|
Some Characteristics of Victim Statements in Intrafamilial Sex Abuse |
|
Actual Sexual Abuse |
Unreliable/Fictitious Allegations |
| 1. Statements internally and logically consistent,
large numbers of unique details, flowing narrative, pieces eventually all
fitting together where minor peripheral details may be added or drop out,
but no major reversals; consistent with external data where such is
available; includes non-self-serving details. |
1. Statements become increasingly inconsistent over
time, show diminished number of unique details, single statement
stereotypic in pattern; does not fit together into a cohesive fabric,
contains major reversals; details tend to be self-serving, may not be
consistent with external data where such is available; no flowing
narrative may have been given; major details have been formed through
interview technique of leading, pressuring, shaping. |
| 2. Statements are rarely dramatic, rarely seeking to
make the perpetrator appear in a totally negative light, but more
ambivalent in tone; statements about details consistent with what is known
about similar crimes, e.g., perpetrator takes usual self-protective steps
against being discovered, follows expected patterns seen in chronic
incest. |
2. Statements are often dramatic, claims of being
forced drugs or alcohol, alleged multiple victims and/or multiple
perpetrators, orgies; describes situations in which alleged perpetrator
has not taken ordinary steps against discovery of molestation. |
| 3. Rarely is force alleged, but usually verbal
manipulation, bribes, claims 'we will both get in trouble if you tell.'
The less adept perpetrator is more likely to threaten or coerce the
victim. In the rare cases where physical force is used in intrafamilial
situation, it is usually within the context of generalized family
violence, where threat of force is the most common mode of handling
conflict or disputes between family members. |
3. Statements almost invariably progress from
relatively innocuous behaviors to increasingly intrusive, abusive,
aggressive activi ties with ultimately threats to harm or kill child or
significant others if victim discloses; in some young children allegations
of torture, killings are made of animals and/or humans. |
| 4. Details provided are usually consistent with what is
known about sexual physiology and response cycles. |
4. Details may not be consistent with that is known
about sexual physiology, response cycles except in areas where child has
been questioned extensively so that the right answers are learned. |
| 5. Described changes in social and sexual relationship
across time and consistent with what is known about perpetrator/victim
long-term relationship patterns. |
5. Details provided are not consistent with what is
known about perpetrator/victim relationship patterns unless this is
superimposed by interviewers who are aware of what these patterns are;
victim may progressively claim intrusive/advanced assault patterns
occurred at younger and younger ages. |
| 6. Rarely does the victim make issue of memory. There
may be instances of not remembering known incidents, or not remembering
particular details at the height of stress. In the usual memory loss, the
report will be consistent with what is known about memory processes, e.g.
recency effects, fading, loss of peripheral details first rather than loss
of the major events; memory can usually be recalled by providing
non-leading cues. |
6. Typically will not admit memory problems, but may
claim not to remember when caught in contradictions, or when feeling
guilty about marking untrue statements; alleged memory losses do not fit
what is known about memory processes; may later absolutely deny statements
which were insisted upon earlier. |
| 7. Recantation may occur for the entire incident or all
alleged incidents when pressure is applied within the family situation to
relieve the legal/economic ramifications of the accusation. Often the
mother pushes for recantation overtly or covertly. This pattern is seen in
initially intact family units who are now separated due to the legal case. |
7. Classical recantation is unlikely; mother usually
supports if not promotes the allegations; family pattern is typically two
family units following a prior separation or divorce. |
| 8. Supportive parent has not participated in one or
more formal interviews of the child in regard to the allegations, nor
observed the child interviews. |
8. Supportive parent often highly involved in the
emergence of the allegations, has usually participated in child protective
services or law enforcement interviews; parent makes allegations that
child resists confirming, followed by repeating part of what
parent said later. |
| 9. Child may appear pseudomature, responsible,
self-blaming, embarrassed, and while reluctant to disclose, the statements
are consistent across time. One or both parents may comment on
age-inappropriate sexual interests or behavior preceding or following the
allegations coming to light. |
9. Child is often immature, dependent, manipulative,
enmeshed with mother, seen by both parents as naive about sexual matters. |
