In recent times the creditability of children’s statements and testimony is a highly debated topic based on Behavioral Investigative Science. There are witnesses recanting previous statements and testimony they had made previously in child custody and sex crimes cases. “Does the ingeniousness of children assure that their testimony will always be truthful?
Hidden Agendas
Or are children easily misled by overzealous … “[police, children’s protective services workers, investigators and parents] (Ceci and Bruck, 1994), into making untrue allegations of criminal sexual conduct or other crimes and in child custody
cases wherein family dynamics and relationships are at stake. “Ultimately, the well being of children and adults are at stake, because society tends to look for monsters and goes to negative extremes, as does our criminal justice system, when investigating serious allegations of physical and or sexual abuse allegations of crimes against defendants. Our criminal justice pendulum swings in a manner of unequal justice or justice that can be dark and decided by the emotions of the investigators investigating cases where children and adults are witnesses. Witness memories may have been altered to fit the incompetence or maliciousness of the investigator and any one can be in the “Belly Of The Beast”. “We are all emotional human beings who do not see things with [new eyes (Pearls, F.)] but with emotionally biased eyes.” (Mitchell, J., Delta College) Children’s and adult’s statements and testimony in the court room setting is a dynamic process, that doesn’t start when the witness is sworn, but from the case intake when first contact is made with the witness.
The behavioral investigative process is a dynamic process, where witnesses are involved; a systematic thorough inquiry must be made, and all behavioral family and case dynamics need
to be analyzed and compared in depth. (Hillaker, F. [amended] Thesis, SVSU, 1999) Prior interpersonal relationships, family dynamics and witness’s individual psychological makeup need to be analyzed and compared to the investigative behavioral aspects of the case. We have to ask ourselves as behavioral investigators: What investigative values will we assign our selves? Will we follow the investigative behavioral science or will we listen to others who may have negative influences on our investigation?
The investigative question arises: how can we avoid witness contamination of thought, word and deed (Luther) … and avoid negatively impacting the investigative process … (Mitchell, J., 1999, Hillaker, F., 1999, lecture) Thus arises the need for this series of behavioral investigative behavioral articles that addresses investigative behavioral[izm]; lets look into the abyss, and follow the investigative behavioral science.
In many of the child custody and sex crimes cases I have investigated, when there are children involved, the parent and/or other siblings had a direct influence of their child’s perception of salient events and the veracity of their child’s statements and testimony. If you do not think the child is telling the truth about a particular behavioral event and the child seems to be parroting what the custodial parent or other witnesses are saying, more than likely the custodial parent or others had direct influence on the child’s memory.
Witnesses are humans and humans are complicated as witnesses. Humans have strong and weak emotional personalities. Those personalities may be affected positively or negatively by external sources. Sometimes witnesses’ negative behaviors can clinically influence the way the witness responds to external stimuli. An investigators questions, statement(s), interrogation(s) and testimony can negatively influence how a witness reacts and answers questions. Those negatively influenced answers need to be profiled and compared to: family dynamics, improper investigative practices, and leading stimuli. A witness profile has to be developed to properly proceed in a behavioral investigation to discover family dynamics.
A similar legal case in the United States, where children gave false testimony against defendants, Mr. Proctor, et. Al., and other defendants. In1692, defendants were falsely accused of crimes against the church, and state. By witnesses who were misguided by others who were Hell Bent on obtaining a conviction.
Police call the child witness, “the cry out witness.” Maybe clinically, the child witness should be called “the child witness”. This article is the result of a Criminal Sexual Conduct case I investigated from 1994-2001, as part of a Behavioral Investigative Team. The Investigative Behavioral Investigative analysis is as follows.
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.
