Message #13 board "P_Metaphysical (Mag Articles)"
Date : 22-Jan-93 15:58
From : Simon Novali
To   : All
Subj : Lanning (10 of 11)

experienced in such interviews. Investigators must have direct 
access to the alleged victims for interview purposes. Therapists for 
an adult survivor sometimes want to act as intermediaries in their 
patient's interview. This should be avoided if at all possible. 
Adult survivor interviews are often confusing difficult and 
extremely time-consuming. The investigator must remember however 
that almost anything is possible. Most important the investigator 
must remember that there is much middle ground. Just because one 
event did happen does not mean that all reported events happened, 
and just because one event did not happen does not mean that all 
other events did not happen. Do not become such a zealot that you 
believe it all nor such a cynic that you believe nothing. Varying 
amounts and parts of the allegation may be factual. Attempting to 
find evidence of what did happen is the great challenge of these 
cases. *All* investigative interaction with victims must be 
carefully and thoroughly documented.

-- d. ASSESS AND EVALUATE VICTIM STATEMENTS.

This is the part of the investigative process in child sexual 
victimization cases that seems to have been lost. Is the victim 
describing events and activities that are consistent with law 
enforcement documented criminal behavior, or that are consistent 
with distorted media accounts and erroneous public perceptions of 
criminal behavior? Investigators should apply the "template of 
probability". Accounts of child sexual victimization that are more 
like books, television, and movies (e.g. big conspiracies, child sex 
slaves, organized pornography rings) and less like documented cases 
should be viewed with skepticism but thoroughly investigated. 
Consider and investigate all possible explanations of events. It is 
the investigator's job, and the information learned will be
invaluable in counteracting the defense attorneys when they raise 
the alternative explanations.

For example, an adult survivor's account of ritual victimization 
might be explained by any one of at least four possibilities: First, 
the allegations may be a fairly accurate account what actually 
happened. Second, they may be deliberate lies (malingering), told 
for the usual reasons people lie (e.g. money, revenge, jealousy). 
Third, they may be deliberate lies (factitious disorder) told for 
atypical reasons (e.g. attention, forgiveness). Lies so motivated 
are less likely to be recognized by the investigator and more likely 
to be rigidly maintained by the liar unless and until confronted 
with irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Fourth, the allegations 
may be a highly inaccurate account of what actually happened, but 
the victim truly believes it (pseudomemory) and therefore is not 
lying. A polygraph examination of such a victim would be of limited 
value. Other explanations or combinations of these explanations are 
also possible. *Only* thorough *investigation* will point to the 
correct or most likely explanation. 

Investigators cannot rely on therapists or satanic crime experts as 
a shortcut to the explanation. In one case, the "experts" confirmed 
and validated the account of a female who claimed to be a 15-year-
old deaf-mute kidnapped and held for three years by a satanic cult 
and forced to participate in bizarre rituals before recently 
escaping. Active investigation, however, determined she was a 27-
year-old woman who could hear and speak, who had not been kidnapped 
by anyone, and who had a lengthy history of mental problems and at 
least three other similar reports of false victimization. Her 
"accurate" accounts of what the "real satanists" do were simply the 
result of having read, while in mental hospitals, the same books 
that the "experts" had. A therapist may have important insights 
about whether an individual was traumatized, but knowing the exact 
cause of that trauma is another matter. There have been cases where 
investigation has discovered that individuals diagnosed by 
therapists as suffering from Post-Vietnam Syndrome were never in 
Vietnam or saw no combat.

Conversely, in another case, a law enforcement "expert" on satanic 
crime told a therapist that a patient's accounts of satanic murders 
in a rural Pacific Northwest town were probably true because the 
community was a hotbed of such satanic activity. When the therapist 
explained that there was almost no violent crime reported in the 
community, the officer explained that that is how you know it is the 
satanists. If you knew about the murders or found the bodies, it 
would not be satanists. How do you argue with that kind of logic?

The first step in the assessment and evaluation of victim statements 
is to determine the disclosure sequence, including how much time has 
elapsed since disclosure was first made and the incident was 
reported to the police or social services. The longer the delay, the 
bigger the potential for problems. The next step is to determine the 
number and purpose of *all prior* interviews of the victim 
concerning the allegations. The more interviews conducted before the 
investigative interview, the larger the potential for problems. 
Although there is nothing wrong with admitting shortcomings and 
seeking help, law enforcement should never abdicate its control over 
the investigative interview. When an investigative interview is 
conducted by or with a social worker or therapist using a team 
approach, law enforcement must direct the process. Problems can also 
be created by interviews conducted by various intervenors *after* 
the investigative interview(s).

The investigator must closely and carefully evaluate events in the 
victim's life before, during, and after the alleged abuse.

Events to be evaluated *before* the alleged abuse include:

---- (1) Background of victim.
---- (2) Abuse of drugs in home.
---- (3) Pornography in home.
---- (4) Play, television, and VCR habits.
---- (5) Attitudes about sexuality in home.
---- (6) Extent of sex education in home.
---- (7) Activities of siblings.
---- (8) Need or craving for attention.
---- (9) Religious beliefs and training.
---- (10) Childhood fears.
---- (11) Custody/visitation disputes.
---- (12) Victimization of or by family members.
---- (13) Interaction between victims.

Events to be evaluated *during* the alleged abuse include:

---- (1) Use of fear or scare tactics.
---- (2) Degree of trauma.
---- (3) Use of magic deception or trickery.
---- (4) Use of rituals.
---- (5) Use of drugs.
---- (6) Use of pornography.

Events to be evaluated *after* the alleged abuse include:

---- (1) Disclosure sequence.
---- (2) Background of prior interviewers.
---- (3) Background of parents.
---- (4) Co-mingling of victims.
---- (5) Type of therapy received.

-- e. EVALUATE CONTAGION.

Consistent statements obtained from different multiple victims are 
powerful pieces of corroborative evidence - that is as long as those 
statements were not "contaminated". Investigation must carefully 
evaluate both pre- and post-disclosure contagion, and both victim 
and intervenor contagion. Are the different victim statements 
consistent because they describe common experiences or events, or 
because they reflect contamination or urban legends?

The sources of potential contagion are widespread. Victims can 
communicate with each other both prior to and after their 
disclosures. Intervenors can communicate with each other and with 
victims. The team or cell concepts of investigation are attempts to 
deal with potential investigator contagion. All the victims are not 
interviewed by the same individuals, and interviewers do not 
necessarily share information directly with each other. Teams report 
to a leader or supervisor who evaluates the information and decides 
what other investigators need to know.

Documenting existing contagion and eliminating additional contagion 
are crucial to the successful investigation and prosecution of these 
cases. There is no way, however, to erase or undo contagion. The 
best you can hope for is to identify and evaluate it and attempt to 
explain it. Mental health professionals requested to evaluate 
suspected victims must be carefully selected. Having a victim 
evaluated by one of the self-proclaimed experts on satanic ritual 
abuse or by some other overzealous intervenor may result in the 
credibility of that victim's testimony being severely damaged.

In order to evaluate the contagion element, investigators must 
meticulously and aggressively investigate these cases. The precise 
disclosure sequence of the victim must be carefully identified and
documented. Investigators must verify through active investigation 
the exact nature and content of each disclosure outcry or statement 
made by the victim. Second-hand information about disclosure is not 
good enough.

Whenever possible, personal visits should be made to all locations 
of alleged abuse and the victim's homes. Events prior to the alleged 
abuse must be carefully evaluated. Investigators may have to view 
television programs, films, and videotapes seen by the victims. It 
may be necessary to conduct a background investigation and 
evaluation of everyone, both professional and nonprofessional, who 
interviewed the victims about the allegations prior to and after the 
investigative interview(s). Investigators must be familiar with the 
information about ritual abuse of children being disseminated in 
magazines, books, television programs, videotapes, and conferences. 
Every possible way that a victim could have learned about the 
details of the abuse must be explored if for no other reason than to 
eliminate them and counter the defense's arguments.

There may, however, be validity to these contagion factors. *They 
may explain some of the "unbelievable" aspects of the case and 
result in the successful prosecution of the substance of the case.* 
Consistency of statements becomes more significant if contagion is 
identified or disproved by independent investigation. The easier 
cases are the ones where there is a single, identifiable source of 
contagion. Most cases, however, seem to involve multiple contagion 
factors.

Munchausen Syndrome and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy are complex and 
controversial issues in these cases. No attempt will be made to 
discuss them in detail, but they are documented facts (Rosenberg, 
1987). Most of the literature about them focuses on their 
manifestation in the medical setting as false or self-inflicted 
illness or injury. They are also manifested in the criminal justice 
setting as false or self-inflicted crime victimization. If parents 
would poison their children to prove an illness, they might sexually 
abuse their children to prove a crime. "Victims" have been known to 
destroy property, manufacture evidence, and mutilate themselves in 
order to convince others of their victimization. The motivation is 
psychological gain (i.e. attention, forgiveness, etc.) and not 
necessarily money, jealousy, or revenge. These are the unpopular, 
but documented, realities of the world. Recognizing their existence 
does not mean that child sexual abuse and sexual assault are not 
real and serious problems.

-- f. ESTABLISH COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS.

The importance and difficulty of this technique in extrafamilial 
cases involving young children cannot be overemphasized. An 
investigator must maintain ongoing communication with the parents of 
victims in these abuse cases. Not all parents react the same way to 
the alleged abuse of their children. Some are very supportive and 
cooperative. Others overreact and some even deny the victimization. 
Sometimes there is animosity and mistrust among parents with 
different reactions. Once the parents lose faith in the police or 
prosecutor and begin to interrogate their own children and conduct 
their own investigation, the case may be lost forever. Parents from 
one case communicate the results of their "investigation" with each 
other, and some have even contacted the parents in other cases. Such 
parental activity is an obvious source of potential contamination.

Parents must be made to understand that their children's credibility 
will be jeopardized when and if the information obtained turns out 
to be unsubstantiated or false. To minimize this problem, within the 
limits of the law and without jeopardizing investigative techniques, 
parents must be told on a regular basis how the case is progressing.
Parents can also be assigned constructive things to do (e.g. 
lobbying for new legislation, working on awareness and prevention 
programs) in order to channel their energy, concern, and "guilt".

-- g. DEVELOP A CONTINGENCY PLAN.

If a department waits until actually confronted with a case before a 
response is developed, it may be too late. In cases involving 
ongoing abuse of children, departments must respond quickly, and 
this requires advanced planning. There are added problems for small- 
to medium-sized departments with limited personnel and resources. 
Effective investigation of these cases requires planning, 
identification of resources, and, in many cases, mutual aid 
agreements between agencies. The U.S. Department of Defense has 
conducted specialized training and has developed such a plan for 
child sex ring cases involving military facilities and personnel. 
Once a case is contaminated and out of control, I have little advice 
on how to salvage what may once have been a prosecutable criminal 
violation. A few of these cases have even been lost on appeal after 
a conviction because of contamination problems.

-- h. MULTIDISCIPLINARY TASK FORCES.

Sergeant Beth Dickinson, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, 
was the chairperson of the Multi-Victim, Multi-Suspect Child Sexual 



--- msgedsq 2.1a
 * Origin: The Northern Lights 916-729-0304 (1:203/444)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
