Table 1

Some Characteristics of Victim Statements in Intrafamilial Sex Abuse

Actual Sexual Abuse

Unreliable/Fictitious Allegations

1. Statements internally and logically consistent, large numbers of unique details, flowing narrative, pieces eventually all fitting together where minor peripheral details may be added or drop out, but no major reversals; consistent with external data where such is available; includes non-self-serving details. 1. Statements become increasingly inconsistent over time, show diminished number of unique details, single statement stereotypic in pattern; does not fit together into a cohesive fabric, contains major reversals; details tend to be self-serving, may not be consistent with external data where such is available; no flowing narrative may have been given; major details have been formed through interview technique of leading, pressuring, shaping.
2. Statements are rarely dramatic, rarely seeking to make the perpetrator appear in a totally negative light, but more ambivalent in tone; statements about details consistent with what is known about similar crimes, e.g., perpetrator takes usual self-protective steps against being discovered, follows expected patterns seen in chronic incest. 2. Statements are often dramatic, claims of being forced drugs or alcohol, alleged multiple victims and/or multiple perpetrators, orgies; describes situations in which alleged perpetrator has not taken ordinary steps against discovery of molestation.
3. Rarely is force alleged, but usually verbal manipulation, bribes, claims 'we will both get in trouble if you tell.' The less adept perpetrator is more likely to threaten or coerce the victim. In the rare cases where physical force is used in intrafamilial situation, it is usually within the context of generalized family violence, where threat of force is the most common mode of handling conflict or disputes between family members. 3. Statements almost invariably progress from relatively innocuous behaviors to increasingly intrusive, abusive, aggressive activi ties with ultimately threats to harm or kill child or significant others if victim discloses; in some young children allegations of torture, killings are made of animals and/or humans.
4. Details provided are usually consistent with what is known about sexual physiology and response cycles. 4. Details may not be consistent with that is known about sexual physiology, response cycles except in areas where child has been questioned extensively so that the right answers are learned.
5. Described changes in social and sexual relationship across time and consistent with what is known about perpetrator/victim long-term relationship patterns. 5. Details provided are not consistent with what is known about perpetrator/victim relationship patterns unless this is superimposed by interviewers who are aware of what these patterns are; victim may progressively claim intrusive/advanced assault patterns occurred at younger and younger ages.
6. Rarely does the victim make issue of memory.  There may be instances of not remembering known incidents, or not remembering particular details at the height of stress.  In the usual memory loss, the report will be consistent with what is known about memory processes, e.g. recency effects, fading, loss of peripheral details first rather than loss of the major events; memory can usually be recalled by providing non-leading cues. 6. Typically will not admit memory problems, but may claim not to remember when caught in contradictions, or when feeling guilty about marking untrue statements; alleged memory losses do not fit what is known about memory processes; may later absolutely deny statements which were insisted upon earlier.
7. Recantation may occur for the entire incident or all alleged incidents when pressure is applied within the family situation to relieve the legal/economic ramifications of the accusation.  Often the mother pushes for recantation overtly or covertly.  This pattern is seen in initially intact family units who are now separated due to the legal case. 7. Classical recantation is unlikely; mother usually supports if not promotes the allegations; family pattern is typically two family units following a prior separation or divorce.
8. Supportive parent has not participated in one or more formal interviews of the child in regard to the allegations, nor observed the child interviews. 8. Supportive parent often highly involved in the emergence of the allegations, has usually participated in child protective services or law enforcement interviews; parent makes allegations that child resists confirming, followed by repeating part of what parent said later.
9. Child may appear pseudomature, responsible, self-blaming, embarrassed, and while reluctant to disclose, the statements are consistent across time.  One or both parents may comment on age-inappropriate sexual interests or behavior preceding or following the allegations coming to light. 9. Child is often immature, dependent, manipulative, enmeshed with mother, seen by both parents as naive about sexual matters.

[Back to the Article]

 
Copyright © 1989-2014 by the Institute for Psychological Therapies.
This website last revised on April 15, 2014.
Found a non-working link?  Please notify the Webmaster.