| Memories |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: rdl ® 02/17/2003, 15:36:04 Author Profile Mail author |
I know this subject has been discussed on the board before so I thought some of you might be interested in this article Related link: Study: Memories can be induced |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: Memories Re: Memories -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
02/17/2003, 21:00:58
Author Profile Mail author
The link you provided was of great interest to me, particularly the section on questioning victims of suspected sexual abuse. In questioning very young children it is most important to ask open ended questions such as "Did you see ___today?" "Where did you see ___today?" "Can you tell me about it?" and as the child begins to share information to ask questions that help the child revisit the experience in a sequential way--"What happened next?" "Is there anything else you want to tell me about ____? --without putting words in their mouth or false images in their minds. A child of 3 or 4 is highly vulnerable to the suggestions of adults and will likely answer in the affirmative at most any issue the adult introduces. If you give this child a series of 3 suggestions/choices they will most likely agree with the last suggestion/choice. A child of 5 and older is more able to counter erroneous assumptions that come from adults. I cannot stress enough the strong influence that adults have on the mind of the young child. Even in questioning, it is important that the adult take on an "observation" role in listening to the accounts of young children, showing a genuine interest and no emotional reaction whatsoever. Of greatest importance in this case are to allow the child to supply information, for the adult to sequence it, and make every attempt to illicit the most complete account the first time around as young children are strongly vulnerable to incorporating images from media and other forms of suggestions into their "reality". Unobtrusive video taping of the interview is the most effective and informative method of recording the child's account as it is given. Beyond that, audio taping is a good second choice followed by written documentation of the conversation.
Vicki
p.s. Document the person(s) involved, date, time , place and events. If the interviewer has trouble pinpointing the date, it is possible for the adult to guage it by other events in the child's life/routine that day. Example: After my dance class, I watched "Blues Clues" in the morning and the story was about ____. The day we went to McDonalds with Dad. If the child can recall the clothing/accessories they were wearing, how they wore their hair that day or what they ate for breakfast/lunch/dinner/snack as it fits into the time frame this too, can help pinpoint the date of the event.
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 21:06:29
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
related link Re: Re: Memories -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/17/2003, 21:37:51
Author Profile Mail author
Here's an additional related link that you might find interesting also. I don't vouch for the accuracy of any of it but it does seem to cover the events in question pretty well. It seems that video documentation of the questioning procedures didn't help the Amiraults any. (at least not initially)
I wonder how some of this is relevant to the Catholic church/Priest scandal. I know of at least one local instance where accusations were found to have no merit.
rdl
edited to add additional link: removed until I find the correct URL (sorry)
Related link: The Fells Acres Scandal
Modified by rdl at Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 07:12:07
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Fells Acres Fiasco Re: related link -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
02/17/2003, 23:00:13
Author Profile Mail author
I read most, not all, of the Fells Acres case. This is the kind of report that produces a chill down my spine. I will read the link, in it's entirety before commenting further, but just this much for now...
This is demonstrative of the issues I raised in my post above. The case was mishandled from the get-go. The mother of the boy who was seen "acting out" sexually was on panic alert to begin with. It looks to me, on first scan, that the accusations made against Gerald stemmed from fact and due to improper and coercive interview techniques, they were embellished and distorted just as I said in my post above...with inappropriate leading by interviewers, a blend of fantasy accomdation and most likely some strong suggestions on the part of parents at home.
Child care workers frequently "pull a child's pants down" to change their wet or soiled clothing, to support a child's self help skills when toileting or to rearrange underclothing, for example a girl wearing tights that become entangled in underpants or dresses. If Gerald made any mistake, and I haven't read the entire link, he assisted a child in changing clothing without another adult witness. This is "in the trenches" common sense in the field of child care. Having a witness present while changing clothing or assisting a child during toileting, protects the child AND adult provider from potential abuse and allegations. It is by no means solid insurance, but the wisest method given the nature of the circumstances one encounters while caring for and meeting the needs of young children.
I'll comment further as I'm able to read the entire link or as the discussion moves forward.
Vicki
p.s. check your first link again, I don't think it's what you intended.
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 23:06:32
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You're a buffoonish little girl, rdl Re: related link -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 07:24:16
Author Profile Mail author
But I'm honored you're so infatuated with me and my ideas that you follow me around like a little puppy dog and quote my writings. At least this way I'm sure you're supping up everything I write...
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 20:20:42
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
No! Re: Re: Memories -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/18/2003, 04:04:55
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki wrong-headedly writes: "In questioning very young children it is most important to ask open ended questions such as 'Did you see ___today?' 'Where did you see ___today?'"
No, NO, NO!! That's exactly wrong! By mentioning the person "___", Vicki is already drawing undue attention to that person and is starting to manufacture a false memory!
The correct technique is to take a child through their day WITHOUT mentioning any specific person or place at all until the child does. At a later time, once the child has been through the day without any mention by the therapist of any specifics at all and certainly not prompting with names such as Vicki incorrectly suggested, the therapist can very gently begin to encourage the child to expand on events or persons that the child has already brought up, without prompting.
Videotaping the ENTIRE session of EVERY session -- including both therapist and child in the frame -- is absolutely mandatory. Barring such, testimony from the child shouldn't be allowed in court without clear, independent physical evidence to support it.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 06:41:31
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Let me draw that out, Martin Re: Re: Memories -- Jersey Girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jersey girl! ®
02/18/2003, 18:49:01
Author Profile Mail author
You were supposed to read my mind and understand that the brief sequence example was is one where the YC has already verbally indentified the adult and linked the adult with a questionable act to--a trusted adult as in the case of 4 year old MC who made a statement regarding Gerald to his mother who was already on alert.
The YC, age 4 (as MC was), cannot cognitively "roll back the tape" and pinpoint a calendar date or recall specific events in terms of "past" OR sequence them unless the adult begins their recall beginning with "today" and then carefully, calmly, and patiently, guides the child back in time.
If you like I can compose a detailed sample interview sequence that takes a child from the questionable statement - to "today" back in time to an event that took place "2 weeks ago" and show you the method used to accurately pinpoint the calendar date and accurately reveal the actual event that took place. I can lead it back to an abuse event or non-abuse event and show you the "time markers" used to pinpoint the date, exact location and time. It will take me a few days to come back with it, but I'm willing to offer a demonstration.
You must understand, and I believe that you already do, the accomodation process that takes place in the normal cognition of the typical peer YC. It is unlike yours. The YC cannot mentally reverse time unless an adult takes the time to "take them back" and, depending on how far in the past the actual event took place, allows for the accomodation of UNRELATED imagery and verbal cues that the YC has incorporated into their "reality" or "schema" and KNOWS how to separate fact from fiction. Example: the YC will accomodate visuals from cartoons/video's into their schema, the adult doing the interview must be able to distiguish vivid reality based imagery from fictionalized imagery.
The ultimate goal in questioning the YC in these cases is to carefully illicit ACCURATE information, not inject thoughts, concepts, via verbal cues and mentally take the child back to the enviroment with the alleged abuser.
More simply stated:
1. Take the the child from today (in this case back in time using school days and school events as indicators of time to the event in question. This, because the alleged event took place during school and included a school staff member.
2. When you pinpoint the time you slowly roll back the tape and help the child recall the days events painstakingly mentally "walking them through" the alleged abuse events causing no stress or uncertainty on the child, allowing them to express their thoughts as they come without disrupting the flow of their thought processes. This is no task for the impatient!
In nearly 2 decades in the field, I have had occasion to appropriately interview YC to determine the basis or lack of basis for report to LSW's, parents (unless the parent is the alleged abuser) and law enforcement officials.
Reports of a questionable nature in the life of the YC are most commonly made to a trusted adult (Parents, teachers, relatives, care providers which represents their "social circle"). They are made spontaneously where there are no camera's rolling or available. It is important for the "first contact" adult to keep the interview brief, use an audio tape (which is normally available in school and perhaps in the home as well), or take hand written notes ("I am writing down your words"), keep the interview as brief as possible without glossing over important issues/information, and show no emotional reaction to the child...only an interest in listening to the child's expressions.
Once more, mentally take the child back in time from today to the event. Mentally place them in the environment with the person NAMED. Open ended questions are the ONLY type of questions that will illicit accurate and factual testimony.
What not to do: Do not ask the child arbitrary and abstract questions such as "has anyone touched your bottom at school" Questions like these will result in abstract and vague answers. For example, the child may say "yes, Julie (another child) has touched my bottom" and the time invested in drawing out facts surrounding the event with Julie (who probably inadvertently brushed their bottom during work/play time) will only serve to compromise the child's ability to attend when the adult finally does get round (by going through the abstract list of suspects) to the actual suspect in question. The child will not have the mental energy to continue the interview and a time sensitve opportunity will have been lost.
It is critical that an adult who has conducted this type of first contact interview and who has determined that an actual abuse event has taken place, act upon it IMMEDIATELY. The goal being an immediate report to authorities (both police and local social service agencies)so that a formal video tape interview can be made within 24 hours. A 24 hour response time is typical in such cases. IOW--strike while the cognitive iron is hot.
As you can see in the case of Fells Acres, so many mistakes were made during the interview process. The children were coerced, they were influenced by other adults toward an end goal which was to be swift conviction of Gerald and his family members. The ONLY goal in interviewing the YC in these types of cases should be to illicit accurate and factual information to determine if the event was abuse or non-abused based without further compromising the well being of the child.
The pitfalls in poor interviewing techinques are clearly evidenced in the case of Fells Acres. Not only were Gerald and his family WRONGLY charged and convicted, the children themselves (whose well being should have been the greatest priorty) were compromised emotionally and psychologically. The children, who on first read of the link, who were NOT actually physically or sexually abused were infact abused by the interview techniques and judicial justice system and no doubt hold long term emotional and psychological scars stemming from their experience in this case.
Vicki
Modified by jersey girl! at Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 20:51:41
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Let me draw that out, Martin Re: Let me draw that out, Martin -- jersey girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
02/18/2003, 19:12:41
Author Profile Mail author
Sorry in advance if you think this was an intrusion.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Let me draw that out, Martin Re: Re: Let me draw that out, Martin -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jersey girl! ®
02/18/2003, 20:48:51
Author Profile Mail author
I'm glad that you understood that the brief interview sample was framed from within the context of rdl's link. Don't walk on eggshells, it's fine.
Vicki
Modified by jersey girl! at Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 22:30:18
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
p.s. for the nitpickers amongst us Re: Let me draw that out, Martin -- jersey girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jersey girl! ®
02/18/2003, 21:02:46
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki
Modified by jersey girl! at Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 22:32:26
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thank you for the correction, Vicki Re: Let me draw that out, Martin -- jersey girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/19/2003, 02:57:12
Author Profile Mail author
JAK's response was obviously bullshit, of course; there was absolutely no way for him to have "understood" what you never said!
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Wed, Feb 19, 2003, 06:28:27
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
No problem, Martin Re: Let me draw that out, Martin -- jersey girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jersey girl! ®
02/19/2003, 19:08:50
Author Profile Mail author
I agree with you in principle however, returning to what I described regarding the nature and conditions of first contact reporting and what I will say here, I want you to reconsider the totality of the situation.
Verbal reports made by YC are made spontaneously, to a trusted A (parent, teacher, care provider, relative,etc) normally with no video tape capability. You correctly state that this type of interview is best left to skilled professionals. Teachers, caregivers, LSW's, therapists, child advocacy law enforcement officals--as a group--are trained to conduct such interviews while parents--as a group--often lack specific knowledge of their child's developmental traits, abilities,inabilities and especially the nature of their cognition. That is why I chose to include additional information in my post above to access whatever audience is present here in our cyber community of posters/ lurkers.
Illiciting accurate/factual accounts without compromising either the child's well being or the testimony, is of greatest importance. The nature of first contact reports, the responsibility of the first contact A, the necessary collaborative efforts of (in cases similiar in nature to MC) ECP's to provide UNBIASED material presents a situation that occurs in a matter of hours. Example of unbiased material: The administrator asks Gerald to provide a detailed written account of his interaction with MC from 8am - 12 pm. This account, if he is well skilled in delivering detailed records, will indicate whether or not Gerald was in the location, who was present, and the interaction (including dialogue) that took place. This will help the administrator determine whether or not the childs account is potentially valid.
The written or audio tape account from the (lets say) teacher and the written account from the care provider (Gerald) are the basis for the next step the administrator will take. If he/she deems the account reportable, a call is made to both SS's and Law Enforcement. A call is made to the parent as well unless the parent is the alleged suspect. The documentation provided by the administrator and Gerald form the basis for the process that follows. Keep in mind, as you consider these cases, that child care providers are bound by law and risk felony charges (in most states) if they fail to report suspected abuse or neglect.
You seem to be thinking along a different, though honorable, path. One that requires that the child be whisked away to a therapists office or police station. While the account itself is time sensitive (strike while the iron is hot) procedure must be followed to determine the merit of the account. The LAST thing we want to do is rush a child into yet another situation where they are faced with a stranger and made to verbalize an account that may be fictionalized to start with and where the formal interview has the potential to impact the child when possibly no incident took place. The process itself, in the best of circumstances (and Fells Acres was most certainly NOT the best of circumstances) impacts the child. Consider that even the FIRST report made by the child to a trusted is the RESULT of stress and anxiety on the part of the child connected to the event he/she is reporting. We want to reduce impact as much as possible while at the same time determining if the account "has legs". It is a precarious situation that must be handled carefully and methodically so as not to expose the child to other situations that compromise their well being.
Let's go back to Gerald, MC and his mother. We know that MC's mother was already on panic alert. If she had had the wherewithal to question MC appropriately she might have learned the following (this is a fictionalized sample)
1. The "secret room" concept was extracted from the video the family rented from Block Buster two months ago.
2. MC's sexual acting out came from a few moments of watching MTV imagery.
3. Gerald did indeed pull MC's pants down to change into dry clothing because the playground slide was muddy. The event took place on Wednesday. How do we know? Because during his interview, MC revealed that after Gerald had changed his clothing he washed paint off his cowboy hat before he left the restroom. Wednesday was "Western Day" at school.
Just as a brief aside, one should NEVER use the word "secret" in conversations with young children. In the old days (when people like you and I invented the wheel :), telling and keeping a secret was an innocent part of childhood. Today, there is stigma attached to the word. It is inappropriate and considered professionally unethical to use it when speaking to a young child. You can see, from reading Gerald's mishandled case, why.
Vicki
p.s. the word "surprise" makes a good subsitute for "secret" in typical conversations with YC.
Modified by jersey girl! at Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 00:05:28
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Memories Re: Memories -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/18/2003, 03:41:22
Author Profile Mail author
I have long known of, and have been vocally supportive of, the vital work of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. Her work ranks extremely high in both professional competence and importance to society. Sadly, due to the sensitive emotional nature of the subject of false memories of sexual abuse (among many other types of false memories), she and her work have been the subject of repeated attacks and condemnations, even from the U.S. Congress.
Dr. Loftus' work frequently made it into the pages of the Skeptical Inquirer, published by CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. A recent work of hers, about induced false memories and the danger of relying on a single case history, is available on line at: Who Abused Jane Doe?
As far as these infamously bogus allegations of ritual sexual abuse goes, particularly the Little Rascals case, the truth is that well-intentioned yet tremendously destructive busybodies in the guise of ignorant teachers, idiotic cops, and self-appointed "child therapists" have been guilty of probably abusing more kids trusted to their care through the means of inducing false memories of sexual abuse than there are kids who have been actually abused! PBS' excellent documentary series Frontline completely knocked me to the floor, both outraging and enraging me with the entire 3-part series -- each done years apart -- of the superb documentarian Ofra Bikel's emotionally overwhelming story of the Little Rascals Day Care center in Edenton, N.C.. The title of the first program in the series was Innocence Lost, first aired in 1991 (much more information can be found here at PBS: Innocence Lost: The Plea). I can't think of any other instance of a program which so compelled my intense concentration and extreme outrage and anger and sympathy. I was home alone screaming at the TV and crying in outrage and commiseration at the magnitude of the child-abusing evil I was seeing... not from any sexual predator, but from these kids' own parents and cops and so-called "therapists"!
A summary of the case can be found here: Little Rascals Day Care Case, Summary. But there's an important element that's not made sufficiently clear in that summary, and that is that Jane Mabry's 4-year-old son had been repeatedly physically unruly (pushing and shoving kind of thing) towards a younger physically disabled child, and in response to one such event the owner of the day care center, Mr. Bob, swatted the older kid for pushing the disabled kid down again (I'm pretty sure I'd have done the same thing myself).
But the vindictive Mommy Mabry was incensed, and after not being satisfactorily molly-coddled by Mr. Bob's wife (who ran the day care center with her husband), reported the episode to the police. Needless to say, the cops weren't impressed and correctly took no action. But so outraged was Mrs. Mabry that her petty complaint wasn't being taken seriously enough, she (in my considered opinion based on the first documentary) MANUFACTURED a complaint which she correctly thought would get the police's attention: a charge of sexual abuse!
Here's where religion, religious lies, and religious evil comes into the picture. The idiot cop most responsible for so devastating those poor children's lives, Brenda Toppin, had just received "training" for -- and was quite caught up in -- the religiously-promoted bullshit of Satanic Sexual Abuse. It was a match made in Hell.
Toppin was so convinced of the reality of Satanic abuse, she and her selected coterie of unlicensed "child therapists" asked the kids incredibly leading and suggestive questions for months, thoroughly cementing those terribly scarring but artificially induced memories into those poor kids for the rest of their lives! The children were rewarded for every statement that confirmed the cops' and "therapists'" own insane socio-religious ideology, but if they denied being abused, they were punished until they gave the "correct" answers!
I strongly urge you to see: The "Little Rascals" Ritual Abuse Case
The hideous and life-ruining idiocy of so-called Satanic Sexual Abuse was and remains the product of insane religious zealotry. Religion was largely to blame for this and all the other allegations of child sexual abuse at day care centers, such as the McMartin case and others. At least in the case of poor Dale Akiki, who was charged with ritual sexual abuse chiefly because he was mentally slow and suffered from a rare disease that gave him a strange appearance, the jury was smart enough to recognize a ridiculous and trumped-up case when they heard it, and wisely acquitted him. I was very proud of my fellow San Diegans on that day!
Finally, the understandable but thoroughly mistaken emotional feeling that kids don't lie or distort the truth -- as virtually every adult and official in these cases falsely believed -- needs to be abandoned forever. The fact is that due to their sociobiologically trustful natures, kids represent the easist people into which to implant false memories.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 03:42:39
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Memories Re: Re: Memories -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/18/2003, 07:09:32
Author Profile Mail author
Just to clarify a point: my links to the Fells Acres case were only one or two of many available and are quite obviously sympathetic to the defendants. I did not research this thoroughly, just offered the links for the sake of showing an example of induced memories.
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You're a buffoonish little girl, rdl Re: Re: Memories -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 07:24:54
Author Profile Mail author
But I'm honored you're so infatuated with me and my ideas that you follow me around like a little puppy dog and quote my writings. At least this way I'm sure you're supping up everything I write...
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 20:20:57
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page