Fooling Ourselves: Cargo Cult Law and Medicine
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself
and you are the easiest person to fool (Feynman, 1985).
ABSTRACT: A fundamental cause of false accusations is the tendency
of adults to fool themselves. Adult investigators who are biased
towards believing an accusation is true will be unable to conduct an
appropriate investigation and therefore will find what supports their
So many child sex accusations turn out false that I have wondered why
presumably intelligent and well-meaning authorities believed them in the
first place. False accusation fiascos have included McMartin
Preschool, Morgan-Foretich, the Jordan, Minnesota case, and the
Cleveland, England affair. In my practice, a six count case (worth
23 years in prison) was dismissed before trial last April after the
client spent three months in jail and a 61 count case was dismissed
after a hung jury a few years ago; both were false allegation cases.
I wondered why the falsity couldn't have been caught before the
devastating charges were brought. Why were the authorities being
fooled by kids?
I studied why and described important false influences on the
children and the adult who is often behind them in a previous
article in this journal (Sheridan, 1990). Since then, I've
come up with an even more fundamental cause of false accusations.
Children do not fool adults; adults fool themselves. The
smarter they think they are, and the more dedicated, the more likely
adults are to fool themselves. Humility, that is, awareness of
one's own bias, and acknowledging that there may be more to the story,
turns out to be protective and productive, as well as scarce.
Cargo Cult Law and Medicine
Richard P. Feynman, the late Nobel laureate in physics, stressed the
importance that scientists not fool themselves by referring to the cargo
cult people of the South Pacific after the war (Feynman, 1985).
These aboriginal islanders wanted to make U.S. cargo planes return with
all kinds of goods, so they erected towers and wooden antennas near the
airstrip, acted like controllers, and waited for the planes to come
in. Their form was correct but no planes came in. He calls
this "cargo cult science," where you do all the right things,
you think, but you are wrong, nevertheless. You either leave
something out or draw the wrong conclusion. What is missing,
Feynman says, is "utter scientific integrity," meaning "a
kind of utter honesty, a kind of leaning over backwards," the duty
"to report everything you think might make your conclusion
invalid," and "giving details that could throw doubt on your
interpretation." It's this type of integrity, this care not
to fool yourself, that he says is missing in much of the research in
cargo cult science. He gives examples of investigators fudging
data not fitting the theory they wanted to prove. "The first
principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the
easiest person to fool," he says.
Feynman's first principle applies to any type of important
investigation. In child abuse cases the absence of investigative
integrity reduces the process to cargo cult medicine and law. Law
and medicine rely on each other to such a degree that each suffers from
the investigative flaws of the other in these cases. These flaws
include improper belief systems or biases, institutional pressures,
carelessness, and lack of proper training. Doctors and social
workers in the medical system claim they are not investigators.
However, the legal system often takes action based on what they said and
did with the child before the police entered the picture, and on the
conclusions they draw.
Both systems have a problem with the secret talks the accusing parent
or other person had with the child before calling the police or the
child protective service (CPS) worker. If it is difficult for
scientists, much less legal and medical investigators to think straight,
how much reliance can we place on the private talks that a motivated and
emotional parent had with a child before contacting the authorities?
The suspect is often severely prejudiced because (1) no one in
authority deals effectively with whether the child has been influenced
by the questioner's questions, or is fantasizing, parroting,
misinterpreting, or whether the first official interviewer has become a
believer and then persuaded those that came next; and (2) that first
person often too readily becomes a believer without having conducted a
competent investigation into the context out of which the accusation
arises. Context is everything. The suspect's protests of
innocence are then routinely discounted on the theory that men always
lie about molesting, which is false.
Investigative integrity requires that the investigator be aware of
his or her own biases, and take them into account. It also
requires access to evidence. Yet the opportunity for defense
counsel to discover evidence is curtailed more in child abuse than in
other cases. Under new Proposition 115, at preliminary hearings in
California hearsay is allowed. The child cannot be called for
cross-examination (statements allegedly made by the child are testified
to by an officer), and psychiatric evaluations of the child and the
adult backer are prohibited. Magistrates have had their power to
weed out groundless cases curtailed and the review process is geared
towards upholding convictions regardless of earlier infirmities.
Investigative integrity is thus impaired by law, which is why I call it
cargo cult law and medicine.
I Owe You A Lunch
A college boy was accused of raping his 13-year-old stepsister.
I telephoned the sergeant assigned to the case after the girl was
interviewed by a CPS worker and a rape detective, each of whom believed
her story. I asked the sergeant if he had personally spoken to the
girl, and he said he had not because she'd already convinced the other
two. I told him that my client maintained innocence, I had no idea
why the girl would make up such a story, and that in my experience
children didn't fool adults, but that adults fooled themselves. I
suggested that he interview the girl himself because he might be a
A week later the sergeant called, saying, "l owe you a
lunch." The girl admitted she'd made up the story. She
was unhappy that her father recently married the boy's mother because
she was no longer first in her father's eyes and the stepmother made her
come in early and do homework, so she wanted to break up the marriage,
which she did. The sergeant, who was a better investigator,
uncovered the lie by telling the girl she would have to undergo a
medical exam which would tell whether she'd ever had intercourse.
She knew she hadn't so she copped out.
I asked about the other two investigators, how had she fooled
them? "She didn't fool them," he said, "they fooled
themselves." In my opinion they wanted to believe the girl
but didn't realize it. They were unaware of their biases. They
were in the child sex abuse business. They wanted to believe the
alleged victim and substituted faith for investigation. Afterwards
the CPS worker wanted to have the girl put in jail for lying (or perhaps
for giving the lie to the belief that children never lie about these
things). When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a
Mommy Pushed Me
I was walking along a rough path to the beach. Two steps ahead
of me was a little girl of about three. Her father was up ahead
and her mother and grandmother were a few steps behind me. The
child suddenly tripped and fell. Her father walked back, picked
her up and asked what happened. Crying, she said, "Mommy
pushed me." "No, she tripped on this rock," I said.
Why did the little girl blame her mother? She was responding to
a demand by her father for an explanation. She had to come up with
something. She was upset, crying, and the focus of
attention. She wanted sympathy. She was confused. She
didn't want to get blamed. She misinterpreted the situation.
She didn't realize she tripped.
What if the child were seriously hurt, the parents had been fighting,
and there were no witness to the tripping? The father could have
shown a bruised child to a CPS worker, had the child repeat that the
mother pushed her, and a child abuse proceeding could follow in which
the mother could lose her child.
We Are Quick to Suspect the Worst
A neighbor called the police on seeing a body stuffed into the trunk
of a car by a woman down the block, according to a recent news
report. The police stopped the car and had the woman open the
Inside was a human form, only it was a hairdresser's dummy, as the
woman was leaving her cosmetology class with her homework.
The misinterpretation of an innocent situation. This has been
described as one of the most common causes of false reports of child
molestation. What do people attracted to this work, protecting
children, essentially, believe?
Children Never Lie
They call themselves child advocates. They tend to believe
children. It is as though anyone who questions the report of a
child is doing the child a disservice and being disloyal to
children. With reports in the millions it is unimaginable that
there would be no false accusations. Yet people who work in the
field profess "Always believe the child who discloses sexual
abuse. Children NEVER lie about this problem." This
quote appears in the brochure of CASARC (Child and Adolescent Sexual
Abuse Resource Center) which is San Francisco's official intake unit for
child abuse cases, at San
Francisco General Hospital. "Children deserve to be
believed" taught an attorney at a child abuse convention. She
is now a juvenile court judge deciding child abuse cases. I
suggest that only the truth deserves to be believed and children have no
monopoly on it.
Who is good at catching lies? The police? According to a
recent study the police are no better than random at lie-catching
(Ekman & Sullivan, 1991). Secret Service agents who protect
high officials were better at it. Researchers surmised it was
because they don't pay attention as much to what the suspect says when
he says he didn't mean it when he threaten a government official, as to
how he says it body language, facial gestures, and the
like. Also, Secret Service agents are accustomed to accepting
recantations, i.e. that the suspect was not telling the truth
earlier. Perhaps the agents feel relieved, and want to believe it
was just big talk. Just the reverse happens in children's
accusations, because when the child later says she was just imagining,
for example, or making up a story, that daddy touched her, not only is
the recantation disbelieved, but it is taken as proof of molestation on
the theory that denial is a defense against the trauma that the believer
Investigative integrity? First CPS investigators want to
believe the worst, then they beg the question, and then they poison the
well. If children can't lie when they accuse, how can they lie
when they recant? They've been "reached," believers
argue. But if children are so trusting or fearful that they can be
reached to recant, why can't they be reached to accuse?
Wanting to believe causes belief, especially if someone is helping
you along. The reverse is that you cannot see what you cannot
accept. Self-deception is the highest form.
Here are some pearls on the subject of belief. One of the
oldest is by the Greek dramatist, Euripides, 412 B.C.:
Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to
More recently, attributed to that profound observer of the human
condition, Archie Bunker:
Faith is believing in something that nobody in his right mind
would believe (Quote passed along by Daniel Hager of the
My favorite, is by Baldassare Conticello, Superintendent of
Archaeology of Pompeii, when he was opposing the municipal authorities
who wanted to build a road over his dig. Someone told him he would
win because the arguments were all on his side, and he replied:
The period of maximum danger is when all of the rational
arguments are on your side (New
York Times. 1987).
Finally, by Albert Einstein:
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
believing that the results will be different.
My own view?
Believe anything you want, but don't kid yourself.
Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). "Who can catch a
liar?" American Psychologist.
Feynman, R. P. (1985). Cargo cult science. Surely You're Joking
Mr. Feynman ()()()
(pp. 308-317). New York: Bantam Books.
Sheridan, R. (1990). The False Child Molestation Outbreak of the
1980s: An Explanation of the Cases Arising in the Divorce Context. Issues
in Child Abuse Accusations, 2(3),
* Robert Sheridan is an
attorney at 2171 Junipero Serra Boulevard, Daly City,
California, 94014. [Back]