|
The |
||
|
All names amended to match the
pseudonyms used in A City Possessed Part F Kari Lacebark (DoB Aug 96) Age at first interview 5yrs 6mo
1.1 Interviewer: a) Large number of interviews: Six between
February and October 1992 b) Extensive use of suggestive and / or
direct questioning c) Use of social influence, including
asking child how she thinks accused will react to her allegations d) Extensive use of toys and props,
sometimes suggestively 1.2 Possible sources of. external
contamination: a) Mother has questioned her and given
information b) Knows and has contact with other creche
children, Zelda and Chase 1.3 Child's demeanour a) No evident indices of emotional
distress or disturbance, plays happily b) Off-task, focused on toys and dolls c) Appears to incorporate fantasy with
toys and dolls into reports d) Toys appear to have a stimulus control
element
2.1 Allegation of indecent exposure by
Peter Ellis: 2.1.1
Using a mixture of open, direct and
suggestive questions, the interviewer explored Karl's allegation (Transcript
p5-7) that Ellis had shown her his penis in the toilet, that other children
were present, that he had moved it up and down (p6) with his hands (p7). A
suggestive question (p6), "Have you. So when he, did, did he get the
kids to touch his penis or not?", was answered, "Yes. He got them
to touch his penis too.". Asked, "How do you know that?", Kari
answered, "Just cos I were watching. I tried to help the little
children, but they just didn't believe rne."(p6). No effort was made to
clarify what this last statement meant. 2.1.2
In response to direct questions,
Kari alleged that this had happened when she was first in creche [April 1988]
and that it was done to her every day. 2.1.3
Asked (p7) what made her tell her
mother, Kari said "She just asked me about Peter. 'What happened to
you?'." (Note: This raises
the question of possible contamination through parental questioning and
possible use of suggestion or provision of information). 2.2 Allegation of fellatio by Peter Ellis
with Sue and Bart: 2.2.1 Kari alleged (p7) that Sue and Bart used
to suck Peter's penis, that she saw this and that it happened on her first
day [April 1, 1988] and at the "Big End", in the toilets. 2.2.2
The allegation was not followed up
immediately, but the interviewer referred to it again later (p17), Kari
appeared distracted by the toys and after a couple of probing questions, the
interviewer directly reminded Kari of her allegation thus, "I mean Bart
and Sue, you saw them suck his penis. Is that right?" (Note: This form of question may be
particularly suggestive, with the 'Is that right' added). 2.2.3
Kari responded (p18), "When
will we be finished?". Kari then appears more focused on her play, so
that the interviewer's attempts at questioning get little of her attention.
Suggestive questions were used, "...Did you see anything else happen to
them or not?", "No."; Ok, so have you just seen that happen to
Bait and Sue?", Kari does not answer this question, is focused on toys.
"...So Kari, have you ever seen anything else happen?", "No...."I'll
cook the breakfast.". 2.2.4
The topic was raised again later
(p23), with the introduction of "Sue" and "Bart" dolls
and a request to show what happened to them. A series of suggestive questions
about detail followed. Sue and Bart were together, but only one was sucking
his penis. Asked which one, Kari focused on feeling sick and did not respond.
The interviewer then asked a suggestive question, "And so, Kari, when
you saw that happen to Sue who did you see it happen to first, Sue or Bart? Who
did you see it happen to first, Sue or Bart?" (Note: Implicit in this question is the suggestion that Kari saw
it happen to both children, even though she already has said a few seconds
earlier, "Only one."). Kari responded, "Sue and Bart.".
The interviewer repeated her request for who it happened to first (p23). Kari
answered, "Bait." (p24). Asked where Peter's hands were, Kari said,
"They were where I showed you." [presumably, on their calves behind
their knee]. 2.2.5
Kari reported (p25) that her friend
Zelda had touched her vagina. Adding she's safe now, Peter used to baby-sit
her. Asked what she touched Kari's vagina with, she said her vagina. Asked if
anyone else had touched her vagina before, Kari said, "No". (Note: This could suggest normal
exploratory sexual play or might be thought of as sexualised behaviour if it
was subsequent to the alleged events. The juxtaposition of vaginas is
probably somewhat unusual in normal sex play). 2.3 Allegation of Peter Ellis seeing
Kari's genitals: 2.3.1
Kari asked for a break (p8) because,
"...I just want to have a wee play." Comment: The interviewer (p9) appears to have used this as
a means of introducing dolls with genitalia and nudity by inviting Kari to
play at bathing the dolls. This use of such dolls and their nudity has
suggestive potential). 2.3.2.
The clothes were taken off the dolls
(p9) and the topic who gives Kari baths was raised. Kari volunteered that she
had baths with her baby brother and sometimes with her mother. (Note: This could provide Kari with some
knowledge of male genitals and adult secondary sex characteristics such as
pubic hair, which may be pertinent, given her various allegations). 2.3.3
The interviewer (p9) leads into
genitalia, "Um, whereabouts would the penis be? Would you show me? What
would they be for, what are penises for?. Kari responded, "They're for
doing wees ah into the toilet. But she hasn't got a penis cos its a
girl.". "Its a girl, what do girls have?", to which Kari
replied, "They have 'ginas.". 2.3.4
The interviewer used this
introduction to pose a direct question, "Ok, Right. So who's seen your
vagina before?", Kari said, "Peter.", asked when she said,
"He saw it [pause] um, my first day at creche." (Note: Kari also has alleged (p7) that
on her first day at creche she a) first saw Ellis' penis, saw him fellated by
Sue and Bart). 2.3.5
Kari requested (p10) another break
from talking. 2.4 Allegation of fellatio of Peter Ellis
by Kari: 2.4.1
Asked suggestively, (p12), Hey, you
know what you saw happen to Sue and Bart?".."Um, Peter's penis go
in anybody else's mouth or not?", Kari answered, "In my
mouth.". Asked what it felt like, she said it felt 'rough', and
volunteered that, "Baby stuff came out of it.". The interviewer
asked, "What did?", Kari said, "Baby stuff that makes
babies.". Asked what colour, Kari said "We didn't see it.".
Asked where it went, she said into 'our' mouth. Asked how she knew it was
'baby stuff, she replied "Just cos. Me knew the colour and it was plain
white." (Note: This conflicts
with her almost immediately preceding statement when asked the colour that
she didn't see it.). 2.4.2
Asked (p13) who told her it was
'baby stuff, she said "Mummy.". (Note: This response must raise concern about possible
contamination of Kari's testimony). 2.4.3
Kari alleged (p14) that she had told
Marie, but that Marie didn't listen, that Peter was present when she told and
had denied it. She also later referred to this with dolls (p21), stating she
had gone up to Marie and said that Peter was hurting her. She said Marie had
said no he isn't and walked away. 2.4.4
Asked directly how many times
Peter's penis went into her mouth, Kari said, "Lots of
times.".."He only did it once a day.". Asked (p14) how many
days, Kari said (p15), Mondays and Fridays. 2.4.5
Asked (p15) if Peter's penis went
anywhere else on her body, Kari indicated not. 2.4.6
Kari said (p15) she was getting
tired and began to play with the toys and explore the room. 2.4.7
The interviewer tolerated some play
(pp16-19) and dealt with Sue and Bart, she then introduced the doll with a
suggestive question (p19), "Yeah. Now, Kari, could you come up here and
help me? I'm going to use this baby to help me now. Um, show me where abouts
the penis went?". "Went into there."(indicated mouth). 2.4.8
Further suggestive questions
followed (p19-22), in response to these Kari responded in the negative
regarding other parts of Peter's body touching her (p19), or anything else
happening to her body (p20) [Kari was busy with toys at this stage). She
volunteered (p20) that the stuff in her mouth made her feel sick Asked,
"When Peter's penis went in your mouth, where abouts were his
hands?.", Kari indicated to her calf, by the back of her knee. (Note: If his hands were on her calves
behind her knee, the question is what relative body positions would be
possible so that he could get his penis into her mouth?) Asked (pp20-21) to
show on a doll, the demonstration is hard to see because the dolls are small.
Using a toy toilet and dolls, Kari said she sat on the toilet to do wees and
he sat on her (p21). (Note: This
description does not clarify the matter in terms of relative body positions
and possible penis-mouth contact, since the positions of the child seated
with the adult seated on her do not seem to make sense in terms of the allegation.). 2.4.9
In response to questions Kari
reported (p22) that the fellatio occurred only in the toilet. 2.4.10 The topic was returned to much later in the
interview after a long period of play (p33). The interviewer referred again
to fellatio and asked if Peter had said anything or not. Kari said, "No.
Can I go?", "Soon, And did you say anything or not?",
"No.". A suggestive question followed, "So I was wondering if
anyone ever told you not to tell or not?"..."He said that if, if I
give you ice, I give you a ice block, promise not to tell anybody, and I did,
I wanted to."..."..And and he said that he would hurt um me and
that he would burn his, my parents up .". Comment: Kari had clearly indicated she was tired, felt
unwell, or wanted to terminate the interview on at least three occasions. She
evidenced distractible behaviours and spent quite long periods engaged in
play with the toys. This time, having denied anything was said, she indicated
a wish to go. The interviewer said, 'soon' and continued with a suggestive
question. It is possible that the indication of being able to go soon was
interpreted by Kari as a reward if she answered questions, and that if she
told what was wanted, she could go. 2.5 Allegation of sexual violation by
Peter Ellis: 2.5.1
Again (p34) Kari said, in an almost
whining demanding voice, "I want to go." Another direct question
followed, focused on whether Peter had touched her anywhere else
("No."), interspersed with another request to go ("Yeah,
nearly finished."). 2.5.2
Asked (pp34-35) a direct question
about whether any adults had touched her 'fanny' (p34), Kari answered
"No. Peter's only..." (p35). The interviewer said,
"Pardon?", Kari said again, "Peter's only.." and,
distracted, looked at the play doh and said "What have you made
there?" The interviewer now asked a suggestive question, "When,
when did Peter touch your fanny?" (Note:
It was not at all clear that this was what Kari was going to say, so words
have been put into her mouth by this question). Kari tries to respond, Don't
know, no he didn't, only touched me..". The interviewer asked, "He
only touched you what?" and Kari was distracted by the arrival of a note
from the monitor. Kari was asked to retrieve it. 2.5.3.
The interviewer returned (p35) to her
suggestive questioning by recapping her version of what was said, including
"...You said Peter touched your fanny, and I said where, and you said no
he didn't, he only touched you-what?". Kari said, "He only touched
me here." (indicating groin). Asked, "What did he touch you
with?", Kari replied, I don't know.". The interviewer pressed her,
"What, what?", Kari replied, "His penis." and added,
"I want to go." to which the interviewer responded "Yeah, I
know, yeah." and Kari again appealed, "Can I please go." in a
pleading voice. (Note: On two
previous occasions (p15, p19), Kari had indicated, in response to direct
questions that there had been no other touching other than that already
alleged (i.e., fellatio) and she had indicated in the current questioning 'No
he didn't' (p35) and when first asked what with, said (p36), 'Don't know',
before coming out with 'His penis'). Comment: This allegation arose out of direct and/or
suggestive questioning, and was compounded by a misrepresentation of what
Kari had said, or was trying to say, so that the interviewer put it to her
that Kari had actually said something that she had not, but that the
interviewer had herself said. The child was indicating a wish for the
interview to be terminated, but questioning continued. She twice had
previously denied any other touching, and appeared to be trying to deny it
again, and to be attempting an explanation on a number of occasions. This
appeared to be ignored by the interviewer who both misinterpreted what she
was trying to say and continued to press her for an answer. The demand
characteristics of the interview at this stage were such that she was being
required to stay and answer questions despite repeated indications that she
was tired, felt unwell, and wanted to go. The possibility that the allegation
arose as a consequence of the method of questioning and the child's strong
desire to terminate the interview cannot be ignored, raising doubts about the
validity of the allegation made in this context. 2.5.4
In response to her plea to be
allowed to go (p35), the interviewer promised "Pretty soon..." and
continued to question, produced some dolls and asked Kari to sit near her.
Kari, in a voice approximating crying said (p36), "I don't want
to." and "I want to go home.". Told, "Alright.." the
direct questioning continued. Kari indicated her clothes had been on and that
Peter's clothes were on. In response to the question, "They were on
too?", this was amended to "Yeah, but not his trousers.".
Further questioning was interrupted by more intense pleas to be allowed to
go. She was asked to come back and talk some more.
This interview involved
considerable levels of suggestive and/ or direct questioning, use of dolls to
create opportunities to discuss genitalia and introduce topics, and what
could be interpreted as the reward of
Comment: From this exchange it is difficult to tell whether any of this
alleged event involved any intentional sexual elements. There is a strong
suggestive component and little focus on context or circumstances. While it
is possible that there may have been some deliberate action, it also is
possible that Kari assumed Ellis had seen her vagina and that he was seen by
her accidentally. One would want to know more about the layout of the toilets
and the circumstances of the alleged event than is provided in this
allegation. Molly Sumach (92/261) admitted "peeking" into the
toilets when Ellis was there, so it is possible, if this occurred, that other
children did it without the knowledge of staff. Kari may have done so too.
Molly Sumach also alleged that Ellis had "peeked" at her vagina
when she was being helped on the toilet. Perhaps he did. Equally, children in
the toilet may assume that any person, especially of the opposite sex, who
comes by has such intentions, even if they do not and even if seeing their
vagina was improbable under the circumstances of their being seated on the
toilet. 4.4 Revisiting the allegation of
penis-vagina contact: 4.4.1
The interviewer introduced this topic
by general reference to things being told the previous day (p20). Kari was
asked (p21) to show on the anatomically detailed female doll what Peter's
penis did. Kari said, "It went like this." and rubbed the doll's
genital area. Asked what it felt like, she indicated not very nice. Asked
where Peter's trousers were, she said "Don't know..." and inserted
her finger into the doll's vagina, saying "..You can fit your finger up
here because it's a doll." The interviewer said, "That's
right"(p21). Kari noticed the doll's bottom (p22) and asked, "It's
funny, why is it like this?" 4.4.2
The interviewer (p22) repeated the
question about what it felt like, she repeated that it was not very nice.
Asked where Peter's trousers were, she said on him. Suggestive questions
followed about whether they were up or down, she said up. The question about
clothes being off or on was repeated, Kari replied, "On on on on on on,
and then he let me go cos..Shall we get these dolls out (of the bath). (Note: In the previous interview (92/
82, Kari had said (p36) at first Peter had his clothes on and then that his
trousers were down. Her current statement in response to direct questioning
contradicts this earlier assertion about his trousers.) 4.4.3
Asked what his penis looked like (p22)
Kari said, "It looked like a normal penis.". A suggestive question
followed, "Was it hard or soft or hanging down or standing up, or what
was it doing?". Of these options Kari chose, "Hard, a bit
hard."(p22) and went on (p23) to say, "Yeah, a wee bit hard. What
time is it?" (Note 1: A five
year-old is unlikely to have much experience of making discriminations of
this sort, particularly of erections or even penises in general. Note 2 Kari, in asking the time, is
perhaps indicating a lack of serious attention to the task and a wish to
terminate the interview). 4.4.4
The interviewer said (p23),
"It's nearly time to go.." followed by a further suggestive
question, "...And was it standing up or hanging down?" Kari chose,
"Standing up." Comment: Again, in response to suggestive and direct
questioning the child has indicated that the penis was a wee bit hard and
that it was standing up. The question is just what this means in the context
of the proffered options that the child has selected and the child's possible
experience and knowledge of penile erections. If she had touched the penis,
she might have been in a position to judge what it felt like, but this is not
stated. Further, what sort of 'standing up' is a penis described as 'a wee
bit hard' likely to do? 4.4.5
Asked how often this occurred, Kari
said once, asked three times where, she said at first that she didn't know,
but later said in the toilet (p23). Asked were her pants on or off, she said
"On." (Note: Consistent
with 92/82, p36). 4.4.6
Asked twice (because of focus on
dolls) if his penis touched underneath or on top of her pants, she said (p24)
"Underneath." (Note:
Apparently with her pants on). Further direct suggestive questions were asked
about detail, in response to these Kari selected options that suggested she
was standing that Ellis was kneeling and that the fly on his pants was
"Op..shut"(p24). Asked how, in this case his penis had touched her
vagina, Kari said "Because he pulled it straight up and I saw it."
(Note: No clarification was sought
nor given in respect of this unusual response). 4.4.7
The male anatomically detailed doll
was produced (p25) and undressed. Kari noted the difference, because of the
penis. (Note: The doll's penis is
semi-erect, in that it is horizontal to the doll's body). She said of the
dolls, "They've got married." [Kari laughs and jiggles doll's
penis]. Kari now was asked to show the interviewer what had happened using
the dolls. Kari indicated that the male doll, which the interviewer was
dressing "No, doesn't need his pants on like that." and doll is
left with underpants on. (Note:
This did not match her descriptions of Ellis having his pants on and zip up,
see 4.4.6 above). 4.4.8
Kari now looked at the dolls and
attempted to juxtapose the dolls' genital areas, having the female doll
bending over backwards and the male doll in front. Both are in underwear. She
said that this was what happened really. (Note: The demonstration appeared to follow some consideration by
Kari of how the dolls might be fitted together, and it did not match her
earlier (p24) verbal description of the alleged events, which had her
standing and Ellis kneeling). Comment: Not only are anatomically detailed dolls
potentially suggestive by virtue of the genitalia, but children may simply
engage in play with them. Further, any demonstration may be deemed to
represent fact, when if is possible that the child simply follows the logic
of trying to juxtapose the relevant body regions. In the present case, it
appeared, and possibly was the case, that Kari was trying to make sense of
how to go about fitting the dolls together, rather than necessarily
demonstrating an actual event. 4.4.9
Kari maintained that 'the event
happened only once and that during it Ellis had his clothes on (pp25-26).
Asked where her pants were, she initially shrugged and said nowhere (p26).
Now asked directly whether her pants were on or off, she said 'On'(p26). (Note 1: This is consistent with her
most recent statements re his clothes, and with all previous statements
concerning her own. Note 2: Kari
appears to be engaged in fantasy play with the dolls, suggesting (p27) the
male doll is going to come and stay with her). 4.4.10
Asked suggestively, "You said
that it touched you underneath your pants before. Is that right or...?"
Kari said "Yes.", and the interviewer completed her question,
"...wrong?". Kari then said "Wrong." (Note: This represents a reversal of
what had been said earlier (p24, see 4.4.6 above). The interviewer checked
with a multiple-choice question of on top of or underneath her pants. Kari
pointed to her groin area during the question and maintained it was "On
top of the pants." 4.4.11
Kari continued fantasy play with the
dolls and when the interviewer tried to get her to focus On the topic, Kari
said, "Yeah. And then we can have a good play.". She was asked
(p27) directly if anyone else had ever touched her fanny with their penis,
she said not. She was asked again to show the interviewer how the penis had
touched her. (Note: Much of this
action was not visible to the video-camera). She showed the top of the front
section of the female's underwear being pulled down and said, "It went
like that and it went in there.", indicating the vulva region. (Note: If this is an accurate
demonstration, to achieve contact with the vulva in this way, either the
penis would have to combat the tension of the panty elastic or the front of
the panties would have to be held down by hand). 4.4.12
In the light of the above
demonstration, the interviewer suggested (p27),"Ok. So it went
underneath your pants.." "Yeah.", "..or over the
top?", Karisaid, "Underneath." (Note: This now represents a further change in testimony, since
she now has changed from her previous statement (p26) back to the earlier
statement (p24). Comment: This changing scenario of the disposition of
clothing and bodies highlights the problems of determining any fact when
using suggestive questions and suggestive toys. Kari has changed her
statement in important ways across a number of questioning and demonstration contexts.
The question for the trier of fact is which, if any, to believe. When young
children who are responsive to suggestive questions are asked such questions,
they tend to track the suggestive elements, and their testimony may prove
inconsistent as a result. Kari appears more interested in the toys and in her
imaginative play than in the interview topic. She appears to not be focused
on her testimony, this may contribute to her inconsistency. 4.4.13
Kari played contentedly to the end of
the interview, answering questions with a lilt in her voice (p29) and
indicating she did not want to come back tomorrow or the next day. 5.0 Conclusions: This was the second
interview in two days for Kari. The interviewer often used suggestive methods
to introduce and explore a range of topics. Using these methods, she obtained
allegations from Kari that Ellis had seen her vagina in the creche toilet and
that she had seen him urinating. Little contextual detail was obtained,
despite the extensive use of closed or multiple-choice questions with direct
or suggestive focus. The primary focus of the interview was on revisiting the
allegation, generated the day previously (92/82) using particularly
suggestive methods. This time, anatomically detailed dolls were introduced by
the stratagem of giving them a bath. This provided the interviewer with
opportunities for direct and suggestive questioning about the alleged contact
between Ellis' penis and Karl's vagina. Much of the detail was obtained by
these methods. In the process, Kari provided conflicting testimony about the
dress and the body positioning of herself and Ellis during the alleged
events, tending to follow suggestive elements in the questioning or provided
by manipulation of the dolls. Karl's mood throughout
is generally happy, her focus was on the play with the dolls and, as in the
first interview, time is taken up with this play activity. During her making
of allegations, no evident change in mood, voice, or demeanour was noted. She
does not use mood terms in describing the alleged events that suggest any
fear, anxiety, or distress at that time. The mechanics of getting
the penis of a kneeling adult close to the vulva of a standing four-year-old
might prove awkward, especially if both are clothed. No information was provided
on whether the toilet door was closed, where the adult's hands were, or
whether or not the child was held. This lack of context, plus that relating
to how she was got into the toilet and what happened subsequently leaves many
questions unanswered. Detail on the state of erection was obtained under
suggestive questioning and the child's explanation of how the penis was
exposed, given the trousers were up and the zip not undone, was not clear
enough to be readily understood. In sum, this was not a
well executed interview. Little of the information was freely obtained using
non-suggestive means, which resulted in that being produced as essentially a
product of the interviewer's multiple-choice options or closed questioning,
and of promptings with the anatomically-detailed dolls. 6.0 Interview 92/119
18.03.92 6.1 Knowing other children: 6.1.1
Kari (Transcript p1, p4) identified
a Lara and a Zelda as creche children known to her. She was aware Lara had
been interviewed [Query: Could the be Lara Palm, first interviewed
09.03.92?[. She was going to McDonalds this day with Zelda. 6.2 Alleged threats: 6.2.1
Kari claimed (p6) that Peter Ellis
had told her not to tell her mother the truth and had said he would burn her
parents and school teacher. (Note:
Previously (92/82, p33) Kari said she had been offered an ice block if she
promised not to tell. She had at that time indicated a threat to burn her
parents, but not mentioned the teacher). 6.3
Allegation of sodomy and of attempted intercourse: 6.3.1
Kari said (p7) Peter Ellis had taken
her to his house. Toys were produced so that Kari could recreate the house. 6.3.2
Kari said (pp7-8) that Peter
probably would be inside the house because he would probably be in trouble
for "doing all those nasty things.". She later said (p8)
"...He could be in jail.".."He's in jail and I'm safe at
home.". Comment: This may suggest Kari has overheard discussion by
adults and/or other children and/or been reassured re Peter Ellis. 6.3.3
Asked suggestively by the
interviewer (p8), "Yeah. What was the worst thing he did to your
body?", "Touching it.", "Where abouts?", "With
his penis, about here (points to back of leg), my leg" The interviewer
asked Kari to name the part touched 'round there', she said "My
bottom." 6.3.4
Asked how many times this occurred,
Kari did not answer (p8). She concentrated on play with the toys, setting up
a house, including her baby brother in the game (pp8-10). The interviewer
directed Karl's attention back to Peter's house, asking her to make the house
and tell her what happens when she goes there. She says there are two things
she wants to be told (p10). Kari is engrossed in play and appears to be
making her own home (p11-12). 6.3.5
A doll was produced (p13) and Kari
reminded about Peter touching her bottom and asked to show where that is on
the doll, which she does. Asked what are bottoms for, she says, "They're
for getting poohs out". Asked what it felt like on her bottom, she said
"Not very nice.", and said she did not know when asked what it felt
like afterwards. This question was repeated and Kari now said it felt sore
for about an hour. Asked how often, Kari said "Every day..." then
asked about arranging toy furniture (p13). She repeated every day she went to
creche. She said it had started up the 'Little End' (Note: This allegation is not consistent with an earlier interview
(92/ 82, p19) in which she had said the penis had not touched her anywhere
other than the mouth.). 6.3.6
Kari was asked closed ended and
multiple-choice questions about where the alleged event occurred (pp14-15),
producing responses that it had been in the toilets of both the 'old' and
'new' creches and the 'Womble' and 'big' ends. Kari said Peter had threatened
to eat her up and was scared when at home in bed (p15). 6.3.7
Suggestive questions (p15) were
asked about whether he hurt her bottom with any other part of his body
("No."), and a female doll, wearing a dress but no panties, and
with external genitals was produced by the interviewer who pointed to the behind
and said "..Did his penis go anywhere else on your body? It went
there.". Kari said, "Yeah, and it went up there [points to genital
area] and it went on my leg.". Pointing to the genitals, the interviewer
said, "What's that one called?", Kari replied, "A vagina, and
he went here.". "And when his penis went on your vagina, what did
it feel like?", "Didn't feel very good.". Asked how many times
it went there Kari said, "About seven times."(p15). (Note 1: It does not appear that
Karl's counting skills were checked by the interviewer. Note 2: In interview 92/83, Kari was asked this question (p25)
and said only once.). 6.3.8
More suggestive questions followed
(p16). In response Kari selected options that her clothes were on, but that
her underpants were off when the penis touched her bottom. When asked about
when it touched her vagina, Kari said, "Off and they were on the
ground.", asked how they got there, Kari said, Peter threw them on the
ground.". Asked about Peter's clothes, she said he had put them on the
ground. (Note: In interviews 92/82
and 92/83 Kari had said on a number of occasions her panties stayed on, in
interview 92/83 she had kept the underwear on the dolls on when demonstrating
acts. The details of Ellis' clothing had varied from his trousers being down
to his trousers being on and zipped up.). Comment: The doll used had no panties on, in fact her
underwear was found during this segment. This raises the question of whether
Kari's responses are controlled by current stimuli, i.e., the doll with no
pants whose pants are just found, or by actual memory, given the inconsistent
reporting noted above and her possible suggestibility. 6.3.9
Asked how her vagina felt
afterwards, she said not very good. (p16). Asked about any other feelings,
she said "No." Asked if anyone else had done that to her bottom and
vagina before, she said "No.." and focused on imaginary play. 6.3.10
Kari busied herself with the toys and
was asked a suggestive question re her body position during the alleged
sodomy (p17). She selected, "Kneeling." and kept on playing. With
two very small dolls, she was asked to show how he put his penis. Kari said
she was kneeling and he was sitting on his bottom. [The demonstration was
hard to see]. Asked directly if he was standing up or sitting down, Kari at
first repeated sitting and then changed to "standing" She appeared
to push the dolls together and said, "He went like that and it
hurt.", ..."And then he hurt my vagina like this." [Puts dolls
together, but demonstration obscured] (p18). The interviewer asked again if
he was standing up or sitting (p19), Kari repeated, "He was standing
up." Asked how her bottom had been used, Kari changed her statement on
her position to, "Um I was standing up too." (Note: Just previously she had said three times (p18) that she was
kneeling). 6.3.11
Given the unlikelihood of both
standing, the interviewer asked a suggestive question, "Cos if you were
standing up, well I was thinking cos if he was standing up, you would be down
there [puts dolls together], so how did his penis go near your bottom and
vagina?". Kari put the dolls together quickly (Demonstration not clearly
visible]. 6.3.12
Asked (p19) to show where Ellis' hands
were, Kari bent the male doll's arms back behind the body like wings. 6.3.13
The anatomically detailed dolls now
were produced (p19). While they were being got, Kari sang a little. A small
toy toilet was produced and Kari undressed the male doll. 6.3.14
During undressing of the doll, Kari
noted that she might return tomorrow to talk, saying she liked coming. (Note: This contrasts with attitude in
92/83). Kari now attempted (p20), with some difficulty, to fit the dolls
together. As a result of her efforts she changed her statement concerning
body position. She said "We were both lying down like that [female doll
face down, male doll bent doubled back so as penis can be brought into
contact with anus]". Kari said this happened in the toilets. 6.3.15
For demonstrating the penis -vagina
contact, the Interviewer held the female doll in a standing position. She
asked if Kari was standing or lying down, Kari said standing then proceeded
to fit the male doll prone between the female doll's legs, saying "..He
was lying down looking like that.". (Note: This was not what she described earlier (pp18-19), stating
then that he was standing. In interview 92/83, p24, Kari had said she was
standing and Ellis was kneeling). Comment: These inconsistencies in position suggest that
Kari is responsive to the questioning at the time and to the types of
positions that she can arrange the dolls into in order to get the anatomies
to meet. There is a danger in accepting that young children can adequately
represent themselves in such reconstructions or that they accurately could
remember and represent detail for events allegedly occurring 2 to 3 years
previously. It would be injudicious to assume from her demonstrations, just
because she finds ways to represent the alleged activity, that it either
occurred or that she can accurately represent it. Given any of the positions described
by Kari, actual sexual activity of the types alleged would likely be
difficult, if not impossible, either by virtue of getting the required
juxtaposition of anatomy or by virtue of the confined space of a toilet, and
possibly one whose walls did not reach the ground and which would have been
accessible to a large number of children and adults 7.0 Conclusions: This is another
interview in which suggestive and /or direct questions have been used
extensively in order to try to obtain detail from the child. In addition,
introduction of dolls, including anatomically detailed dolls, and
specifically suggested games with them (e.g., bathing) has seemed to be used
as a tactic by the interviewer to prompt reference to various sexual
activities. One common problem with the use of suggestive techniques of
investigation again showed itself, namely inconsistent reporting by the young
child as they try to meet the demand characteristics created by questions and
props, such as dolls and toys. Repeated interviewing and repeated questioning
can result in children changing their reports (cf Ceci & Bruck, 1993;
1995), compounding any problems that emerge from suggestive questioning. Kari's responses suggest
that she is susceptible to suggestive influence of both direct and
multiple-choice questions and from the toys and dolls used as props. That she
does not remember what she has said between and even within interviews raises
doubts about her ability accurately to recall detail from some 1.5 to 3 years
previously.. Some of the body
positions and actions that Kari described and their possible use in the site
she proposed as the location of abuse raise doubts about the possibility of
enactment. The inconsistency in her reports of events and the use of
suggestive questions and props present as problematic in establishing whether
anything occurred and, if it did, just what that involved. This is a serious
fault in the techniques relied on in this interview to obtain evidence. Karl's demeanour is
essentially one of unconcern, she plays happily with the toys, asking for
play breaks occasionally and evidencing an involvement of the items in
imaginative play. She laughs occasionally and sang to herself on one
occasion. She evidences no particular mood, voice, or behavioural changes
when describing the alleged abuse, often continuing to play while answering
questions about it. In describing the abuse, she uses terms like sore, and
not very nice, and once said she got scared in her bedroom. There is no
indication of the sort of distress that one might anticipate in a child
exposed to regular sexual abuse of the sorts she describes having happened
over her years at creche. Her negative opinions of Peter Ellis seem to
reflect more what she might have been told or overheard at home than a
heightened fear or anxiety cause by abuse. Kari does know at least
two other former creche children, she is aware that one had been interviewed
and she has social contacts with another. These, along with what she learns
from home could serve as possible sources of contamination of her memory. She
mentioned a visit to her home by Cohn [Eadel, a police officer in charge of
the case. What she overheard at the time and/or in subsequent parental
discussion may also be material. Kari indicated in this
interview that she liked the interviewer and would like to come back next
day. She made it clear at the end that she wanted to go home, but indicated
that she would come back Compared with the second interview, she seems to be
finding the activity more rewarding, which may prove a difficulty if she were
to be tempted to invent allegations in order to maintain her visits. The
interviewer tried to discourage her by pointing out that this would be her
last time. 8.0 Interview 92/139 27.03.92 8.1 Knowledge of events re Peter Ellis: 8.1.1
In a number of instances (Transcript
p4, p5, p6, p7) Kari mentioned Peter and jail. 8.1.2
On p5, she asked when it would be
decided that Peter went to jail (She was told that was up to Colin). 8.1.3
On p7, Kari said his family didn't
like him and that her mother had told her that. Comment: These point to some discussion of matters at home
which, if occurring might serve to cast Peter Ellis in a negative light. In
the mind of a child, that might justify saying anything about him, just
because he is seen as a bad person. If occurring this could function to
contaminate evidence. 8.2 Allegations of indecent exposure by
adults: 8.2.1
The interviewer led into this topic
suggestively (p2), using social influence,"Ok. Right now, today what I'd
like us to do is to play with the wee toys down here and um I know that
you've been um to some places with Peter. Where are all the places you've
been with him?" Kari identified Sumner beach (p3) and Willowbank (p4).
Kari could not think of anywhere else (p5). 8.2.2
The interviewer then suggested Kari
had said that she had been to Peter's house before and asked her to make
Peter's house with the toys (Note
1: Kari had not mentioned it today among the places visited, the interviewer
suggested it. Note 2: Kari had
previously (92/119, p7, pH) made only passing reference to this visit). Kari
declined to make his house at first, wanting to make her own house. She was
asked who lived in Peter's house and said he lived alone. Asked (p5) about
his friends, she said that he had lots of bad friends. Asked were they men or
women, Kari said both, and indicated that she had met them, but that she
could remember no names. 8.2.3
Asked (p6) what his friends were
doing when she went there, she said, "They were all showing their penis
and vaginas.". Given dolls and invited (p7) to name the friends, she
listed Julie, Aime, Peter, and Joseph and James [one person?]. (Note: Just previously (p5), Kari had
said she could remember no names. A question is just what is the role of the
dolls in name allocation? Is she just making up names for the dolls, as a
child might do, or is she now remembering names?) 8.2.4
Asked (p7) whose penis she say, she
nominated Joseph, she says he's a man, in response to a multiple-choice
question, and that he just teased the children with his penis [her
demonstration is not easy to interpret]. Asked where his penis was going Kari
opened the , dolls legs. Her response to subsequent questions (p7-8) is
confused by her play with dolls. Asked where Joseph's pants were(p8). Kari
said [in a sing-song voice], "I don't know. I wasn't there silly Kari. I
put myself on the couch and I thought I would be one of the bad girls."
(Note: Kari appears to be using
the toys as part of imaginative play). 8.2.5
Kari was asked (p8) whether or not
she had seen the bad people before. She said 'No' first and then changed to
'yes', saying she had seen them at Peter's house 'lots of times', 'every
time'. "...And one was teasing you with his penis?", "Yeah. No
they were all ....[inaudible]. (Kari is focused on toys). 8.2.6
Asked (p8) who the people were, Kari
named Joseph, Peter and Jemma (Note:
seemed to make Jemma up). Told only to use names she knows, Kari named
"Joseph, Peter, Harry, no um Gina, Melissa." (Note: Jemma, Harry, Gina, and Melissa all were new names, not
previously mentioned-see p7. On p5 she had said she could not remember any
names.). 8.2.7
Reminded she has seen Peter's penis
(p9), Kari was asked how many adult penises she had seen, she. replied,
"Lots."..then added.."But not as many." Asked if this was
at Peter's place or elsewhere, she selected the former. 8.2.8
Asked (p9) to show on a doll where
the man's hands where when he teased her with his penis, Kari put them out
behind the doll's back (see also 92/119, p18 re Ellis). (Note: An odd position.). In response to a suggestive question,
Kari selected 'stayed the same' for the state of the penis. She said (p10)
she did not know what colour it was. 8.2.9
Kari stated (p10) that she had tried
to escape but they had chased her and made her feel worse. Asked if she had
tried to leave by door or window, she chose door. Asked what had stopped her
she said "Him." (Possibly referring to a doll), asked which one,
she said, "Peter." and added, "I missed assembly." 8.2.10
Asked (p11) about the colour of
Joseph's clothes, Kari pointed to the dolls representing them and said
"White, that colour (pointed), Peter's was that colour and Joseph was
that colour." Asked about the clothes of the man teasing her with his penis,
she 'pointed to another doll and said, "That colour." (Note: Stimulus control of dolls'
clothing possible in shaping answers). 8.2.11
Asked (p11) to reproduce the mean look
on the man's face, Kari said, "He looked like this, like that (tries to
make face). Can't really make a face because I am happy." (Note: She is describing alleged
abuse). 8.2.12
The interviewer attempted (p11) to
introduce the anatomically detailed dolls so Kari could show how she was
teased with the penis, but Kari resisted this, making a movement herself
instead. 8.2.13
Asked (p12) about the women, Kari said
"They didn't do anything (Note:
On p6 she had said they showed their vaginas.). Asked how many men showed
their penises, Kari said "Lots of mean men...(looking in toy box)...but
Duncan (baby brother)..isn't...[inaudible]. (Note: Kari is engrossed in play). 8.2.14
Told (p12) that she [Kari] can't
remember names of children involved, she was asked how many. "About
five.". Asked if boys or girls, she said both. Asked which boy she liked
who was with her at that time, Kari said, "Chase that I'm going to play
with." (Note: Kari may have
misconstrued the question as a request to name a boy she liked, Chase may
have been named as he still is a playmate, not because he was there during alleged
abuse). Asked if Chase saw the penis teaser, Kari said "Yes." (Note: Kari then proceeded to engage
in imaginary play about Chase visiting her in the holidays, using the
furniture to make him a bed). Asked (p13) what other kids were present, Kari
said "Just Chase and me." (Note:
On p12 she had said about five children were there.). Comment: Imaginary play with the toys has the potential to
contaminate the evidential content of Kari's reports, and appears to do so,
e.g., naming clothing colours; involving Chase in play and evidence. This is
a concern. 8.2.15
More imaginary play re Chase is
evident on p13. 8.2.16
On p14, asked where Peter parked his
car at creche, Kari pointed to the car near her arrangement of toys and said.
"He parked it at his house, just there". (Note: More indication of possible stimulus control of toys on
responding to questions). 8.2.17
Asked (p14) a suggestive question,
"Yeah, so you know when that man was teasing you with his penis..";
"..Was that the same as what Peter used to do or is it different to what
Peter used to do?" (Note:
What is the evidential value of this response, given that Kari had already
given a very vague indication of what it involved (p7) and has made a range
of allegations re Peter Ellis?). 8.2.18
Kari again indicated a wish not to
have to work with the anatomically detailed dolls, on the grounds that she
just did not like doing it (p14). Kari was asked (p15) to demonstrate how she
was teased, at first she said she did not know, and then was pressed to show
with her hands, demonstrated [Left hand on palm of right, left index finger
slightly extended, jabbed at palm], saying "Like this, over there and he
had his penis in like that.". Asked what his penis did, Kari amended her
demonstration [Left index finger extended and stroked across palm of left
hand]. 8.2.19
Asked (p15) where, Kari said "My
body, on my vagina.". and asked for a break The request ignored, the
interviewer asked how many had done that to her, Kari's reply was, "Oh,
lots, Sue. Millions...I hope I didn't go to that creche."; "I
really do want to go back to the creche."; "Yeah I really should go
back, it wasn't fun there.". (All this in a matter-of -fact voice). The
request for a break was repeated twice, and her persistence rewarded (pp15-16). 8.2.20
(p17) Kari again requested that the
anatomical dolls not be brought out. A little later they were (p18), Kari
noted the pubic hair on the male and asked what it was, saying twice she
didn't know. Asked (p18) if she had seen it before near a penis, Kari said
"no." and asked what it was. The interviewer asked her if she knew
what parents had on their penis and vagina, Kari indicated not in her family.
She was asked if she had seen her father's penis, and said, "Yeah, I'm
not scared of it"; "Because that's my dad.". (Note: Kari had previously said she
had seen Peter Ellis' and Joseph's penises and that lots of other men
(millions!) had put there penis on her vagina, still she is bemused by the
doll's pubic hair. Perhaps it was not realistic enough.). 8.2.21
Kari was asked (p20) to show with the
anatomically detailed dolls how the man teased her with his penis. At first
reluctant, she responds to the interviewer's insistence. [Dolls genitals are
fitted with dolls at 180 degrees to each other]. (Note: This position seems unlikely to accurately represent how an
adult and a child would do this). Asked in a leading fashion if Peter and
Joseph have done this to her, Kari said "yep.", and focused back on
her imaginary play with dolls and toys. In response to a suggestive question,
Kari indicated Joseph's pants were off. Asked what her vagina felt like, Kari
volunteered, "Not very nice.". 8.2.22
The interviewer applied an unusual
form of social influence at this point (p21), "So if I asked Peter um
about his friend Joseph, would he be able to tell me where Joseph is do you
think?". Kari said "He'll probably tell lies, won't he.";
"My mum says[? unclear] Peter, he says that he didn't do it and he
did." (Note: This raises the
question of external contamination). 8.2.23
Asked (p22) what happened afterwards,
Kari said that she went back The interviewer suggested to creche, Kari agreed
and said Marie had come and got us. Asked how Made knew where they were, Kari
said she noticed children missing and guessed. (Note: This implicated Marie and suggested she was aware of
children being taken to Peter Ellis' place). 8.2.24. Asked who saw Joseph attempt intercourse
with her, Kari said her friends had. (Note:
On p13, Kari said only Chase had been present, now she uses plural). 8.2.25 Kari was asked (p22) how many times
Joseph's penis had done this to her vagina, she said (p23), "Only once.
Every day he did different things.", asked what else, she replied,
"Nothing else.". Pressed to say what else, Kari said, "Nothing
else, just do that. I can't remember." Pressed again with a suggestive
question, Kari denied any other part of Joseph had touched her vagina. She
was asked a further suggestive question re Joseph's penis on her body, she
said, "No". Later (p23) a further suggestive question was asked,
"Ok, alright. So he just did that to your vagina once with his
penis?", "Yeah.". More suggestive questioning followed,
"But he did some different things, did he do different things to you or
someone else?", "Someone else." Kari then asked, "How
long have I been here.". The interviewer persisted asking who Joseph as
done things to. Kari said "Quite lots.." and diverted the
questioner's attention (p23). Later (p24) the interviewer persisted again
(Kari was busy at play with the toys, looking for a doll-character),
"You know what Joseph did to you..?; "Have you seen that happen to
other kids before or not?", "No. We'll have to tip it all out and
find.." (Kari focused on finding the toy). Social influence was now
applied, "Well what would Joseph say if he found out you had
told?", Kari said, "I don't know.", and the question was
repeated, "What would Joseph say?" (Note: This form of social influence was used earlier re Ellis
(p21), and seems a particularly inappropriate form. Perhaps the interviewer
thinks the child is fabricating or is trying to frighten her into responding
to inadequately answered questions.). Kari keeps on looking for the toy,
"Now where is Gonzo?" (p24). Comment: In this section the interviewer applies pressure
through repetition of questions, social influence and direct suggestive
questions in an effort, it appears, to get the child to answer her inquiries.
This approach seems inappropriate and unlikely to achieve the truth.). 8.2.26 The interviewer tries two last questions
(p26) about Joseph and Peters bad friends, asking if there are any others at
his place, she answers, "No." (Note:
Kari named four other than Peter and Joseph earlier (p8).). 9.0 Conclusions: This interview was
characterised by frequent resort to suggestive questioning including use of
social influence in ways that the writer considered quite improper, since it
involved asking the child how people she accused might respond if they knew
of her allegations. Kari showed herself to be responsive to suggestion,
giving inconsistent and conflicting responses to repeat questions, responses
being sensitive to options offered by the interviewer. Her allegations•tended
to be vague, the descriptions of events also were, both often generated by
suggestive questioning from the interviewer. Kari, also was more focused on
imaginative play with the toys, with the characteristics of the toys often
featuring in her responses on detail about people, as if she was responding
to salient current stimuli rather than trying to remember facts. Throughout, Kari seemed
happy and relaxed, even when describing alleged abuse and, asked to describe
how the penis felt in her vagina, saying "Not very nice." in a
sing-song voice (p21) . Her descriptions of physical feelings at the time of
the various acts alleged abuse are similar. She resisted production of the
anatomically detailed dolls, but did not protest when they were brought out.
She put them together in an unlikely sexual position, at 190 degrees to each
other. Kari claimed 'million's' of men had put their penis on her vagina, but
was non-plussed by the 'pubic hair' on the doll. She said she had seen her
father's penis. Kari indicated that if
challenged Peter Ellis would deny abusing her and implied her mother had said
that he says he didn't do it but he did. This raises the question of external
influence. In sum, the interview is
another which has an excess of suggestion. Kari seemed distracted and focused
on her play, imagination and the toys may also have affected her reporting. 10.0 Interview 92/626 28.10.92 10.1 Reason for further
interview: 10.1.1
Kari (Transcript p2) appears less keen
to talk this time, saying that her mother said she didn't have to do too much
talking because she didn't have much to tell and she only wanted to take an
hour, as the interviewer had quite a lot. 10.1.2
Asked (p6) to discriminate imaginary
from real things, Kari says, "Lets play a different game. What about
Peter?". Later (p7) she says she has come back just to tell true things,
but that she doesn't remember, because she told her mother some more things
and she wanted to come back to tell "Um about Peter's friend and people
who hurt you.".."And about Peter's mother." (Note: Peter's mother had not
previously been mentioned by Kari in four prior interviews in which she
repeatedly was asked to identify adults involved.). 10.2 Allegation of sexual
violation with a knife: 10.2.1
Asked (p8) to tell about Peter's
friends, Kari said they touched her private parts and hit her. Asked to name
them, she said Andrew, Mark, and Jason (Note:
In interview 92/139 she had named Joseph, Peter, Harry, Gina, Melissa, and
Jemma (p8)). 10.2.2
Kari said (p9) she had pointed out a
man who had touched her to mother on the way to friends. She said he looked
like he had long hair and had a twin brother. Andrew was described as a
teenager (p9) and that Peter had said he was his friend. She alleged (p10)
that Andrew hit her on her vagina and bottom, he touched her vagina with a
very very sharp knife. Asked where he got the knife, she said his house (Note: Kari is willing to speculate).
Peter and all his other friends were present (p10). Kari claimed (p11) that
this happened at the creche, in the toilets. No other children were present
(pp11-12), but Peter was, standing laughing. Asked (p12) about Peter's other
friends, Kari said they had gone away and were at the house (Note; Further speculation). 10.2.3
Asked (p12) what the knife felt like
on her vagina, Kari said, "Not very good.". She had to take off her
clothes and they were on the floor (p12) because she had been told to (p13).
It was in the 'big' toilets. 10.2.4
Kari thinks she , can remember a big
Andrew and a little Andrew at creche. She said twice she cannot remember what
happened before Andrew touched her with the knife (p13). 10.2.5
Asked (p14) about Peter's big friends
she chooses both options, men and women, asked who the women were, Kari
replied, "I can't remember. Sue, I haven't really got much to tell you
you know." and, "I can't really remember much.". She added,
"I only tell my mum a little little bit about Peter because I want to
tell the rest to the judge." (Note:
Someone has been talking to this child?). 10.2.6
Kari begins to indicate a wish to
leave (p15) wanting to see her mother, and asking how long she has to stay.
She is told until she has told as much as she can remember. (Note: This could be construed as
being allowed to go as a reward for telling more). 10.2.7
Asked (p15) what made her scared of
Peter, she says she cannot remember. 10.2.8
Asked (p16) what her bottom was
touched with, Kari said a knife. Kari then said, "That's all I can tell
you cos that's all I said to my mum.". Asked if anyone else had touched
her vagina or bottom with a knife, Kari alleged Peter had, that it felt the
same, and he had done it at the same time as Andrew had, while the other
creche teachers were in another room, adding "Oh, that's all I can tell
you." 10.2.9
Asked (p16) what had stopped her from
telling the other teachers, Kari said nothing had. Asked did they know Peter
had done this, she said yes. Asked how they found out, she said Peter had
told her (p16). Comment: This last assertion seems unlikely. In fact
although much of this allegation is volunteered, and there is less suggestive
questioning than usual, the allegation is not particularly convincingly
described in the writer's opinion. 10.2.10 Kari (p17) evidences• suggestibility when it
is put to her "Did they [other creche teachers) see or did somebody tell
them. Kari seemed to become flustered and said, "They see, yeah
..[inaudiblel.no [or known and someone told them. Yeah. That's the bit I can
only tell you now.". Asked what else they did, Kari said she cannot
remember, asked what other ways she was hurt, she said she cannot remember. 10.3 Allegation of being
kicked and hit by Mrs Ellis: 10.3.1 The interviewer switched attention (p17) by
introducing the topic of Peter's mother. She said Peter's mother had grey
hair, and looked for a suitable doll. She went on (p18) to allege that Mrs
Ellis had kicked her and hit her [moved dolls against each other] at Mrs
Ellis' home, to which Mrs Ellis had driven her in a white van. Kari
emphasised that she was telling the truth. Asked (pp17-18) who had gone with
her, Kari said she could not remember. In response to a question (p18) asking
if it was children or just adults, she said herself and just adults,
identifying 'Gaye, Marie and Debbie. Kari indicated that was all she could
remember. 10.3.2
Asked (p19) why Mrs Ellis had
assaulted her, Kari said, "I have no idea.". Asked how many times,
Kari said 17, adding "each day" Asked how many days she was kicked,
Kari said, "And 17 days a week" Asked what Marie, Gaye and Debbie
did, Kari said she could not remember. Asked if they were present, she said,
"No." Asked who was present, Kari started looking in the toy box
for dolls. In response to a direct question (p20) she said Peter was not
there, and that he was at the creche. 10.3.3
Kari added (p20) that she now wanted
to go because that was all she could remember. Asked what it felt like having
to remember, Kari said, "Not very good, but I can't even remember
anything much now." [said quickly]; "Cos I've told you.",
"I've forgotten it all, I am telling the truth."; "That's all
I have to tell you Sue, that's all I can remember [sing-song voice].".
Asked if another question can be asked, Kari said, "One more because I
am getting sick", "I don't feel very so well.". 10.3.4
Asked (p20) how she knew it was Mrs
Ellis, she said she just did. Pressed on how she knew, she said, "Peter
told me.". Asked (p21) who lived with her. Kari said no one, and said
she could not remember (twice) when asked what her house looked like. Asked
if Peter's mother did anything else, Kari sang "No oh oh no." Asked
to show where she was hit and kicked, Kari asked for the dolls. She said
"He touched me there." [points to groin of boy doll, gets girl doll
and points to vulva], "Touched me there.". Asked (p21) who did,
Kari said (p22), "He kicked me and hit me there [points to groin of
doll]. (Note Kari has said twice
that He did things). The interviewer then asked a suggestive question,
"Peter's mother did?", to which Kari replied, "Yes.".
Asked where her clothes were, Kari said down on the floor, and that Mrs Ellis
had hers on. 10.3.5
Kari became increasingly insistent
that she be allowed to leave, responding to a request for one more question
(p22) in begging tones. 10.3.6
The interviewer tried social pressure
(p23), but modified the question part way through, "Now I've heard, um,
have any other women ever done anything like that to your vagina before or
not?". Kari responded, "No, I can't remember [said quickly]..Oh
well, that's the last question. Karl pleaded to leave, said she had to come
back, and then that she did not think so, and added (p24) there was no more
to tell and begged to go. 11.0 Conclusions: This interview was
characterised by allegations volunteered by Kari and by less resort to direct
and suggestive questioning than those that preceded it. Social influence is
occasionally used, and on at least two occasions was used very
inappropriately in the writer's opinion, as reference was made to persons
Kari was accusing of abuse. In making her
allegations, Kari makes a serious claim of a knife being applied to her
bottom and vagina by both 'Andrew' and Peter Ellis. She included names of a
number of other people and then said they were not present. She alleged the
event had occurred in the creche toilets with both adults present. Her detail
is vague and non-specific, her demeanour is unchanged and she gives the
impression of making the story up. Similarly, her claim
about Mrs Ellis lacked detail and conviction. Kari included other named
persons, but they then are said not to be present, despite going to Mrs
Ellis' house with her in a van. Kari said she was kicked and hit, but given a
doll, alleged that 'he' had touched her on the vagina and hit and kicked her
there. When pushed for detail Kari became increasingly insistent that
questioning stop, appearing to feign feeling sick in an effort to terminate
the interview. The writer got the
impression from initial statements that Kari had made more allegations to her
mother, which had led to the interview. From the outset Kari said she had
little to tell and gradually expanded on her story. She initially indicated
she had wanted to come back, and that she had wanted to do a drawing
Apparently, the process became less fun as the questioning progressed, so she
wanted to terminate it. Even though Kari had
volunteered much of the information, the interview does not convince the
writer that Kari was describing events she really had experienced. The
question is, how different may the four preceding interviews have been if
Kari had simply been invited to volunteer information, rather than being
exposes to an array of suggestive questions and suggestive use of dolls and
toys? 12.0 Interview 92/ 630 29.10.92 12.1 Telling the truth: 12.1.1
Kari insisted (Transcript p1) that she
had told the truth yesterday (92/ 626). 12.2 Allegation of sexual
violation with a knife by Gaye: 12.2.1
Kari said (p6) that she could remember
about people, and named Gaye and Marie, alleging that Gaye was a person who
hurt her, indicating pointing to the bottom of a doll and saying (p7) a knife
was used (Note: Asked the previous
day (92/626. p16) if any one else had touched her in this way, Kari indicated
only Peter and Andrew had, under pressure and with some suggestion, she
eventually recalled this in the present interview, p14). This had happened at
the creche, 'a different part of the creche'. Asked how she meant different,
Kari insisted she had not said anything about different and that she had said
it was at the creche in the toilets. 12.2.2
Invited (p7) to point to where she was
hurt on herself, Kari indicated her groin (Note: On the doll (p6) it was the posterior that was indicated).
She said her clothes were on the floor because (p8) Gaye had asked her to
take them off. Just she and Gaye were present 12.2.3
Asked how many•times Gaye had done
this, Kari said, "Not very much.". The interviewer suggested,
"Once.." Kari said yes, "..or more than once?".
"Just once.". 12.2.4
Asked (p8) if any one else had done
this before, Kari said, "No.". (Note: Kari appears to have forgotten that the day before (92/
626) she alleged Peter Ellis and Andrew had done so). Asked (p9) if she was
sitting down, standing up, or lying down, Kari chose sitting and said on the
floor. Asked a number of other detail questions, Kari indicated she could not
remember to each (p9). 12.2.4
Asked (p10) how the knife had touched
her, Kari said, in a matter of fact voice, "Hm, Well, she put it up my
vagina and I said...[inaudible]". Asked what she had said, Kari
repeated, "She put it up my vagina [sing-song voice].". Asked if
the knife moved or stayed still, Kari said she could not remember. Asked
where the knife came from, Kari said, "I told you she got it from the
kitchen." (Note: She had not
said this before). The knife was described as a normal sharp knife. 12.2.5
Kari subsequently became increasingly
resistant to further questioning (pp11-15), saying she could not remember,
sighing, singing, insisting that the interviewer ask her mother for any
further detail, that her mother had said that Kari had told her all the true
things (p12) and increasingly insisting on seeing her mother and that she
wanted to stop. With begging and pleading from Kari that only one, at most
two, more questions be asked, Kari eventually recalled, after the interviewer
suggested she had said it was a man (p14), that the previous day she had alleged
Peter and Andrew had touched her with a knife. Insisting that her two
questions had been asked, Kari finally agreed that the touching with a knife
by Andrew and Gaye really happened. Pretending to cry, she begged to go home.
The interview terminated.
Again in this interview,
Kari had volunteered the allegation, presumably having told her mother the
night before. Again, there was little detail, much of-what little was given
resulted from direct questioning. When pressed for detail Kari became
agitated and wanted to go, insisting she could not remember, except when
options were given, she was at times prepared to select one. The allegation
that the knife was put into her vagina was stated in a sing-song voice, there
was no indication of distress or negative affect. No recall of pain or
distress, or report of physical damage from this .....................................
|
