“The Voluntary[malicious] or Involuntary Transmittal of a Contaminated Idea, Bias, Belief, Vilification, Accusation of Circumstances and Facts of a Criminal Act to other Person(s) Within the Courtroom Work Group with the Intent of Gaining Some Personal Or Group Agenda.”
Social Group Contagion: Transmission of an influence or emotional state; causative agent; diseases transmission by contact. “Ordinary people typically can gain direct power by acting collectively.” (wikipedia.org/Crowd_psychology)
Courtroom Workgroup And Social Contagion
*Shielded by the anonymity of a crowd, in child custody and sex crimes cases, people, parents, investigators, social workers abandon personal responsibility and surrender to the contagious emotions of the crowd. The people involved in the contagion and the emotions of the crowd, the crowd assumes a life of its own, stirring up emotions and driving people toward irrational behaviors. (wikipedia.org/Crowd_psychology)
“The term contagion (kan-tagan) itself has its roots in the Latin word, contagio [no n], and quite literally means “and from the touch. Contagion therefore refers to a process of transmission by touch or contact.” (jom-emit.cfpmorg/1998/vol12/marsden_phtm) ** Mircrosoft Dictionary (Microsoft 1997) ** defines contagion as the “transmission of disease by direct contact with an infected person or object; a disease or poison transmitted in this way; the means of transmission; the transmission of an emotional state, e.g. excitement; harmful influence.”
Courtroom Work Group Social Contagion Theory
Courtroom Work Group: All parties involved in the court room and trial process: prosecutors, victim rights advocates, defense attorneys, witnesses, and the judge. Though mentioning a judge as part of social contagion may not realistic, I have seen it on one occasion, in a Michigan Court room. Usually judges are not part of the contagion, but they can be.
History of Social Contagion Theory
French Sociologist Gustive Le Bon explained Social Contagion as collective behaviors. Le Bon’s theory explained crowds exert a hypnotic influence over its or their members. Shielded by one own anonymity, people who are involved in Social Contagion are not rational thinkers and are not thinking critically. Another Social Contagion Theorist, Clark Mchail, supports Social Contagion Theory. He argues, “Systematic research revels that “the madding crows, does not take on a life of its own, apart from the thoughts and intentions of members.” (wikipedia.org/Crowdpsychology)** observations of crowd panic, the crowd was composed of several small groups of people trying to help one another without organization.
Two centuries ago, Johann von Goethe’s wrote a tragic tale “The Sorrows of Young Werther”, the main character of the book commits suicide. Shortly thereafter, suicides swept across Europe. Many of the people who had committed suicide read Goethe’s book. To stem the rising suicide rates, authorities banned the book, in several areas in Europe. “During the last two hundred years censorship of Goethe’s novel, social scientific research has largely confirmed the thesis that affect, attitudes, beliefs and behavior can indeed spread through populations as if they were some [infection].” (http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1998/vol2/marsden_p.html) **
At this time there is a disagreement between researchers of Social Contagion Theory. Empirical research did not begin until the 1950’s. From the 1950’s research until now indicates there is a number of areas in social life that Social Contagion occurs. The Social Contagion occurs when there are circumstances, “mere ‘touch’ or ‘contact’ with culture appears to be sufficient condition for social [contagion] transmission to occur. Today there are many definitions of Social Contagion. Marsden reports the clearest definition of Social Contagion, is by, The Hankbook of Social Psychology (Lindzey and Aronsson, 1995). **
Social Contagion is held to be, “the spread of affect or behavior from one crowd participant to other; one person serves as the stimulus for the imitative action of another”. Social Contagion should not be limited to crowds alone. The mass media spreads social contagion, people’s thoughts and beliefs through dispersed collectives.
Introduction of Social Contagion
Social Contagion research can be broken down into 6 broad areas, based on the nature of the behaviors that is spread:
- Hysterical contagions – “the dissemination of a set of symptoms among population in which no manifest basis for the symptom may be established,
involve the spread by contact of reported symptoms and experiences usually associated with clinical hysteria (hallucinations, nausea, vomiting, fainting in the absence of a biological contagion.” (Kerckhoff and Back, 1968) **
- Deliberate self-harm contagions – “suicide, research has shown that suicide rates and other examples of DHS vary proportionally to the extensity, intensity and content of exposure, both in local and dispersed collectives.” (Phillips, 1974, 180, 1982, Stack, 1987, 1990, Higgins and Range, 1996, Gould, 1990, 1996, Gould, Wallenstein and Klienman, 1987, Gould, Wallenstein and Davidson, 1989) **
- Contagions of aggression – “research has been of a descriptive nature within transitory and unpredictable angry crowds (mobs).” i.e. gangs (Bandura, 1973,
Reicher, 1984, Lachman, 1996) **
- Rule violation contagions – “evidence has tended to support the thesis that an individual’s exposure to rule violations increases their likelihood of engaging in similar or identical behavior i.e. speeding, smoking” (Ritter and Holmes, 1969, Row, Chassin, Presson, Edwards, and Sherman, 1992,)
- Consumer behavior contagions – “results in the spread of [consumerism] consumer fashions and fads through populations … “ (Marsden, P., 1998) **
- Financial contagions – “manifests in behavior of stock markets which lurch from state to state as a result of selling panics and buying frenzies that sweep across the globe.” (Orlean, 1992, Temzelides, 1997, Lux, 1998) **
A 7th, Social Contagion Theory Is, Emotional Contagion And Applications To The Courtroom Work Group…
Emotional Contagion is defined by McDougall (1920) as “the principle of direct induction of emotion by way of the primitive sympathetic response” and more recently (Sullins, 1991) as the process by which individuals seem to catch the ‘mood’ of those around them. These cues appear to trigger the appropriate emotions in a system of feedback.” The emotional Contagion Scale (Doherty, 1997) has been recently developed and validated to assist further research in this area, which has already identified various examples of emotional contagion including mood. (Hsee, Hatfield and Hemtob, 1992), anxiety (Behnke, Sawyer and King, 1994), fear (Grump and Kulik, 1997) appreciation (Freedman and Perlick, 1997) and enjoyment (Freedman et al., 1980)” (Marsden, P., p.5, 1998)
“When people are in a certain mood, whether elated or depressed, that mood often communicated to others. When we are talking to someone who is depressed it may make us feel depressed, whereas if we talk to someone who is feeling self confident and buoyant are likely to feel good about ourselves. This phenomenon, known as emotional contagion, is … compelling evidence for its effects … .” and also: “[Theorists], argue that people, in their everyday encounters [with others], tend to automatically and continuously synchronize with facial expressions, voices, postures, movements, and instrument emotional behaviors to others. Emotional experiences are affected, moment-to-moment, by feed back from mimicry.” ( Hatfield, Caciopro, Rapson, Cambridge, University Press, 1994)
Behavioral Investigative Question Arises: Can you be around someone you know and is involved in a legal matter and not say anything? Can you be around someone who is involved in a legal matter and not say anything? What happens if that person is a child witness – victim? If you would say something what would that be?
How People Might Catch Social Contagion
In a Michigan sex crimes case I was involved with from 1994-2001 Emotional Contagion was prevalent within the courtroom work group. In society those who are convicted of criminal sexual conduct are vilified, from word to mouth, media, other. However, in this case, the defendant was vilified even before their arrest. Child protective services, foster care, Family Independence Agency Supervisory Staff, Police, Family Member’s of the Victim, Guardian ad Litem, Foster Care Personal, Judge and other court room work group members had a predefined legal case out come for the defendant. Right from the intake and the video-taped interview of the victim, the defendant was doomed to prison.
An attorney, who is still practicing, made the comment once to me. When Janet Black, CPS worker, arrived within their courtroom work group, the court room work group community was happy that Janet Black was there to ‘protect children’. “Janet Black, was aggressive in pursuing child protective services cases”, prior to People v. Davis, 1989-90. Then the cases of People v. Finkbinder and People v. Davis came along, and Janet Black had a preconceived set of notions about these two cases.
Court Room Work Group Social Contagion occurs when the defendant commits a socially perceived immoral and/or illegal act by the courtroom work group that may or may not be civil or criminally held accountable; defendant is vilified; defendant is charged with another crime for which they did not committee; the defendant is held accountable by serving the contagion’s justice in another way.
“Motivational Advantage, … The larger number of people who want to hold a specific idea, and the more strongly they want it, the greater will be its motivational change.” ( Lynch, Basic Books, 96)
SOCIAL CONTAGION THEORY IN THE
COURTROOM WORKGROUP SOCIAL
IN PEOPLE V. DAVIS
FORENSIC BEHAVORIAL INVESTIGATIONS INC.
The research methods used in my article are obtained from a Behavioral Case Study by Frederic L. Hillaker MA CMI of a criminal sexual conduct case People v. Davis. Our case study and research was conducted from 1994-2001. Our data was obtained through Freedom of Information: probate court transcripts, circuit court transcripts, Michigan State Police reports, Family Independence Agency interoffice memos, reports, governmental records; recorded statements and sworn affidavits, academic literature.
Social Contagion Theory
And
The Court Room Work Group
Court Room Work Social Contagion and People v. Davis Case Study Introduction – My case example of malicious witness tainting is People v. Davis. In order to show malicious intent on the part of the investigator(s) the case profile of:
People v. Davis Case Study Involving a Criminal Sexual Conduct Case and
Court Room Work Group Social Contagion Theory
In 1994, Hillaker Investigations was retained to investigate a criminal sexual conduct case, wherein John Davis was convicted in 1990 of Criminal Sexual Conduct, 1st degree. During our investigation we discovered two cases of alleged criminal sexual conduct cases had occurred within a matter of a few months. The first allegation was made in the spring of 1989, when the oldest brother of a young girl told his mother that his sister had told him that she had been abused by her middle brother. The second allegation was made in 1990 when a referral was made to Michigan Department of Protective Services, an allegation of criminal sexual conduct by the oldest brother; his sister had told him that their father had abused her.
Terrence Campbell and Melvin Guyer were retained to behaviorally review various transcripts and other documents. Campbell and Guyer are expert witnesses in the area of Children and Adults as Witnesses and they meet the legal standard of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and Frye v. United States. First investigative impression was to view the two cases concurrently, the middle child’s alleged criminal sexual conduct case and the father’s alleged criminal sexual conduct case, rather than view the two separately.
Terrence Campbell suggests that there are two levels of witness tainting, one is where the intent of the prosecutors, protective services, police and others are not suspect, and they are in their minds righteously pursuing a criminal sexual conduct case.
The other level is one where the intent of the government or other subjects is suspect and malicious (Campbell, 1998). For purposes of my thesis I will use pseudonyms.
See appendix.
In the spring of 1989, a middle aged husband and wife named John and Carol Davis had four children living in Michigan. The children’s ages ranged from 3 to 18 years of age, two boy’s names are Davey and Brad with middle child being the only girl, named Linda. Frank, the oldest son, was from Carol’s previous relationship; the husband adopted Frank at a young age. The children were active and studious in their school work and performed above average. John worked for General Motors and he was an ordained minister in Michigan. Carol stayed home caring for the children. The relationship between Frank and Davey was stress filled, because Davey had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; he was full of energy and would quite often bother his oldest brother. John admitted being psychologically and physically abusive to his son, Frank. When Frank reached the age of 15, the father quit physically abusing his adopted son. John still was psychologically abusive towards Frank until he left, the day of high school graduation (Hillaker Investigations, 1994).
On April 13th or 15th, Linda made a claim of criminal sexual conduct against Davey. Linda told her older brother, “… Davey had just urinated in her mouth” (Probate Court, 1989: 25). Frank told his mother of the allegation while she was fixing supper. After John returned home from work, Carol asked John to spank Davey. John spanked Davey; he adamantly denied the claim. Carol asked her mother-in-law to baby-sit for the children while she and John went for a car ride to discuss Davey’s behaviors. During the ride Carol requested to her husband that they “lock Davey up” because he was too hard to handle and because of the recent “alleged sexual abuse.” John refused to have Davey incarcerated and the family proceeded to go about their normal routine until Frank graduated from high school and moved out of the house the day of high school graduation; “this development raises the likelihood of family politics influencing this entire case” (Campbell, 1994: 1).
A few days after the high school graduation of Frank, Davey left the house in the middle of the night, riding his bicycle towards Michigan to his maternal grandparent’s home. Davey was taken into custody by a Michigan Police Department and John picked up his son from the police. On June 13th, Carol left the family home and proceeded to leave the state of Michigan and she went to a southern state for a few weeks (Probate Court, 1989: 21).
While the three children were being cared for by a sitter and John was at work, Carol returned to her Michigan home, removed her children and proceeded to move into a different Michigan, residence. During her return Carol contacted the Michigan Department of Social Services and made a referral (Probate Court, 1989: 21). As the result of Carol’s referral, Davey was placed into Havenwyck Center. John was unaware of his middle son’s placement into a juvenile facility. In August 1989, a motion of physical abuse was filed against John in Probate Court, by Michigan Department of Social Services Protective Services to facilitate the children under the jurisdiction of the court, for their care, custody, and control. A second petition was filed against Davey for permanent placement at Havenwyck Center, based on [double] hearsay evidence of criminal sexual conduct.
The record of alleged abuse was testified to by Carol. Carol testified, “… Frank came down and he said, “Mom, I got to talk to you in the bathroom right now.” He took me in the bathroom and he said Linda came into his room and said that Davey had Linda in his bedroom, had locked the door and forced her down on the bed and urinated in her mouth and she tried to get rid of it in the waste basket but some went on the floor and she was real upset … ” (Probate Court, 1989: 25). The matter of the Probate Court record of this alleged attack is based on double hearsay.
The judge went on record stating, “… I’m prepared to make a decision. … As far as I’m concerned, whether Davey was of an age of puberty or not, that daughter of yours was unquestionably sexually molested.
That is sexual behavior in my book” (Probate Court, 1989: 27-28). The judge ordered, ” … Davey will remain at Havenwyck Hospital for as long as necessary … ” (Probate Court, 1989: 29).
Carol gave up parental rights to her children. An order was issued by the probate judge; the children were placed under the supervision of the court with Davey being placed in Havenwyck Center and the 2 youngest children in foster care.
Carol never returned to the maternal home. During the probate court proceedings evidence was offered that John had been physically abusive to his children and John admitted he had sexually abused his middle son [CSC1] when the child was an infant. (Probate Court, 1989)
Was the contagion seed planted all parties knew about the John’s,
‘Provable Background’?
John continues to fight probate court for the return of his children. Carol would visit her children separately from her husband. John occasionally was permitted visitation with his children. John visited Davey in the juvenile center and his two other children in foster care. The youngest two children, Linda and Brad, were placed into foster home of Mr. and Mrs. Williams. Frank visits Brad and Linda on a semi-regular basis; this is when Linda reveals sexual abuse by her father
Mrs. Williams stated, ” … in early November of 1989, Linda began telling her that she had a secret, but she would not disclose supposedly because she would get spanked” (Campbell, 1994: 3). It was later discovered that Linda told Frank of the alleged sexual abuse of her father, during a visit.
Linda participated in several group counseling secessions. The group secessions were for “… children who were thought to have been physically and/or sexually abused. The notes from this date state: Linda talkative and told of molestation from her brother … “(Campbell, 1994: 1).
Terrence Campbell (1994) suggests:
The development cited above raises more questions than it answers. For example, documentation should have established when Linda first disclosed the alleged molestation by [her brother] and who did she first disclose it to? Equally, if not more important, is the fact that none of Hill’s notes reflect any treatment planning. Appropriate treatment necessitates a clear defined description of the child’s condition that necessitates treatment, and a corresponding plan designed to alleviate the child’s clinical condition.” Under-taking counseling or psychotherapy for a child only because she has been sexually abused – or allegedly abused – is inappropriate. In other words, physicians do not justify treatment on the basis of the fact that a child was involved in an automobile accident. Instead, physicians treat the clinical condition – internal injuries, fractures, concussions, etc. – that may result from an automobile accident. More over, some people who are involved in an automobile accident do not require treatment. Similarly, then, counseling or psychotherapy for a child who allegedly had been sexually abused do not exhibit any kind of clinical condition; and as a result, they do not need any treatment. These considerations are particularly important because psychotherapy can persuade children that they have been sexually abused, when in fact, no such abuse ever occurred (p.2, p. 118-124).
In another therapy session, on January 31st. 1990, the social workers treatment notes state: “Children’s group – attention seeking in group [referring to Linda]. Did things to distract the group but later calmed down. Did not contribute to the group discussion but listened contentedly as another group member share about being physically abused” (Campbell, 1994: 2). Campbell suggests, “Linda … was seeking attention in the group.”
At first she apparently engaged in inappropriate behaviors attempting to gain the attention she wanted. Then, she listened intently as another group member shared about being physically abused. “Therefore, this group session may have taught Linda that she could gain attention by talking about how she had been supposedly abused” (Campbell, 1994: 2).
My criminal sexual conduct investigation of John Davis later discovered that Michigan Department of Social Service, Protective Services had portions of the treatment notes of Linda Davis were missing from the treatment dates were between January 29, 1989 and August 27, 1990, with more visits prior to her father’s trial There was no documentation “… for treatment between 1-31-90 and 3-7-90. Later it was discovered that the daughter had seen her therapist at least 21 different secessions before she testified at her father’s trial in November of 1990″ (Campbell, 1995: 5). In summarizing the therapist’s contacts with the daughter[Linda], “… the [therapist] specifies [to], prepare her [daughter, Linda] for court, as a future goal. In other words, the [therapist] seemed determined to prepare [the daughter] to testify in a manner that was consistent with how [the therapist] thought she should testify” (Campbell, 1994: 5). To behaviorally reinforce the daughter’s memory in preparation for testifying, the therapist used a book called “… Chris Tells the Truth and pictures that correlate” (Campbell, 1994: 5). Linda became very involved in the therapy.
Refresher Definition
Court Room Work Group Social Contagion occurs when the defendant commits a socially perceived immoral and /or illegal act by the court room work group that may or may not be civil or criminally held accountable; defendant is vilified; defendant is charged with another crime for which he did not commit; the defendant is held socially accountable by serving the contagion’s justice in another way.
“The voluntary[malicious] or involuntary transmittal of an idea, bias, belief, vilification; causation of circumstances and facts of a criminal or civil act to other persons within the courtroom work group with the intent of gaining some personal and or social agenda.”
John would visit his children either at a public library or at the Michigan Department of Social Services office. Frank learned of his fathers visits in the fall of 1989 and became upset. He met with family friends “[o]n Wednesday, 1-24-98, Mrs. Jones [family friend] received a phone call from her [daughter-in-law ... warning her mother-in-law of Frank's mood prior to his arrival" (Parsons, 1995: 3). "When Frank arrived at the Jones he was very cold, serious, unfriendly, and agitated. Frank asked Mrs. Jones what she knew about John and what was going on. Frank accused John of sexually abusing Linda. Frank told the Jones’s he was going to get John and make sure John would never see the children again" (Ms. Jones, Sworn Affidavit, 1995: 3; Hillaker Investigations, Sworn Affidavit of Hunt, 1997: 21). In a sworn affidavit taken on July 8th, 1997, Margaret Hunt [FIA Foster Care] is asked … You said Frank expressed what — sounded to you like hatred of John. Hunt responded, “not only that time, several times he told me that — I think in fact he may have even made the statement that the hated John and that — he did not consider him to be his father …” (Hillaker Investigations, Sworn Affidavit of Hunt, 1997: 22).
On Feburaury1, 1990, the Michigan Department of Protective Services ” … received a phone call from Frank, who had previously stated he was going to get John, where he indicated his sister had begun to reveal to him that she had been molested by her father” (Michigan Department of Social Services, 3200 form, 1990). Shortly after Linda’s alleged comment, a complaint was filed to the Michigan Department of Social Services and a 3200 form was filled out and filed (State of Michigan, 3200 form, 1990).
The form stated, ” … child states Davey & John, peed in her mouth, also states John & Davey put penis in her peepee, Davey put his finger in her butt. Also Davey … held her so she wouldn’t scream or tell anyone when penis was placed in her mouth” (D.S.S, 3200 Form, 2-2-09). The 3200 form also mentions a “history of suspicious sexual abuse”.
When Frank called Michigan Department of Social Services, questions arose as to what prompted Frank to make the referral. How did Frank question his sister, and ” … how motivated was Frank to find evidence indicating the father’s reputation?” (Campbell, 1994: 3).
Research evidence, “… clearly, demonstrates that adults repeatedly asking children the same questions, over and over again, motivate the children to alter their answers as they attempt to comply with what they think the adults expect to hear.” (Campbell, 1994: 3).
In a sworn affidavit Hillaker asked Margaret Hunt [FIA Foster Care],
Hunt: there was phone contact between Frank and Janet Black,
Hillaker: What do you think — did Frank and Janet Black
have some sort of contact — regards to this case?
Hunt:I think they did by phone. (p. 48).
In a clinical aspect, do you think Social Contagion has spread and, if so, who had control of the witness’s memory?
February 6th 1990, a video taped interview of Linda was conducted by the Michigan Department of Social Services, Protective Service worker Janet Black. Those present in the interview were: daughter, her oldest brother, Janet Black, and a uniformed Michigan State Police Officer. The video taped interview was conducted in an interviewing room with a one way mirror. A second Michigan Department Mental Health worker was observing from the one way window and operating the video equipment.
In a sworn affidavit, Michigan Department of Social Services, Hillaker and Mitchell interviewing, Hunt responds:
Hunt: … Janet Black was pretty prejudiced against John for his religious beliefs and her perception of him as a person.
Hillaker: Was Black prejudiced against John?
Hunt: Yes.”
Hunt: states “… [Janet Black] … had an aggressive — style to her … “.
Hillaker: Would you say that her actions inappropriate.
Hunt: I remember — I guess I would say that they were bordered on
inappropriate. I felt that she [Black] had a really strong dislike for John. I didn’t feel comfortable with the way the interview went with Linda and the police officer and [Janet]. (p. 25)
Behavioral analysis of the video taped interview discovered the daughter had been interviewed prior to the video taped interview, Campbell suggests “… this was not an initial investigative interview!” (Campbell, 1994: 4).
In a sworn affidavit Mitchell asked Margaret Hunt,
Mitchell: … prior to the taped interview, did you ever see … Janet Black
discussing this with Frank and Linda …
Hunt: Yeah, Yes.” (p. 27).
Other family members present were Linda’s maternal grandparents who were near the interviewing room:
Before Linda ever underwent the video taped interview of 2-6-90, she was surrounded by a network of adults that assumed her father had sexually abused her, and who repeatedly directed questions at her premised upon those assumptions. Specifically, this network consisted of: (1) Mr. Hill (2) Mrs. Hill (3) Frank (4) [maternal grandmother] (5) [maternal grandfather] (6) Margaret Hunt of D.S.S.] (7) Janet Black of D.S.S. (8) State Trooper. To belabor the obvious, it is exceedingly difficult for a 6-year-old child to successfully resist the conformity demands of this many adults. In fact, adults who are misinformed regarding some event in a child’s life will persistently ask that child leading and suggestive questions until the child responds in a manner consistent with the adult’s expectations. (p. 403-439).
The interview lasted approximately one to one and a half hours. The operator of the video experienced audio problems with the recording due to the microphone’s improper adjustment (Hillaker Investigations, Sworn Affidavit of, Margaret Hunt, 1997). The Michigan Department of Social Services’ video-taped interview of Linda Davis was transcribed by General Reporting, Saginaw, Michigan in 1994. The video-taped interview was conducted in a informal setting. The interviewing room was painted a light color, “white or light gray”, with a couch that was facing the camera and chairs set on each side of the couch. Janet Black, the protective services worker was sitting on the couch with Linda sitting to her left. Frank was sitting in a chair to the right of Linda. A uniformed Michigan State Police Officer was wearing a pistol which was visible; he was sitting in a chair to the left of Janet Black. The primary interviewers were Janet Black and Frank; the Michigan State Police Officer only asked a few non-behavioral, and non relevant, and non forensic questions.
In the beginning Frank was quiet during the interview; he became more verbal as the interview proceeded, reinforcing his sister’s answers by rephrasing questions submitted to her by Janet Black. Frank’s demeanor changed from passive to very upset and aggressive in response to conversation, about his relationship with his father, John. Frank went on and on about how his father was physically abusive towards him and his siblings. During the interview, Linda was fairly relaxed and she appeared not to be stressed over the topic; her conversation flowed fairly well.
In her sworn affidavit from Department of Social Services, Margaret Hunt stated, “… I remember thinking that she was flowing really well with answers” (Hillaker Investigations, Sworn Affidavit of Hunt, 1997: 30).
In the beginning of the video taped interview Janet Black asked Linda, “… would
you answer Frank’s questions about — about what happened? (General Reporting Services, 1994:
1)
Melvin Guyer suggests, ” the presence of Frank at the interview was highly inappropriate … that these statements from Frank were permitted to be expressed in the presence of Linda is a fundamental breech of proper interview technique.”
Such circumstances assures the child will be exposed to highly suggestive materials that can predictably distort actual memory and create false memories” (Guyer, 1994: 2). The protective services worker asked, ” … Frank, you want to ask her — ask her what happened to her? About the bad stuff that happened when she was a kid. [Frank asks a question about the bad stuff], What did daddy do to you?” (General Reporting Service, 1994: 1). While Linda was answering the questions posed to her about her father, a uniformed Michigan State Police officer walked into the room.
There is an introduction of the officer to Linda and then Linda responded, “Well he did pee in my mouth. And he put his hand over his mouth — my mouth” (General Reporting Service, 1994: 2).
The protective services worker, Janet Black, and Frank asks Linda:
11. Janet Black: Do you remember where you were when
12. this happened?
13. Linda: Yes. In his house, in the blue
14. bathroom.
15. Janet Black: The blue bedroom?
16. Was that — whose bedroom was the blue bedroom?
17. Linda: Daddy’s
18. Janet Black: Daddy’s bedroom?
19. Linda: Yes.
20. Janet Black : [Frank], did I understand her right?
21. Frank: I think so.
22. Janet Black: Now is there anyone else that did anything like that
23. to you?
24. Linda: Yes. Nathan did.
25. Frank: What did he do?
Page 3
1. Linda: He did the same thing daddy did.
2. First daddy did it first, then [middle brother] got it from daddy.
(General Reporting Service, Video Taped Interview, 2-6-90: 2-3)
Margaret Hunt’s sworn affidavit she states, “Janet Black’s questions were kind of leading. Linda … was following really well with answers” (Margaret Hunt, 1997: 30). During the video taped interview of Linda, a uniformed Michigan State Police officer walked into the interviewing room, during the middle if the interview. This would have been highly prejudicial to the witness. Janet Black, the protective services worker, also changed the statement of Linda. During the interview Linda stated “blue bathroom”. Janet Black stated “blue bedroom”, which changed Linda’s statement later, to blue bed room”.
Later, this will have a severe impact during Linda’s testimony during her father trial. Additionally, Linda stated, ” … first daddy did it, then Davey got it from daddy.”, is out of the chronological order of events that occurred within the Davis family dynamic, during the spring and summer, 1989. (General Reporting Service, 1994: 11)
The Michigan State Police officer’s context of the interview, with Linda:
2. TROOPER: Had daddy ever done this to you before?
3. Just once?
4. Linda: He only did it once.
5. TROOPER: He only did it once.
6. TROOPER: Did he ever do anything else?
7. Linda: I think he had the same glasses.
8. TROOPER: Is that right / He has glasses just
9. like mine?
10. Linda: Yes. Except he don’t have this
11. part (General Reporting Service, 1994: 11)
After the accusation stage of the interview was over Janet Black, the Michigan State Trooper and Frank engaged in a vilification of John and John’s mother in Linda’s presence. Janet Black informed the Michigan State Police officer that Carol had told her, “John had ejaculated in the baby [Davey's] mouth, and that there was nothing wrong with the baby” (General Reporting Service, 1994: 16). Janet Black asked if there ” … [was] enough for a warrant” and the Michigan State Police officer responded, “… It sounds like it” (General Reporting Service, 1994: 16). Janet Black discussed obtaining an ex parte order, to stop John from his visiting his children. Discussions took place in front of Linda, allegations of the middle brother peeing in his sister’s mouth were discussed.
Other discussions between Janet Black, the Michigan State Police Officer, and Frank which took place, in front of Linda, included conversations about her mother being scared to death of her husband, and about that being the reason she came back when she left their home to remove the children and place them into foster care. (General Reporting Services, 1994: 30) Linda overheard her brother Frank and Janet Black demonizing and vilifying her father. There was talk of how Davey had previously sexually assaulted his sister. Davey at this time was incarcerated at Havenwyck Center. Frank explained how his father made him get hair cuts and wear clothes he didn’t like. Frank complained about almost every aspect of his father’s life, “but once he does get into a rage there is a loss of control at that point. And things can happen. And that’s when things have happened, when he gets into a rage.” (General Reporting Service, 1994: 39).
After forensic analysis, of the interview, Terrence Campbell (1994) in his assessment of People v. Davis suggests – Many of the questions directed at Linda were quite leading and suggestive. …
Over the course of this interview, Linda became progressively more and more passive, while the three adults increasingly talked with each other about her father and events supposedly related to his alleged sexual abuse of her. To belabor the obvious; overhearing these adult conversations influenced her to one degree or another. For example, she listened quite attentively as the DSS worker graphically described how John allegedly ejaculated into Davey’s mouth when he was an infant (p.16). While listening to the non-stop assassination of her father’s character during this video-taped session, [the daughter] has to have been profoundly influenced by the comments she heard. (p. 5)
Analysis of the interview, Melvin Guyer (1994) in his assessment People v. Davis suggests: Much use was made of leading and suggestive questions. In effect, the Protective Worker was providing the child with the answers to the questions asked, making the reality of any subsequent statements from the child highly suspect. The presence of Frank at the interview was highly inappropriate, as were many insinuating and derogatory statements he directed against John. The fact that these statements from Frank were permitted to be expressed in the presence of Linda is
a fundamental breach of proper interview technique. Such circumstances assures that the child will be exposed to highly suggestive materials that can predictably distort actual memory and create false memories. An analysis of the text of the interview suggests that the protective services worker had already adopted a highly biased set of beliefs concerning John, beliefs that were promoted by Frank and apparently accepted with little analysis by the protective service worker.
The protective service worker seemed prone to exaggerate, embellish and distort or contrive information. Many of the statements she made, in the child’s presence, were without independent corroboration, but instead seemed derived from a blind acceptance of the allegations and characterizations of John advanced by Frank.
The child, Linda, was subject in this interview, to much coercive questioning by persons who already formed an opinion as to what she should say. Such inter- viewer bias is well known to produce distorted and false information from a young child who is questioned by adults in positions of authority. Statements of vilification of John were regularly made during the interview and in the presence of the child, by both the protective services worker and Frank. These statements were uncritically accepted or at least left unchallenged by the [State Trooper]. The process is certain to contaminate the child’s memory, resulting in indoctrination and false memories.
Reliance was made upon statements made by the mother, attributing to her reliability and objectivity of reporting accuracy which is clearly unwarranted and certainly not independently corroborated at the time her statements were accepted. It is noteworthy that later developments indicate that Carol, in fact is a highly unreliable report and that the Protective services worker has made a highly inaccurate assessment of the personality, motives and character of Carol.
Based on my review of the materials forwarded to me it seems apparent that the child interview with Linda was so biased, coercive and suggestive that the child lacked the capacity subsequent to offer trustworthy testimony concerning John. The intense hatred which Frank apparently bears toward his [father] was not properly noted by the investigating authorities and so his discerning effects and undue influence upon Linda was overlooked.
A more impartial view of this case might well see the allegations made against [the father] as being merely the product of Frank’s efforts to do harm and to recruit Linda as a complainant against her father by encouraging her and indoctrinating her to make false statements and contrived reports concerning the events which in fact never occurred.
The record in this case is replete with the interview techniques, as well as the family circumstances which produce false allegations of child sexual abuse. The estrangement, actual hatred, between Frank and John should have made Frank’s reports and allegations suspect. Instead they were accepted uncritically by the Protective Worker and were then used to bias and distort the memories of a child’s reports is characteristic in false allegations cases. (p. 1-4)
People v. Michaels, Forensic Behavioral Significance- Scientific, Legal Validity, and
Evidentiary Reliability
The Supreme Court of the United States, decided June 28, 1993, and instructed that:
The issue we must determine is whether the interview techniques used by the State in this case were so coercive or suggestive that they had a capacity to substantially distort the children’s recollections of actual events and thus compromise the reality of the children’s statements and testimony based on their recollections. New Jersey v. Margaret Kelly Michaels, N.J.__, __NE2d__(June 13.1994)
And reasoned that:
The question of whether the interviews of the child victims of alleged sexual abuse were unduly suggestive and coercive requires a highly nuanced inquiry into the totality of circumstances surrounding those interviews.
Untrustworthy interrogations:
If a child’s recollection of events has been molded by an interrogation, that influence undermines the reliability of the child’s responses as an accurate recollection of actual events.
Wide consensus – of interviewer bias:
We note that a fairly wide consensus exists among experts, scholars, and practitioners concerning improper interrogation techniques. They argue that among factors that can undermine the neutrality of an interview and create undue suggestiveness are a lack of investigatory independence, the pursuit by the interviewer of a preconceived notion of what has happened to the child, the use of leading questions, and lack of control for outside influences on the child’s statements, such as previous conversations with parents or peers.
A lack of objectivity also was indicated by the interviewer’s failure to pursue any alternative hypothesis that might contradict an assumption of defendant’s guilt, and a failure to challenge or probe seemingly outlandish statements made by children. The record is replete with instances in which children were asked leading questions that furnished information the children themselves had not mentioned.
Predicates & reliability:
[To] ensure defendant’s right to a fair trial a pretrial taint hearing is essential to demonstrate the reliability of the resultant evidence. [A]ssesing reliability as a predicate to the admission of in-court is a somewhat extraordinary step. Nevertheless, it is not unprecedented.
John Davis’ trial occurred on Monday, November 26th, 1990, in a Michigan Circuit Court and covered 2 days. There were four witnesses, Linda, Frank, and two family acquaintances. During trial Linda testified that John touched her in her privates with his hand. Linda testified that John placed his whole hand inside of her (Circuit Court Transcript, 1990: 123). Linda also testified, John touched her with his “… pee pee [and] put it inside of her mouth” (Circuit Court Transcript, 1990: 125).
County Circuit court Transcripts (1990) Linda testified, [by the prosecutor]
15. Q. Do you remember what part of the house you were in?
16. A. Yes?
17. Q. Where were you?
18. A. In his bedroom.
19. Q. And where were you in his bedroom?
20. A. On the bed.
21. Q. Who was with you then?
22 A. [Brad]
23. Q. Where was [Brad]?
24. A. Downstairs.
(p. 123)
The trial had limited testimony by Linda and the other witnesses. The prosecutor relied on the testimony of Linda through direct examination. The defense was centered on whether Linda was telling the truth or John was telling the truth. The defense argued that while Linda was living with the foster care parents her behaviors changed toward her father.
For instance, she quit calling her father, and Frank started calling him John. Linda stated during trial, saying … he’s no longer my daddy, and my foster mother is my mother, came after she was removed from [her family] home.” (Criminal Transcripts, 1990: 142). While Linda was at the foster care parents, and at trial she showed no fear towards he father. Melvin Guyer (1994) states, ” … at trial there was testimony to the effect that Linda showed no fear or discomfort concerning her father, as reported by friends and neighbors familiar with both of them. This is, in fact, quite significant testimony that could explain to the jury the exculpatory implications of such positive and comfortable relationships, the trial might well have had a different out come” (p. 3).
Melvin Guyer (1994) also suggests:
In summary, the testimony of the complainant, Linda, appears quite suspect in this case is that the child was clearly exposed to much biasing, suggestive, leading and coercive interviewing. Further, the family dynamics prevailing at the time the allegations were made were those commonly encountered in false allegation cases in which biased adults influence a young child to have false and distorted memories, memories which once inoculated come to be believed by the child merely through the fact of their repetition by the adult’s in positions of authority who affect the child’s reconstruction of events alleged to have occurred in the past. (p. 3)
During the trial the defense failed to introduce the Department of Social Services’ video-tape, failed to introduce the medical records from Linda’s medical examination post criminal sexual assault stating that she was not penetrated and her hymen was still in tact. Further, laboratory report by the Department of Social Services’ that states the daughter has normal flora.
There is also a report by a psychologist who tested and interviewed Linda based on the allegations leveled against her middle brother, wherein Linda denies (prior to ever bringing up allegations against her father), denies sexual abuse, ever occurred. John Davis retained a polygraph examiner and passed his polygraph examination.
Terrence Campbell (1994) also suggests:
Given the issues outlined above, Linda was unable to testify in a reliable manner at her father’s trial in November, 1990. By November 1990, her memory had been profoundly distorted and contaminated by interacting with many adults who assumed that her father had sexually abused her. Ultimately, then, when Linda testified that her father has sexually abused her, it is unlikely that she was engaged in any conscious, premeditated fabrication. Instead, she more than likely found it difficult to accurately discriminate between what she thought she remembered – and what she merely imagined. These kinds of memory failures involve a process known as “Source monitoring errors,” and such errors frequently undermine the reliability of children’s memory. (Campbell, Assessment of People v. Davis, 1994: 6; Johnson & Lindsay, 1993: 3-28; Foley & Johnson, 1985: 1145-1155) It is also noteworthy that at trial there was testimony to the effect that Linda showed no fear or discomfort concerning her father, as reported by friends and neighbors familiar with both of them. This in fact quite significant testimony and had it been supplemented by the defense expert witness testimony that could explain to the jury the exculpatory implications of showing no fear. The trial might have had a different out come. (p.4)
The jury was out for approximately 2 hours, and convicted John Davis of criminal sexual conduct first degree; he was sentenced 8-20 years in prison. John Davis has attempted to parole twice and parole was denied; in July of 1999 Davis paroled.
Joseph Mitchell of Mitchell and Associates, behavioral case profile of People v. Davis
(1997) suggests; the exact words that were used by Linda (through the buffer Frank) to get Davey incarcerated were used also against John at his trial. It is also interesting to note that the person Linda revealed her alleged sexual abuse to be the same person, it was Frank. When Linda had initially made the allegations against Davey to Frank, the family looked for evidence of that happening, this “peeing in the mouth” incident, that was alleged to occur nearly a year prior to John’s being arrested for the similar allegations, yet no physical evidence was ever found, no wet spots on the floor etc., and Frank’s vague innuendos and half truths, Davey was taken from the home and placed in a juvenile center. A few months later, the scenario played out again resulting in the arrest and conviction of John. Throughout this entire case it was clear Frank had his own agenda that would result in the family’s destruction. Franks desire for revenge against John is clear in the Department of Social Services video tape interview of Linda. [The D.S.S. video tape] clearly contains a different story than the one Linda tells in court during her father’s trial. In fact, her consistent contradictions of the events is the only consistent about her statements. That is to say that Linda’s testimony in court and statements made during the department of social services video taping are so inconsistent that the statistical probability of her statements being true with regard to being assaulted by John and Davey are at best thin.
Thus we should consider:
1) That even with the entire family looking for evidence of Frank’s allegation of the assault of Linda by Davey in the home, as told by Frank, circa April 13 or 14 of 1989, none was ever found. And this is the same as with the case of John; and, 2) Davey ran away from home on 06/13/89, two days after Frank moved out, which was 06/09/89. Immediately thereafter, the mother, steals $2,000 of the family’s silver and leaves on 06/13/89. The real mystery here is what occurred in the home at that time. Davey stated after one of [his mothers] visits that he felt uncomfortable about the way she touched him. In the [psychologists] report on the [mother], dated 08/14/89, he states that she is … “prone to dishonesty, extreme impulsive…and compulsive behaviors … and suffers from forbidden emotions and impulses.” You see it was [the mother] and the … County Department Social Services caseworker Janet Black’s assistance, who insisted on placing Davey in forensic custody, and under such conditions that no one would believe him if he denied the accusations. It was [the mother] who insisted on giving up her parental rights, and it was [the mother] who admitted lying to investigators working on the case. It was [the mother] who claimed to have been molested as a child, and raped as an adult. It was [the mother] who admitted to having an extramarital affair (as a result of praying with the man, she says).
Investigative Behavioral Conclusions in People v. Davis
From the profile of People v. Davis, it is clear that there was some other agenda going on besides the investigation and conviction of a criminal sexual conduct case.
Margaret Hunt states that, Frank Davis did not like his father, John Davis, and had hatred towards him. She also states that, Janet Black disliked John Davis, and his religion.
The interview of Linda Davis was highly inappropriate and observed portions of a meeting with Linda, Frank, and other relatives, prior to the interview of Linda Davis, wherein she accuses her father John Davis of criminal sexual conduct. (Sworn Affidavit of Margaret Hunt, 1997). Frank Davis stated to family friends just prior to making the complaint to Michigan Department of Protective Services, that “… he was going to get his father” (Sworn Affidavit of Parsons, 1995). During the video-taped interview of Linda Davis, Frank Davis demonizes his father in front of his sister/witness who is giving a statement to the protective services worker. Terrence Campbell states … the questions [of the video-taped interview] were quite leading” (Campbell, 1994). Campbell also suggests the video-taped interview of Linda Davis “… was not an initial interview. [and] … the interview only took place after Linda knew what to say [and] … many other adult’s had frequently interpreted the truth for Linda before her November, 1990 testimony” (Campbell, 1994). Melvin Guyer suggests that Janet Black gave Linda Davis “… answers to questions asked, making the reliability of any subsequent statements from the child highly suspect.
The presence of Frank at the interview was highly inappropriate, as were the many insinuating and derogatory statements he made against Mr. Davis” (Guyer, 1995).
Contagion had spread through DSS, Frank and maternal family:
Guyer also suggests in (1995) that the “…protective services worker had adopted a set of highly biased set of beliefs towards John Davis, beliefs that were promoted by Frank, and apparently accepted with little critical analysis by the protective services worker. The protective services worker seemed prone to exaggerate, embellish and distort or contrive information. Many of the statements made in front of the child’s presence, were without independent corroboration, but instead seemed derived from a blind acceptance of the allegations and characterizations of Mr. Davis advance by Frank. (p. 2)
Terrence Campbell suggests there is another form of witness tainting, that is where the intent of the investigator is suspect and malicious. (Campbell, 1998) From my Thesis profile case conclusions there is a strong indication the prosecution of Mr. Davis was in fact malicious.
With any investigative research using qualitative methods, and being able to measure what witnesses said, Frank Davis, Linda Davis, against the facts of a particular legal case, which were developed by Janet Black, is important. The ability to discover in detail through a forensic behavioral investigation, whether it was the personal hate for his father by Frank Davis from the physical and mental abuse or the aggressiveness and dislike of his father, or Janet Black’s dislike of Mr. Davis’ personally or his religion, gave the impetus to the lead protective services worker, Janet Black, to proceed with this case.
Article Conclusions
Salem implications; end at the beginning
Caveat Actor
I end my Thesis where I began, that is by examining the earliest record of witnesses tainting, the Salem Witch Craft Trails. Many people were tried, imprisoned, and executed based on several tainted witnesses’ memories testimony which was based on hearsay, after which testimony against the defendants was recanted. Social and cultural forces aided in the child witness giving false testimony of witch craft being practiced in the community of Salem. We are all vulnerable to false allegations whether it is a crime in the late 17th century or the late 20th century. Today the crime can be a false allegation of criminal sexual conduct. Our children are vulnerable to memory alterations as were the children witnesses in the Salem Witchcraft Trials.
Impact of recant False Statements and Testimony
The Real Victims of Social Contagion Theory
Ann Putnam who testified against many innocent people in the Salem Witchcraft trials, realized as did many other witnesses, the mistake she made when previously accusing defendants of witchcraft. She made a public confession 14 years later, after giving her testimony, the confession hangs in the Boston House Of Commons:
I desire to be humbled before God for that sad and humbling providence that befell my father’s family in the year 1692; that I, then being in my childhood, should by such a providence of God, be made an instrument for the accusing of several persons of a grievous crime, whereby their lives were taken away from them, whom now I have just grounds and good reason to believe they are innocent persons; and that it was a great delusion of Satan that deceived me in that sad time, whereby I justly fear that I have been instrumental, with others, through ignorantly and unwitting, to bring upon myself and this land the guilt of innocent blood; though what was said or done by me against any person I can truly say and uprightly say before God and man, I did it not out of anger, malice or ill-will to any person, for I had no such thing against them, but what I did was done ignorantly, being deluded of Satan … I desire to lie in the dust, and to be humbled for it, in that I was the cause, with others, of so a calamity to them and their families. (The Witchcraft Papers, State House, Boston; Cecie & Bruck, 1994: 304)
When Ann Putnam publicly recanted her testimony in the Salem Witchcraft trials, many people had been executed. In her recanting statement she humbled herself unto God the mistake she had made, accusing many people to die. From the tone of the text she was experiencing psychological difficulties attempting to put the Salem Witchcraft trials in some sort of order that she could understand.
Three hundred years later a similar case arose, where a child’s memories had been altered to fit malicious motives of others. That child testified based on others memories and motives to convict her father of Criminal Sexual Conduct. Nine years later the child placed an article in a Michigan news paper entitled “Children Should Be Listening”.
However as a comparative study, Linda Davis in June 10, 1998, wrote an article to a mid Michigan newspaper, under Letters to the editor, the article was titled, “Children Should Listen”,
“I believe we aren’t seeing the respect for life as we used to because with each new generation they (parents) let more and more things slide. Kids aren’t punished anymore because their parents are afraid of their children. As each generation comes to realize they can take advantage of any situation, they become more and more dangerously bolder. And if our parents do teach us something, society seems to twist it all around, therefore confusing us all the more. Young people vent out their frustrations so violently because people don’t listen and parents don’t care. They lash out at any person with authority because, maybe they don’t like him or her, or maybe they were punished and didn’t like it. Our logic is so twisted we no longer believe in ourselves. Our self-esteem is so low kids will do anything to receive attention. They feel no purpose of why they were put on earth. They don’t care if they live or not, or if anyone else around them does. It’s very depressing if you think about it. Just think when you walk into your school or workplace, you may not walk out.
Linda Davis
Should adults be listening as well?
The investigative methods used during the interview of Linda Davis were highly questionable, prejudiced, misguided and suspect. (Hillaker, 1999; Mitchell, 1998; Hunt, 1997; Guyer, 1995; Campbell, 1994)
Copyright 2006-2010, Hillaker Investigations LLC all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without crediting Hillaker Investigations LLC.
