced or threatened if he did not comply, or whether he
cried or emoted in any way that one might reasonably expect a child to do
under the circumstances. It is not clear whether he was made to swallow the
urine, or whether he felt unwell as a result of having to do so. The child
describes this alleged distressing event without any evident emotion or
distress, there is no notable change in voice or demeanour. 2.2.3
Eli says after this event he went
and told a teacher (p37), whom he names as "Debbie" (p37), who, he
says, told the policeman, naming Colin [Eade]. He indicated that it
did not happen again. (Note: Presumably the validity of these claims can be
checked independently.). 2.2.4
Revisiting the allegation (pp38-40),
the interviewer asks a series of leading multiple choice questions in an
attempt to get detail, "Did it [the penis] feel hard or soft? (p38);
response, "Hard, soft." "And did, when it was in your mouth
did it do anything, did it stay still or did it move?", response,
"Stay still.", "Was it ordinary wees that goes into the toilet
or was it different to that, was it something else?", response, "Um
like ordinary wees." "Right, have you tasted ordinary wees before
or not?", response, "No.", "Was it the same colour as
wees or was it a different colour?", response, "Yellow."
(p38). (Note: Logically. if Ellis' penis was put into Eli's mouth
prior to urination, Eli could not have seen it, and would not know the
colour. All children of his age are likely to be able to state, from their own
experience that urine is yellow). 2.2.5
The fact that Eli does not
necessarily comprehend questions and that he may be suggestible and
distractible is illustrated by an exchange between the interviewer and he
(Transcript p40). I. Ok. So where were all the places the
mean things with the penis happened? A. Um. In the park and in creche I. So the mean things with the penis did
happen in the park, is that right? A. Yes I. What happened, who did it happen to in
the park? A. Um, I don't know.....the naughty Peter,
the good one Peter, good one Peter. Comment: Eli clearly includes the park as a place where
something happened [he had alluded to dunking in the ponds there earlier]. He
also responds in the affirmative to the follow-up closed question concerning
the penis in the park, but then does not produce any clear allegation,
despite further prompting (p41). He may not have heard the specific reference
to the penis in the opening question, or even in the second, so it is difficult
to know just what his answers mean in the context of the interview. A similar
situation could have obtained in respect of his allegation that the penis
went into his mouth (see 2.2.1 above).
In the writer's opinion, this interview is,
in many of the critical areas, flawed by the use of leading suggestive,
and/or multiple choice questions, with occasional resort to use of social
influence to obtain from the child allegations that he may have made to his
parents, possibly under less than ideal interviewing conditions. The child is
unable to provide much in the way of volunteered information, and so the
interviewer resorted to the above dubious techniques (particularly in the
interviewing of young children) to obtain the sought-after information. It is
not at all clear that Eli always understood the questions put, or was
attentive during questioning. His behaviour evidences restlessness and
distractibility, often focusing most on playing with the array of toy items
provided. At some critical points of demonstration with the toys, his back is
to the camera, blocking a clear view of his actions. The
analysis of questioning reveals that he was virtually pressured into alleging
that he was a victim, and at important points in his framing of his
allegation, the interviewer uses suggestive questions. This has to raise
questions over the extent to which the content of the allegations represent
Eli's actual experiences. The
interviewer fails to establish adequate context in terms of environment, events,
and experiences in respect of the allegations, leaving large gaps in the
record in respect of critical information that might assist a trier of fact.
4.1 Revisiting of allegations of urinating
on children. 4.1.1
The interviewer led into the topic
as follows when Eli appeared not to recall the previous allegation,
"Right. I think um perhaps I could help you. Ah, cos I remember some
things and we talked about mean things to do with penises."(Transcript
p4) ; "So what was that about?". The prompt assists Eli to recall,
"Um, doing wees in people's faces.". An effort is then made to get
Eli to identify children involved (Note: He gave no specific information in
the first interview, 92/163). Eli says he can't remember. He is asked,
"Were they your friends or not?". He replied, "Ah, no. They're
other kids at the creche."; he adds, "Little ones and big
ones."(p5). 4.1.2.
In response to further questions
(pp5-6), Eli stated that the alleged events occurred in the toilets, the
children were sitting down in the toilet because they were doing wees, and
that their pants were down because of this. He stated that he observed from
the toilet doorway, looking through the doorway. (Note: A plan of the toilet
area would help to establish just what a child might see in the described
circumstances. For example, were there separate cubicles, doors on each,
etc.?). 4.1.3
A further attempt is made by the
interviewer (p6) to get Eli to name children involved. When open questions
fail, she resorts to more direct and suggestive questioning, as follows,
"Mmm. Um, so shall I, I think last time you did tell me some names of some friends at creche,
some people at creche."(p6); "You told me about Joe."(p7);
"Yeah, did it happen to
Joe?". Eli responds to this suggestion, "Um, yes, yes." He is
asked how he knew that and responds "Because I saw it."; "Him
do wees in Joe's face.". The interviewer asked. "Did you?",
Eli responded "Yep.". The interviewer asks, "And what did Joe
do?", Eli replied "Um, I don't know." (Note: Earlier (p5), Eli
had said "No." when asked if the children involved were his friends
or not. He had been unable to remember any of the children when asked about
it in interview 92/163 and in the early stages of this interview). Comment: Eli named a specific child only in response to
direct and suggestive questioning. This raises the question of the validity
of the specific allegation and of the child's suggestibility in the face of
direct questions. 4.1.4
Subsequent questioning focuses on
the alleged experiences of Joe pp8-11). In response to these questions Eli
states that Joe was in the toilets, he saw Peter doing wees in her face (p8),
he could not say where Peter's hands were (p9), but the wees came out of his
penis (pp8-9), and Eli stood at the toilet door from which he insisted could
see both Peter's back and front (Dolls and toys are produced for Eli to
illustrate details). (Note: Again, some sort of plan of the toilets would
assist in analysis of this alleged event). Eli alleged that other
children were present (p10). 4.1.5
The interviewer briefly challenged
(p10) the possibility of Eli being able to see what he claimed from a
position at the doorway behind, but Eli is insistent that he saw him. He also
said he told the teacher, but could not remember which one (pp10-11). 4.1.6
Eli is asked (p11) about other
children he has named before as creche children, but insists that he only saw
it happen to Joe. The interviewer asked, "Just one kid?", Eli
responds, "Yeah, um, yeah." (Note: In interview 92/163, pp27-28,
Eli alleged that he had seen it happen "about five or six",
including girls and boys). The interviewer challenges Eli about this
statement, "Because I think before you said there were more, more kids
there.". Eli appears to change his story in response, "Mmm, Yeah,
but I didn't see the other kids." (p11). He is challenged again,
"So how do you know it happened to the other kids?" (p12). In
response, he appears to change his story again, "Um, because I saw them.
I saw them.". "So you did, you did see it happen to the other
kids?"; "Yeah.."; "Um I did.". (Note: Either Eli is
confused about the meaning of some of these questions or he is responding to
the questions and challenges in an inconsistent fashion). Comment: Some of the details in this review of the
allegation made in 92/163 change. The allegation specific to Joe is made
after preceding inability to name names and a denial that any friends were
involved. Joe appears to be implicated only after suggestive questioning by
the interviewer. It is notable that Eli becomes more insistent when
challenged over his ability to see what is happening and more variable when
challenged over detail. One has to consider the extent to which his
allegations would have withstood less suggestive questioning and more
challenging of some of the detail. There is no evidence of
emotion or distress at any time in the process of producing the allegations. 4.2 Revisiting
the allegations of urinating in Eli's mouth. 4.2.1
Eli does not appear to recall the
allegations he made in this respect about three weeks earlier (92/163), even
with some prompting (p12). The interviewer eventually said, "Mmm. Well
last week you told me that Peter did a mean thing to you.", Eli
responded "Yes.". The interviewer continued, "And that um one
of the things that he's done to you is that he um..". Eli interjected,
"Didn't do it to me." The interviewer challenged this, "Right,
because I think you told me, well you did tell me last week it did happen to
you." Eli retorted, "Oh, yeah." but still seemed
uncertain...."What?" At this point the interviewer directly prompts
Eli, "The penis in your face.". (Note: Eli has never actually stated the penis went in his face
(see 2.2.2 above). Under further questioning he agrees that this happened
to him (p12), once(p13) and the interviewer appears to consolidate it
("Mmm,. And when the penis went in your face.";"What did it
do?" p13). Eli repeats the statement that it [the penis] went into his
mouth (p13). He said he went and told the teacher (p13), but did not give a
name as he had first time (see 2.2.3 above). 4.2.2
Questioning now focused on detail of
the alleged event. Eli stated that Peter had urinated in his mouth (p13),
that he had swallowed the urine (p14), which had made him feel "Yucky." 4.2.3
It appears that Eli has at times not
maintained a consistent line on the occurrence of the alleged event, as the
interviewer asked, "Mmm, so sometimes you say that that doesn't, that
didn't happen to you."(p14). Eli affirms this, "Yeah". The
interviewer probes, "Yeah, what makes you say that?" to which Eli
gives an unusual response, "Oh, I don't know. I just sometimes
forget." The interviewer probes
to see if forgetting makes it easier or harder, and gets the unexpected
response "Harder.", Eli cannot explain what makes it hard. The
interviewer proceeds, "Um, so um because I guess another thing I need to
clear up with you is um.';. "That mum thought that you said to her that
it happened lots of times." He replies, "No um yeah but not lots of
times to me." The interviewer explains for him, "Oh, I see. So it
happened to you once but it happened lots of times to kids."
"Yep". (Note: Eli has
not always been consistent in respect of the number of others involved (see
3.1.2 above), but he has insisted that it only happened to him once.). Comment: This series of questions raises the issue of just
how often the allegations have been traversed at home with mother, and what
questioning techniques have been used. It also raises the question of
communication between interviewer and parents, and how parents might use
information obtained from the interviewer and vice versa when questioning the
child. There might also be a question of how trapped Eli might feel in the
event that he had wanted to not maintain his allegations when interviewed.
The use of social pressure by the interviewer and her alerting Eli to the
fact that she knew things from his parents might have made it impossible for
him to retract even if he had wanted to, although he has shown a distinct
inability to voluntarily report many of the alleged events, producing detail
primarily in the face of suggestive questioning. 4.2.4
Further detail about the alleged
event is sought (pp15-18). Allegedly Peter Ellis pulled his pants down. In
response to a suggestive question, "And was his penis floppy and hanging
down or straight and standing.", Eli selected "Um, um stand
up." explaining "He was holding it up."(p15) (Note: This is
not consistent with 92/163, p35, see 2.2.2 above). He then is asked a leading
question, "And what was it, was it, you know how penises go go hard and
straight?", to which he replies "Yes." (Note: A five and a
half year old may not know this, given that his experience of erections may
be uncommon, and that his penis would be unlikely to erect like that of an
adult.). The interviewer follows up with a suggestive question, "Was it
like that or was it all floppy?" Eli responded "No
it was all floppy." The interviewer continued, "When he was holding
it?", Eli's reply was "It went hard and straight." (p15)
(Note: This response by Eli replicates the words used by the interviewer in
her suggestive question about erections). Comment: The questioning here continues the pattern of
suggestive and direct questioning when critical detail is sought. The
expectation that a five and a half year-old child has some knowledge of
erections is questionable. The fact that Eli says yes to the question about
how penises go hard and straight does not mean that he actually knew, given
that young children often are acquiescent (i.e., say yes regardless of
knowledge) when adults ask them if they know things. It is worth noting that
in the preceding interview, Eli had said Ellis had his hands at his side, now
he says he was holding his penis. 4.2.5
Further detail is sought (p16-17) on
the alleged event. Eli describes himself as going to the toilet, with his
pants down. He repeated that he had gone to tell the teacher. He indicated
(p17) that no other kids saw him (Note:
In interview 92/163 (p32), Eli said other children were present). He
reaffirmed that it only happened to him once (Note: This has been maintained consistently throughout by Eli.). 4.3 Revisiting
the allegations involving other children 4.3.1
Eli repeated his allegation about Joe,
and in response to direct questioning about girls being most involved, Eli
states twice "Um, lots of girls."(p16) but gives no detail. In
response to direct questioning Eli responded that Ellis never saw him
observing these events. But stated that Ellis had threatened him (see 92/230,
transcript p4, p20, for examples of the alleged threat) "Ah um that day
he did wees in people's fa ce."(p19) (Note: This statement suggests that Ellis would have had to have
seen him to threaten him. Further, the notion that the events occurred on
only one day conflicts with other statements about many children being
involved.). Eli stated (p21) that each child was threatened only once. Later
(p23) Eli stated that it happened in lots of different toilets, always kids
ones. Asked how many toilets there were (p24) he said "Ah, Don't know
how many there were.". The interviewer suggests numbers, "One, two,
three, four?", and Eli follows the suggestion, "Um, one, two, three
four. Yep, there were four.". (Note: A plan of the toilet layout would
be helpful in checking statements such as this.) Eli again said he had told a
teacher (p21), and that the teacher told the policeman (p22). Comment: The interviewer does not take the opportunity to
explore the context of these statements which contain elements in conflict
with earlier statements and needed to be clarified (e.g, Circumstances of the
alleged threat to him and whether or not the events all were observed in
different toilets on the one day, involving lots of children). Given that the
child is suggestible, it is hard to ascertain whether the inconsistencies in
his evidence are artefacts of poor memory for either what happened or what he
has said in the past happened, suggestive questioning or unreliable
reporting. Further, the more children Ellis allegedly involved in these
activities, the greater the chances of his being caught in the act and/ or of
being reported on by a child who observed or participated.
This
interview, like the first, has involved use of suggestive, prompting
questions and social influence to produce reports from Eli. Much of the
detail of various allegations is obtained using these forms of question.
Also, possibly because of the questioning style, Eli's reports within and
across the interviews have numerous inconsistencies. Most of the similarities
in allegation between this interview and 92/163 are a result of the use of
suggestive questions by the interviewer. Eli does not display any emotional
reactions that suggest that relating the information is distressing or
stressful. His behaviour generally is consistently appropriate and
developmentally normal throughout.
6.1 Allegations
re anal penetration with sticks 6.1.1
Eli introduced the topic as follows,
"And and I've got lots of new things to tell you."(p5), and
proceeds in a confused sentence to allege that Ellis had brought a ladder in,
used the ladder as access between two windows from the creche to the Cranmer
Centre "..and then creeped into a room um to do the mean
things."(p5). Eli proceeds to allege that this included "Um poked
sticks up some of the kids' bottoms."(p5), that he saw this happen and
that it happened to him (p5). Asked to describe what his bottom felt like,
Eli said, "Um scary." (p6). (Note 1: One might have expected him to
use words indicating pain, extreme fear, and possibly to display some emotion
in reporting this event; Note 2: This allegation resembles that made by Bart
Dogwood (92/ 474, pp17-18; 92/ 628, pp9-10). Eli goes on to allege that a
number of men were present, some with spiked hairstyles and some with
tattoos. Some of the men were white and some black (p6). He said (pp6-7) one
of the creche staff (Gail) took a photograph of some of these men when Eli
identified them on another occasion and gave the photograph(s) to the police.
(Note: One presumes Gail and the Police could corroborate this). 6.1.2
Eli names Joe (p7) and 'big' Zelda
(p8) as other children involved. (Note: These children are mentioned in
previous interviews, Joe was named in the urination allegation (92/230))
Asked suggestively "Were there any women there?", Eli said
"Yes.", but cannot name any. He claimed to be able to name four of
the men (p8) and identified them (p9) as "Spike, Boulderhead, Yuckhead,
and [long pause], Stupidhead.". (Note:
These names bear a striking resemblance to those used by Bart Dogwood (92 /
474, p13)). Eli alleged that Peter Ellis hurt his bottom with the stick, the
other adults present did things to the other children. Asked to name those
different things, Eli said, "Um, I didn't see because Peter was too busy
doing it to me."(p9). 6.1.3
Eli said (p9) he was standing. The
interviewer then (p10) asked a series of suggestive questions, "And were
you standing up straight?", Eli affirms "Yes, straight.";
"Mrnm. And he put the stick in your bu..bottom?", "Yep";
"And what did he do when it, the stick.Was it i n your bottom or on your
bottom?", "In ft."; "And it felt scared?", "Yes.".
Eli went on to allege the stick was kept in his bottom for "Most of the
day at creche."(p10), and that he cried and was seen crying by "Um
Peter and lots of other people." Asked what the other creche teachers
did, Eli said, "They, they were hiding so they didn't see us." (Note: A child with a sharp stick
inserted in his anus for most of a creche day surely would be very likely to
be observed by other staff, especially if crying. Further, one would
anticipate some physical damage to the anus or rectum, with likely bleeding
on underclothes that a parent would very likely notice. Was there a medical
examination?) 6.1.4
Eli demonstrated the stick as about
150 cm long. He was asked the following suggestive question (p13),
"Silly Sue. And so Eli did the, what sort of ends did the stick have,
did it have straight ends, pointy ends or what, round
ends?", Eli described it thus, "It had sharp
ends.".."A bit like a prickle.". Asked how they got sharp, he
alleged "Peter did it.", "What with?", "Um, I don't
know because he didn't tell us." (p13). (Note: Logically, Eli could not
have known that Peter had sharpened the stick in this case. This suggests
that Eli is willing to speculate). 6.1.5
Eli proceeds to allege that Ellis
smacked his bottom (p14), put faeces on his head from the stick (Note: Previously the stick had been
up his bottom all day) 6.1.6 A confusing series of statements follows from
Eli about the number of persons who have done this to him. At first it is no
one else (p14), and later, all of the people involved (p14). When challenged
(p14) about this inconsistency, Eli said, "Yep, I forgot."(p15).
The interviewer suggests "Yeah, so how, what all of those four ones
there?", "Yes."; "What about the other men that you don't
know their names of, did they or not?", "Just the one." (Note: The use of suggestive questions
does not allow any probing of Eli's own ideas on who allegedly was involved
or a teasing out of the inconsistent reporting by the interviewer.). 6.1.7
Eli was asked, "Okay, so how
many times has your bottom been hurt with a stick?", he responded
"Ah, lots of times, one time for each person.", "Six
times."(p15), but that the faeces were wiped on him "Um one
time." (p16). Using social influence, the interviewer suggests to Eli
that he had more to tell, "Right, I heard there might have been some
other things that went on your bottom?" (p17). Eli shook his head. 6.1.8
Detail is sought about the use of
the ladder between windows (p17). Eli alleges that he had been up on the
'roofs' [sic] of the Cranmer Centre with 'Peter and the men' (p17). It
transpires that Eli also has been there with the Police and his father
("Um Colin [Eade?], Neville, and Daddy." (p18) and that hey went on
"....a really secret roof and climbed down a chimney." (Note: If this visit did happen prior
to the interview it increased the risk of contamination, since the visit may
have provided Eli with additional ideas with which to possibly embellish any
descriptions he gives of the environment and add apparent credence because of
the ability to incorporate accurate detail.). 6.1.9 Eli described (pp18-19) the complex route
taken to the room, alleging that all of the men and all of the women took him
up there all the time and that he went "Um every day."(p19). The
women were described, following suggestive questioning, as his mother's age
p19). Further suggestive questioning about their clothing (p19) resulted in
the choice of, "Um some wear dresses and some wear trousers."(p20).
Asked the colour of their skin, Eli responded "Lots of colours.", a
suggestive question followed, "Did they have skin like yours or mine,
white skin, brown skin, or black skin, or..", and all options were
chosen, "Um, white skin, brown skin, and black skin." (p20). Eli
alleged, "Um, they did mean things too.", asked "Mmm, right.
Did they do mean things to you or not?", Eli changed his answer in mid
sentence, "No, all, yes.", asked what they did, "The same
thing as Peter did.". Comment: Detail of these women was obtained primarily by
suggestive questioning. No attempt was made by the interviewer to put some of
Eli's claims into context, for example how the children regularly apparently
were secreted out of the creche and returned to it without being noticed. Eli's descriptions beg
the question of how it would be possible for these events to happen 'every day'
or 'all the time' in the context of -the creche day, or that others would not
observe the gathering of people of all colours and men with spiked hair
and/or tattoos in the precinct of the creche or climbing out on ladders to
the Cranmer Centre. One would have
anticipated Eli's reported distress at having a 150 cm sharp stick up his
rectum for much of a creche day to have been noticed and attended to, or to
have created physical harm or stains or behavioural signs evident to his
mother at the time. Eli described the events in a matter-of-fact, untroubled
way, with no indication of distress, despite the fact that, had these events
been experienced, one would anticipate very considerable pain, anguish, and
trauma. None is evident in his demeanour or behaviour. 6.2 Allegation
of digital anal penetration 6.2.1
Earlier (p17) Eli was put under some
pressure to make an allegation that something other than a stick had gone on
his bottom (see 4.1.7 above). He indicated at that time, by shake of head,
that this was not so. The interviewer reintroduced the idea with a suggestive
question (p20), "Right. Did peter touch your bottom with anything
else?", Eli answered, "No.". The interviewer continued (p20),
"He touched you with a stick didn't he? "He touched your bottom
with a stick?", the answer is "Yes." (p21). A. further
suggestive question followed, "Did he touch your bottom with any part of
his body or not?". (Note: Eli has already twice indicated that no other
touching had occurred). Eli now changed his response to, "Yes."
(p21). The interviewer asked, "What did he touch?" (Note: The
question is not 'What did he touch you with?') Eli replied, "His
finger". The interviewer then posed a suggestive question, "His
finger touched your bottom?", "Yep." (p21). Asked what the
finger did to his bottom, Eli replied, "Ah, he just put it in and then
took it out.", adding "And it made my bottom feel scary."
(Note: same adjective used re the insertion of the stick). 6.2.2
A series of suggestive
multiple-choice questions followed to get detail. "Im, and were you
standing up, or sitting down, or bending over?", "Standing
up."; "Im, and has anyone else ever put their finger in your bottom
or not?", "No. "OK, so that's a finger and a stick, did any
other part of Peter's bot...body touch your bottom? His finger touched your
bottom, did any other Part of him touch your bottom?", "Um.
no."; "OK, and your bottom felt scaly, did it feel soft or
tickly?", "It was soft." (p21); "Or hard or sore?"
(p22); "Sore."; "Which one did it feel, soft or tickly, or
hard or sore or funny or..?", "Funny, sore, sore."; "Did
it feel sore or not?", "Sore.". Finally, Eli is asked,
"How long did it feel sore for?", "A long time.". Comment: Almost none of the above is volunteered by Eli.
The questions are posed despite two earlier negative indications, which is
problematic given the known effects of repeated questioning on young
children's responses. In addition, the form of questioning puts Eli in the
role of a person making choices from a fixed range of proffered options
selected by the interviewer rather than as a person giving testimony directly
froni their own experience. This, plus the fact of young children's greater
suggestibility, makes it impossible to ascertain whether real experiences are
being reported or options proffered by an adult are being selected to satisfy
the adult. 6.3 Revisiting
allegations about anal penetration with sticks. 6.3.1
A return (Transcript p25) to this
topic was initiated indirectly through asking Eli to recall the names of
creche teachers. He volunteered the names of three (Marie, Gaye, and Peter)
and was directly prompted with the names of two others, "Do you remember
Mary?", "No."; "Do you remember Debbie?",
"Yes." (p25). The interviewer asked, "And Debbie. So what was
Debbie like?". Eli replied that Debbie had not known about the 'mean'
things (p25). (Note: Eli had said he had told Debbie about the urination in
the faces of the children (see 2.2.3 above), but appeared to forget this in
subsequent interviews). After further questioning (p26) Eli said he felt
angry about Debbie, "Yep, because, um, she saw some mean things happen
except she didn't tell the Police." Eli indicated that she saw "Um
Peter poking sticks up some of the kids bottoms (p26) and that she was the
only creche teacher who saw (p27). (Note:
There are five contradictions here, first the almost immediately
preceding statement (p25) that Debbie had not known about the
"mean" things; second, the earlier statement in interview 92/163
(p37) that he had told Debbie at least about the urination; third, his
assertion at that time (92/163, p37) that she had told the Policeman Colin
[Eade?]; fourth, Eli had earlier said the creche teachers were all hiding and
did not see (92/629 pp10-11); and, fifth, he said (92/629, p11) that he could
not remember any of the women involved and had not seen any of them before.). 6.3.2
Debbie's alleged involvement was
explored with suggestive questioning "When when the
mean things happened to kids, was she just looking at the mean things or was
she doing mean things?", "Oh, she was just looking"; "And
what stopped her from helping the kids?", "I don't know.";
"But you saw her there when that was happening?", "Yes.".
Eli was then asked, "Who did she see it happen to?", Eli replied,
"Um. Me, me, my mum and dad. My mum and dad.". Challenged by the
interviewer to tell the truth, Eli amends this to "[long pause] Um um
um, A leading question is
asked, "When Debbie saw you were in the creche or in the other
room?", "I was in the Cranmer Centre." 6.3.3
Eli alleged that Debbie went to the
Cranmer Centre with Peter, who got there with keys (p28). Suggestive
questions were then asked about the relationship of keys and ladder. 6.3.4
Eli is asked the colour of the
clothes of the adults (p29-30), he responded, "Um yellow".
"Were they all yellow or just some of them yellow?", "Um. All
yellow."; "They all had yellow clothes on?", "Yes.";
Where did they get the clothes from?", "Um supermarket, they
brought them." The interviewer challenges, "You just tell me things
you remember, OK! Was that something you remember or was that something you
just thought happened?" "Um. I remember." Comment: This exchange raises the issue of the validity of
Eli's allegations, since it is reasonable to presume that, even if all of
these adults were dressed in yellow (which itself might reasonably be
questioned, given that such a colour would certainly attract attention and
make detection easy), Eli could only speculate on the source of the garments.
That he is willing to speculate when challenged and to assert that he is
remembering facts under such circumstances must bring his other evidence into
some question. 6.4 Further
allegations of urination and defecation. 6.4.1
After being asked suggestive
questions (p32) about Ellis' clothing "So you know how you said that
Peter's clothes were on?"; "Did they always stay on or did they
sometimes do something else?", "Stay off, they sometimes stayed
off."; Sometimes they came off?", "Yes.", Eli made
a new allegation. "And what did he do then when his clothes were
off?", "Um. He did wees and poos in people's mouths."(p32).
Debbie allegedly observed this (p33). Comment: No detail or context is obtained in respect of
this allegation. Eli appears distracted and off task, focused on play doh. It
could simply represent a reformulation of his earlier allegations of this sort
and transposing them into the different setting. 6.5 Allegations
of children hitting each other. 6.5.1
Suggestive questioning (p34)
generates allegations that children had to do 'mean things' to each other,
having been told to by "Peter and all the men."(p35). The activity
involved... "Um they had to lift their pants down and um hit their
bottoms." ..."They hit each others bottoms."(p35)..."With
spades."(p36) ...""Peter gave them.". This allegedly
happened "Lots of times.", with men and "Lots of women"
present. Comment: This allegation is made while Eli is distracted
with the toys and play doh. No context was given, and suggestive questioning
introduced the topic. Eli's behaviour is not on-task, and he evidences no
emotional behaviour, although he does engage in rough play with the doll,
which may or may not be relevant, but could well reflect tedium as the
interview has been going on for some time, or the fact that he is being asked
about hitting at the time.
The
allegations made by Eli in this final interview (92/629 28.10.92) are
materially different from those made in his interviews of 5 months earlier,
in that they introduce an extensive range of characters, both male and
female, and allege events in other parts of the building which involve anal
penetration by sticks. This new allegation bears some similarities with
allegations made earlier by Bart Dogwood (92/474, 05.08.92) in terms of the
names and the allegation of use of sharp sticks in anal penetration, and is
similar in location to concurrent allegations by Bart Dogwood (92/628,
28.10.92) regarding place (somewhere in the creche building complex). Eli
mentions that a Bart attended his recent birthday party, could that be Bart
Dogwood? Or is it possible that Eli and Bart have met in some other context? Other
possible sources of contamination include parental questioning recent visits
to the creche and Cranmer Centre, possible contact with other complainant
children. It is
of note that the majority of the allegations and the bulk of the detail is
obtained by suggestive, direct questioning with use of social influence as an
additional factor from time to time. There are indications that, when
questioned in this way, Eli suggestible and acquiescent and also that he is
willing to speculate in the face of such questioning and that, when
challenged, he is often prepared to maintain his ground. Eli,
in his initial allegations, describes a situation where children using the
toilets are observed by him having their faces urinated on by Peter Ellis who
has his pants and underpants around his ankles. He himself endures this on
one occasion, in which Ellis allegedly put his penis into Eli's mouth and
urinated, the urine being swallowed. Eli
also later paints a picture of a group of men and women of various skin
colours, all dressed in yellow, some of the men with spiked hair and/or with
tattoos visiting the creche and / or the Cranmer Centre during creche hours
and taking the children off to a room reached by ladder across from open
windows and pushing sharp sticks into the children's anuses on frequent
occasions. As
noted above, much of the above information is generated using questioning
techniques known to be problematic with young children, by virtue of such
children being susceptible to suggestive or leading questions and social
influence. The widespread use of such methods in these interviews, combined
with this child's evident susceptibility to them, and his tendency to be
prepared to speculate, must raise very serious doubts about the reliability
of the allegations obtained under such conditions |
