10/16/2008

1

HOW CHILDREN HOW CHILDREN HOW CHILDREN HOW CHILDREN EXPERIENCE ABUSEEXPERIENCE ABUSE

Dynamics of VictimizationDynamics of Victimization

DYNAMICS OFDYNAMICS OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSECHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

Help us understand the Help us understand the child’s perspective and child’s perspective and child s perspective and child s perspective and

coping strategiescoping strategies

Adapted from © CornerHouse 2002

Child Sexual Abuse Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation SyndromeAccommodation Syndrome

Roland Summit, MDRoland Summit, MD

S S -- SecrecySecrecy HH H lpl ssn ssH lpl ssn ssH H -- HelplessnessHelplessness

E E -- Entrapment and AccommodationEntrapment and Accommodation

D D -- Delayed or Unconvincing DisclosureDelayed or Unconvincing Disclosure

R R -- RetractionRetraction © Finding Words New Jersey

10/16/2008

2

SecrecySecrecy Summit, 1983Summit, 1983

Terrifying reality of child Terrifying reality of child sexual abuse: sexual abuse:

Child is alone with the offenderChild is alone with the offender Threats/promises to keep secretThreats/promises to keep secret Sh m nd iltSh m nd iltShame and guiltShame and guilt

Nondisclosure RatesNondisclosure Rates (Lyon, 2002)(Lyon, 2002) Women: 33Women: 33--92%92% Men: 42Men: 42--85% 85%

86% of sexual assaults to 86% of sexual assaults to adolescents unreportedadolescents unreported (NIJ, 2003)(NIJ, 2003) 70% of sample told to keep 70% of sample told to keep abuse secretabuse secret (Berliner & Conte, 1990)(Berliner & Conte, 1990) © Finding Words New Jersey

HelplessnessHelplessness Summit, 1983Summit, 1983

Children are subordinate to older Children are subordinate to older people, especially those in people, especially those in authority authority Perpetrators groom children in Perpetrators groom children in nonnon--sexual ways firstsexual ways firstyy Typical response of small Typical response of small creatures to terror is to freezecreatures to terror is to freeze Child’s guilt about not protesting Child’s guilt about not protesting leads to more silenceleads to more silence Victims report saying “no” would Victims report saying “no” would have only resulted in continued have only resulted in continued abuse and perhaps further harm abuse and perhaps further harm (Berliner & Conte, 1990)(Berliner & Conte, 1990)

© Finding Words New Jersey

Entrapment & AccommodationEntrapment & Accommodation Summit, 1983Summit, 1983

Typically occurs repeatedly; child Typically occurs repeatedly; child must survivemust survive Child must accommodate to Child must accommodate to increasing sexual demands increasing sexual demands increasing sexual demands increasing sexual demands Child must accommodate to Child must accommodate to increasing awareness of betrayal by increasing awareness of betrayal by caretakerscaretakers--problems in relationship problems in relationship with nonwith non--offending parentoffending parent Feel responsible for the wellFeel responsible for the well--being being of the entire familyof the entire family Special problems of male victimsSpecial problems of male victims

© Finding Words New Jersey

10/16/2008

3

Entrapment & AccommodationEntrapment & Accommodation (cont’d…)(cont’d…)

Summit, 1983Summit, 1983 Behavioral Strategies: sexualized Behavioral Strategies: sexualized behavior, lying, difficulty concentrating, behavior, lying, difficulty concentrating, substance abuse, running awaysubstance abuse, running away Psychological Strategies:Psychological Strategies:y g gy g g

FragmentingFragmenting DissociationDissociation Dissociative Identity DisorderDissociative Identity Disorder

Delayed or Unconvincing Delayed or Unconvincing DisclosureDisclosure

Summit, 1983Summit, 1983

“Most on“Most on--going sexual abuse is going sexual abuse is nevernever disclosed outside the family.”disclosed outside the family.” Disclosure in bits and piecesDisclosure in bits and piecespp Disclosed almost incidentally in state Disclosed almost incidentally in state of turmoilof turmoil Disclosed without evident feelingDisclosed without evident feeling In a sample of sexually abused In a sample of sexually abused children (N=248), 75% did not children (N=248), 75% did not disclose within a year of onset (Elliot disclose within a year of onset (Elliot & Briere, 1994).& Briere, 1994).

© Finding Words New Jersey

Delayed or Unconvincing Delayed or Unconvincing DisclosureDisclosure

Triggers for disclosure:Triggers for disclosure: Family conflictFamily conflict Incidental discovery by 3Incidental discovery by 3rdrd partypartyIncidental discovery by 3Incidental discovery by 3 partyparty Outreach educationOutreach education Protection of younger childrenProtection of younger children Medical problemsMedical problems Close friendshipClose friendship

10/16/2008

4

RetractionRetraction

Chaotic Aftermath of DisclosureChaotic Aftermath of Disclosure Family stress and disbeliefFamily stress and disbelief Potential family disintegration and guiltPotential family disintegration and guilt After disclosure child discovers the threats After disclosure child discovers the threats After disclosure, child discovers the threats After disclosure, child discovers the threats underlying the secrecy are trueunderlying the secrecy are true Unsupportive interactions with larger Unsupportive interactions with larger systems.systems.

RetractionRetraction Summit, 1983Summit, 1983

Recantation rates across studies range from Recantation rates across studies range from 44--50% 50% (Lyon, 2002)(Lyon, 2002) Recantation rates from 4Recantation rates from 4--27% 27% (London, Bruck, (London, Bruck, Ceci & Shuman, 2005)Ceci & Shuman, 2005)

Recantations most likely to occur in Recantations most likely to occur in intrafamilial abuse cases where significant intrafamilial abuse cases where significant family members are disbelieving, nonfamily members are disbelieving, non-- supportive, blaming, and stressed.supportive, blaming, and stressed.

© Finding Words New Jersey

The Traumagenic ModelThe Traumagenic Model Finkelhor & Browne, 1985Finkelhor & Browne, 1985

1.1. BetrayalBetrayal

2.2. Traumatic Traumatic SexualizationSexualization

3.3. PowerlessnessPowerlessness

4.4. StigmatizationStigmatization

Adapted from © CornerHouse 2002

10/16/2008

5

BetrayalBetrayal Finkelhor & Browne, 1985Finkelhor & Browne, 1985

Perpetrator in position of trust/authorityPerpetrator in position of trust/authority Child discovers that someone he/she Child discovers that someone he/she depended upon caused harmdepended upon caused harmp pp p Grief reactions and depression over the Grief reactions and depression over the loss of a trusted figureloss of a trusted figure Higher levels of posttraumatic and Higher levels of posttraumatic and dissociative symptoms dissociative symptoms (Leahy, Pretty, & (Leahy, Pretty, & Tenenbaum, 2004)Tenenbaum, 2004) Can lead to avoidance of close Can lead to avoidance of close relationships or to indiscriminate choicesrelationships or to indiscriminate choices

© Finding Words New Jersey

Traumatic SexualizationTraumatic Sexualization Finkelhor & Browne, 1985Finkelhor & Browne, 1985

Inappropriate conditioning of child’s Inappropriate conditioning of child’s sexual responsivenesssexual responsiveness Problematic beliefs and feelings Problematic beliefs and feelings associated with sexuality as well as associated with sexuality as well as dysfunctional arousal patterns can dysfunctional arousal patterns can developdevelop

© Finding Words New Jersey

Traumatic Sexualization (cont’d..)Traumatic Sexualization (cont’d..) Finkelhor & Browne, 1985Finkelhor & Browne, 1985

Examples:Examples: Sexual preoccupations and repetitive sexual behavior Sexual preoccupations and repetitive sexual behavior of young child victims, such as masturbation or of young child victims, such as masturbation or compulsive sex play.compulsive sex play. Display of sexual knowledge and interests that are Display of sexual knowledge and interests that are p y gp y g inappropriate to their age.inappropriate to their age. Confusion of sexuality with nurturance or power.Confusion of sexuality with nurturance or power. Promiscuity in adolescence, aversion to sex, Promiscuity in adolescence, aversion to sex, flashbacks to the molestation experience, difficulty flashbacks to the molestation experience, difficulty with arousal and orgasm, with arousal and orgasm, vaginismusvaginismus, negative , negative attitudes toward their sexuality and their bodies.attitudes toward their sexuality and their bodies.

10/16/2008

6

PowerlessnessPowerlessness Finkehlor & Browne, 1985Finkehlor & Browne, 1985

Child cannot control noxious eventsChild cannot control noxious events Child’s attempts to halt the abuse are Child’s attempts to halt the abuse are frustrated; e.g., when they unsuccessfully frustrated; e.g., when they unsuccessfully attempt to report abuseattempt to report abusep pp p Force & threat are not necessary to instill Force & threat are not necessary to instill powerlessnesspowerlessness Narratives of victims analyzed for themes of Narratives of victims analyzed for themes of perpetrator methods perpetrator methods (Leahy, Pretty, & Tenenbaum, 2004)(Leahy, Pretty, & Tenenbaum, 2004)

Created powerless victim (deception and force)Created powerless victim (deception and force) Created omnipotent perpetrator (reality Created omnipotent perpetrator (reality definition/control & manipulation)definition/control & manipulation)

© Finding Words New Jersey

Powerlessness Powerlessness (cont’d…)(cont’d…)

Finkelhor & Browne, 1985Finkelhor & Browne, 1985

Fear and anxiety symptoms: nightmares, Fear and anxiety symptoms: nightmares, phobias, hypervigilance, clinging behavior, and phobias, hypervigilance, clinging behavior, and

l l p yp g g gp yp g g g somatic complaintssomatic complaints Sense of impotence: despair, depression, Sense of impotence: despair, depression, suicidal behavior, learning problems, inability to suicidal behavior, learning problems, inability to cope with environments that continues on into cope with environments that continues on into adolescence and adulthood, revictimizationadolescence and adulthood, revictimization Compensating for powerlessness: needs to Compensating for powerlessness: needs to control and dominatecontrol and dominate

StigmatizationStigmatization Finkelhor & Browne, 1985Finkelhor & Browne, 1985

Child’s knows that the activity is deviant and taboo and Child’s knows that the activity is deviant and taboo and abuser may convey negative statementsabuser may convey negative statements Negative connotations (badness, shame, & guilt) are Negative connotations (badness, shame, & guilt) are communicated to the child, especially after disclosurecommunicated to the child, especially after disclosure-- b i t d i t th hild’ lfb i t d i t th hild’ lf i C lt l i C lt l become incorporated into the child’s selfbecome incorporated into the child’s self--image. Cultural image. Cultural meaning plays a big role.meaning plays a big role. Risk of revictimization Risk of revictimization (Classen, Palesh & Aggarwal, 2005)(Classen, Palesh & Aggarwal, 2005)

2/3 revictimization rate2/3 revictimization rate Predictors: childhood sexual abuse & severityPredictors: childhood sexual abuse & severity Associated with multiple difficulties including selfAssociated with multiple difficulties including self--blame and blame and shameshame

© Finding Words New Jersey

10/16/2008

7

How Children Experience How Children Experience AbuseAbuse

Interview ExamplesInterview ExamplesInterview ExamplesInterview Examples

Victim Responses to AbuseVictim Responses to Abuse Twaite & RodriguezTwaite & Rodriguez--Srednicki, 2004Srednicki, 2004

Whiffen & MacIntosh, 2005Whiffen & MacIntosh, 2005 KendallKendall--Tackett, Meyer & Finkelhor, 1993Tackett, Meyer & Finkelhor, 1993

Swanstone, Tebbutt, O’Toole & Oates, 1997Swanstone, Tebbutt, O’Toole & Oates, 1997

DepressionDepression Anxiety DisordersAnxiety Disorders Di i ti /di i ti di dDi i ti /di i ti di dDissociation/dissociative disordersDissociation/dissociative disorders Post traumatic stress symptomsPost traumatic stress symptoms Attachment issuesAttachment issues Fears and somatic complaintsFears and somatic complaints Sexual behavior problemsSexual behavior problems Generalized behavior problemsGeneralized behavior problems SelfSelf--esteem issuesesteem issues

Victim Responses to AbuseVictim Responses to Abuse KendallKendall--Tackett, Meyer & Finkelhor, 1993Tackett, Meyer & Finkelhor, 1993

Ketring & Feinauer, 1999Ketring & Feinauer, 1999

Victim Impact ContinuumVictim Impact Continuum

DurationDuration FrequencyFrequency ForceForce Invasiveness of abuseInvasiveness of abuse

10/16/2008

8

Victim Responses to AbuseVictim Responses to Abuse Jonzon & Lindblad, 2005 Jonzon & Lindblad, 2005

KendallKendall--Tackett, Meyer & Finkelhor, 1993Tackett, Meyer & Finkelhor, 1993

Victim Impact ContinuumVictim Impact Continuum

Other maltreatment (physical abuse)Other maltreatment (physical abuse)p yp y SupportSupport

Support from partners and friends in adulthoodSupport from partners and friends in adulthood Maternal support in childhoodMaternal support in childhood

Coping/outlookCoping/outlook

Victim Responses to AbuseVictim Responses to Abuse KKendallendall--Tackett, Meyer & Finkelhor, 1993Tackett, Meyer & Finkelhor, 1993

Victim Impact ContinuumVictim Impact Continuum

?? AgeAge •• Age at time of assessment Age at time of assessment appearsappears relatedrelatedAge at time of assessment Age at time of assessment appearsappears relatedrelated •• Difficult to assess due to intervening variablesDifficult to assess due to intervening variables

?? GenderGender •• Studies inconsistent; recommended for further Studies inconsistent; recommended for further

researchresearch

Victim Responses to AbuseVictim Responses to Abuse KendallKendall--Tackett, Meyer & Finkelhor, 1993Tackett, Meyer & Finkelhor, 1993

Ketring & Feinauer, 1999Ketring & Feinauer, 1999 Leahy, Pretty & Tenenbaum, 2004Leahy, Pretty & Tenenbaum, 2004

Victim Impact ContinuumVictim Impact Continuum

Vi timVi tim P p t t R l ti nship P p t t R l ti nship VictimVictim--Perpetrator Relationship Perpetrator Relationship Range: Father figure..other Range: Father figure..other family/acquaintance..strangerfamily/acquaintance..stranger “Closeness” of relationship“Closeness” of relationship High levels of authority/trust associated with High levels of authority/trust associated with emotional manipulation and increased symptomsemotional manipulation and increased symptoms

10/16/2008

9

Victim Responses to AbuseVictim Responses to Abuse

VictimVictim--Perpetrator Perpetrator RelationshipRelationship

TargetTarget Sees self as victimSees self as victim “Why me?”“Why me?” May be more frightened May be more frightened but less guilt riddentbut less guilt riddent

Victim Responses to AbuseVictim Responses to Abuse

VictimVictim--Perpetrator RelationshipPerpetrator Relationship

FriendFriend Begins as one of companionshipBegins as one of companionship May fill a parental gapMay fill a parental gap Possibility of protectiveness by victim Possibility of protectiveness by victim toward perpetratortoward perpetrator

Victim Responses to AbuseVictim Responses to Abuse

VictimVictim--Perpetrator Perpetrator RelationshipRelationship

SibliSibliSiblingSibling Enmeshed system in Enmeshed system in familyfamily Age or power difference Age or power difference may not be perceived by may not be perceived by victimvictim

10/16/2008

10

Victim Responses to AbuseVictim Responses to Abuse

VictimVictim--Perpetrator RelationshipPerpetrator Relationship

CaretakerCaretaker Vigilant of perpetrator’s needsVigilant of perpetrator’s needs Protective of perpetratorProtective of perpetrator May also be concerned about impact on May also be concerned about impact on rest of familyrest of family

Victim Responses to AbuseVictim Responses to Abuse VictimVictim--Perpetrator Perpetrator

RelationshipRelationship

LoverLover A d A d Age and power Age and power difference not difference not perceived by victimperceived by victim Feelings of specialnessFeelings of specialness Protective of Protective of perpetratorperpetrator

“What it was “What it was like to be an like to be an

incest incest victim”victim”

10/16/2008

11

Some day maybe there will exist a well informed, well considered and yet fervent public conviction that theconviction, that the most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of a child’s spirit.

- Erik Erickson © CornerHouse 2002

Copyright © XXXX by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2017 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

27W i n t e r 2 0 0 6 • J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l

II N T R O D U C T I O N Cases involving child sexual

abuse (CSA) are among the

most heartbreaking cases a

judge hears, for both emo-

tional and legal reasons.

How does the court evalu-

ate the testimony of the

young child who says it

never happened, the child

who discloses months

after the alleged event,

the girl who recants after

visitation with family mem-

bers, or the boy with an IQ of 51 who cannot

clearly articulate how the alleged abuse occurred?

Proving child sexual abuse in the absence of physi-

cal evidence or testimony of an eyewitness is difficult.

Children recant, child development issues intervene,

and cognitive limitations raise questions, while the testi-

mony of the adult perpetrator does not waiver. Indeed,

although errors in either direction can have devastating

consequences, finding the truth in CSA cases seems too

often impossible. Decision makers confront the twin

specters of leaving inarticulate children unprotected

from further traumatic sexual abuse on the one hand,

and subjecting innocent caregivers to criminal prosecu-

tion or the loss of parental

rights on the other.

Science can be a tre-

mendous asset to judges in

understanding and interpret-

ing the behavior of victims

of child sexual abuse, since

their behavior can often

seem counterintuitive. It is

essential that judges consider

children’s disclosure patterns

in light of current research in

order to have the greatest

chance to evaluate the facts

and find the truth. Children’s disclosure patterns are

crucial because physical findings are diagnostic of child

sexual abuse in 10% or fewer cases (Frasier & Makaroff,

this issue). Sexual abuse, especially when there is no

penetration, rarely results in physical trauma. Even when

there has been sexual penetration, the capacity for rapid

healing of the genital anatomy inhibits the detection of

evidence (The National Research Council, 1993, p. 72).

Therefore, children’s statements are central both to the

prosecution of the crime of child sexual abuse and the

protection of children from further abuse.

This review is intended to update criminal, juve-

nile, and domestic relations court judges who preside

The State of the Debate About Children’s Disclosure Patterns

in Child Sexual Abuse Cases BY ERNA OLAFSON AND JUDGE CINDY S. LEDERMAN

A B S T R A C T In current research studies about the disclosure patterns of sexually abused children, experts agree that most victims delay disclosure for years, often until adulthood. Researchers disagree about dis- closure rates and recantation rates among children during formal interviews. Studies of children who had not previously disclosed but are known through corroborative evidence to have been sexually abused show lower rates of disclosure than do studies of children who had disclosed prior to the formal interview. Gradual disclosures among children are common, and more than a single interview may be necessary in some cases. Prior disclosure, level of support by non-offending parents, developmental level, and relationship to perpetrator affect children’s rates of disclosure and their disclosure patterns. More research is necessary to clarify children’s post-disclo- sure recantation rates and predictors.

Erna Olafson, Ph.D., Psy.D., is Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry and Pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. She is Director of the Program on Child Abuse Forensic and Treatment Training at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Childhood Trust. Her presentations and publications focus on domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. Judge Cindy S. Lederman is the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida. A member of the NCJFCJ’s Board of Trustees, she was instrumental in creating the Dade County Domestic Violence Court and served as the court’s first Administrative Judge. In 1999, Judge Lederman was awarded a Fellowship from Zero to Three: The National Center for Infants, Toddlers and Families in their Leaders of the 21st Century Initiative.

C h i l d r e n ' s D i s c l o s u r e P a t t e r n s i n S e x u a l A b u s e C a s e s

28 J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l • W i n t e r 2 0 0 6

over CSA cases about current areas of agreement and

disagreement among scientific researchers about the

disclosure patterns of CSA victims. A major volume on

abuse disclosure patterns is scheduled for publication

in 2006 (Pipe, Lamb, Orbach, & Cederborg, in press).

It contains chapters by researchers from differing

perspectives that we have drawn upon for this article

(London, Bruck, Ceci, & Shuman, in press; Lyon, in press).

Unfortunately for those charged with making decisions

about children’s welfare, no single school of researchers

has the last word on these controversial issues.

Brief History Many scholarly papers about children’s disclosure

patterns either begin with a discussion of Roland

Summit’s Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome

(CSAAS) or structure their arguments around his model

of children’s behavior in these cases (London, Bruck,

Ceci, & Shuman, 2005; Lyon, 2002; Lyon, in press;

Summit, 1983). Summit argued that children often deny

being sexually abused, even when they are directly

asked, and that disclosing children often subsequently

recant their allegations. He based the accommodation

syndrome primarily on cases of intrafamilial child

sexual abuse (incest) rather than extrafamilial child

sexual abuse.

Although Summit’s “syndrome” has been litigated

with a variety of outcomes in many courts, it may have

become so controversial that it obscures rather than

clarifies the issues at hand. Judges should bear in mind

that for almost a century before Summit published his

influential paper, there was statistical evidence that

children often delay disclosure or remain completely

silent about sexual victimization. Indeed, this prior

literature was so extensive that a major psychological

journal rejected Summit’s accommodation syndrome

paper before it found publication elsewhere because,

the reviewers argued, it contributed nothing new

(Lyon, in press; Olafson, 2002). There have also been a

number of studies documenting children’s disclosure

patterns in otherwise corroborated child sexual abuse

cases since the 1983 publication of Summit’s paper

(Lyon, in press). Examining children’s disclosure pat-

terns one category at a time, without organizing them

around Summit’s now-controversial accommodation

syndrome, may clarify and simplify the issues.

The Issues What are the disclosure and non-disclosure patterns

among children known to have been sexually abused?

There are several issues:

■ Do most child victims delay reporting sexual abuse, sometimes until adulthood?

■ If directly asked, do most child victims disclose sexual abuse?

■ If directly asked, do some CSA victims initially fail to disclose or deny being abused, so that more than one formal interview becomes necessary?

■ How common is incremental abuse disclosure, from partial and fragmentary accounts to full disclosure over time?

■ Once children have disclosed sexual abuse, do a high percentage of known victims subsequently recant or retract their disclosures?

■ Are there factors such as gender, developmental level, culture, degree of abuse severity, parental sup- port, and relationship to perpetrator that influence disclosure patterns among CSA victims?

Sources of Information

The two most reliable sources of information about

disclosure patterns in CSA victims are:

■ Retrospective surveys of adults who report having been sexually abused during childhood; and

■ Research about children’s statements during evaluation and treatment in cases with cor- roborative evidence that is independent of children’s statements, such as videotapes of the actual abuse, physical findings, sexually trans- mitted diseases, and offender confession.

Both sources are imperfect. Cases that have indepen-

dent corroboration may be unrepresentative of sexual

abuse cases in general. Retrospective surveys depend on

human memory over time, so that under-reporting, over-

reporting, and inaccurate reporting may occur.

Nevertheless, cases with independent corrobora-

tion and retrospective surveys are superior to the

other sources sometimes used in literature reviews. For

example, studies that claim substantiation or conviction

rates as “independent” corroboration may significantly

inflate the percentages of actually abused children who

disclose their victimization during formal question-

ing. This is because substantiation, prosecution, and

E r n a O l a f s o n a n d J u d g e C i n d y S . L e d e r m a n

29W i n t e r 2 0 0 6 • J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l

conviction depend so heavily at all decision stages on

children’s statements. To argue that substantiation rates

that depend upon children’s disclosures proves that

most children make disclosures when interviewed is to

argue in a circle (Lyon, in press).

The definitions of key terms also affect research out-

comes, but researchers do not always specify their oper-

ational definitions. “Child sexual abuse” can include a

wide variety of behaviors, from non-contact exposure to

genital fondling to violent genital, oral, and anal rape. In

this article, we focus primarily on contact child sexual

abuse. “Disclosure” also has a variety of meanings. We

define disclosure to mean a clear verbal statement that

at least one abusive act took place, although a disclosure

need not be a complete report of everything that hap-

pened. Our definition does not include suggestive doll

play and other fragmentary “partial disclosures” that,

when included in research studies, artificially inflate

children’s “disclosure” rates (e.g. Dubowitz, Black, &

Harrington, 1992).

“Non-disclosure” can also vary in meaning depend-

ing on whether it refers to a child’s non-disclosure dur-

ing a single or initial interview or a child’s non-disclo-

sure maintained over six or more interviews. Children

questioned only once show higher “non-disclosure”

rates than do children questioned several times, so that

studies such as that by Sorenson & Snow (1991) that

show very high initial non-disclosure rates have an even-

tual disclosure rate of over 90%.

Child Sexual Abuse Disclosures Delayed Until Adulthood

There appears to be a consensus among research-

ers that most child sexual abuse victims delay disclos-

ing, often until adulthood. A number of well-designed

retrospective surveys now show that the great majority

of victims delay disclosing contact child sexual abuse

during childhood (Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith,

1990; Smith et al., 2000). These surveys also indicate

that even when adults recall having told someone

about the abuse, the majority of these cases were not

then reported to the authorities. In one survey, 28% of

respondents stated that they had disclosed to no one

before telling the telephone interviewer about the child

sexual abuse (Smith et al., 2000); another survey found

that 42% of men and 33% of women first told anyone

about having been sexually abused as children when

asked during the retrospective telephone interview

(Finkelhor et al., 1990).

London and colleagues (2005) summarize the ret-

rospective literature by noting that the results of 10

retrospective surveys indicate that only one-third of

adults who suffered child sexual abuse revealed the

abuse to anyone during childhood. The study concludes

that “approximately 60%-70% of adults do not recall

ever disclosing their abuse as children, and only a small

minority of participants (10%-18%) recalled that their

cases were reported to the authorities” (London et al.,

2005, p. 203). Although London and colleagues note the

research limitations inherent in adult retrospective liter-

ature, they also write, “Given the differences in method-

ology, definitions of abuse, and sample characteristics,

the general consistency of these findings across these

studies is noteworthy” (London et al., 2005, p. 201; but

see Poole & Dickinson, 2005).

Judges and other fact finders can only adjudicate

those cases that come to their attention, and a child’s

prior disclosure to a caregiver or friend constitutes

the most common means by which child sexual abuse

comes to the attention of the authorities and thus to the

courts (Lyon, in press). Therefore, because it appears

that most people delay disclosing until adulthood, chil-

dren who decide to tell someone about being sexually

abused and whose cases therefore come to court are

not representative of sexually abused children in gen-

eral. In other words, child protection authorities and

the judiciary are likely to see only a minority of those

children who are actually being sexually abused. There

are, of course, some sexual abuse cases that are report-

ed for reasons other than a child’s prior disclosure, such

as children’s sexualized behaviors, physical findings,

and other external evidence. This review article focuses

on the disclosure patterns and behaviors among both

groups of sexually abused children, those who had pre-

viously disclosed and a smaller number of those who

came into the system in some other way.

Child Sexual Abuse Disclosures Delayed within Childhood

There appears to be agreement among researchers

from diverse perspectives that “when children do dis-

close, it often takes them a long time to do so” (London

C h i l d r e n ' s D i s c l o s u r e P a t t e r n s i n S e x u a l A b u s e C a s e s

30 J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l • W i n t e r 2 0 0 6

et al., 2005, p. 204). In a study of 399 children aged 8

to 15, Elliott and Briere (1994) find that of 248 subjects

assessed as having been sexually abused, 74.9% did not

disclose their abuse to anyone within the year that it first

occurred, and 17.8% had waited more than five years to

tell anyone. The courts are likely to see many such cases

in which children delayed reporting for months or even

years before telling someone about the abuse. It is also

not unusual for children to disclose the abuse long after

adjudication when they are in a safe environment and

the litigation is finished. Delays in telling anyone about

the abuse for several months, a year, or even longer

occur in a significant percentage of child sexual abuse

cases (Henry, 1997; Sas & Cunningham, 1995).

In weighing the evidence in child sexual abuse cases, judges and other fact finders should be aware that, in a high percentage of actual CSA cases, there will be delays of months or even years between the onset of the abuse and a child first disclosing to another person.

Children’s Gradual Disclosures during Formal Interviews

Many prosecutors are familiar with the problem of

incremental disclosure, in which a child may disclose

only aspects of an abusive event, such as genital fon-

dling, during the initial interview. Shortly before trial

is scheduled to begin, the child, perhaps during court

preparation with the prosecutor, describes new details,

such as penetrating oral sex, that necessitate postpone-

ments, the filing of new criminal charges, and concerns

about the child’s credibility and competence. In one

such case, a young incest victim, when asked why she

had not mentioned crucial additional information dur-

ing her initial advocacy center interviews responded,

“I just didn’t think of it.” This pattern of partial disclo-

sure can be explained by Summit’s classic child sexual

abuse accommodation syndrome, but it may also simply

reflect the usual patterns of recall in the very young.

In an experimental study, Dr. Robyn Fivush asked non-

abused children aged 3-6 about a known event on

two subsequent occasions (Fivush, 1994). On the two

recall occasions, children reported different but still

accurate information about the events, with an overlap

of details between the two retellings of only 20%. This

research about children’s normal patterns of recollec-

tion and reporting could in itself justify recommending

that children be given more than a single interview to

tell the authorities about the events in their lives.

In a summary of 21 studies from 1965 to 1993 of

children diagnosed with gonorrhea, Lyon finds gradual

disclosure by children to be very common (Lyon, in

press). In 118 CSA cases studied by Elliott and Briere

(1994), there was external evidence for the abuse,

including, for example, medical evidence diagnostic of

child sexual abuse, perpetrator confession, a witness

to the abuse, or pornographic pictures of the child.

In a number of these 118 cases, victims disclosed par-

tially in the first interview by mentioning fondling, but

when investigators confronted them with the external

evidence for more severe abuse (penetration), the chil-

dren then made more complete disclosures.

Thus, when questioned during formal interviews,

children may only partially disclose during the initial

interview. Because evidentiary studies show that trau-

matic medical evidence (such as a ruptured hymen) is

lacking in a significant number of cases in which per-

petrators have confessed to penile penetration, judges

should not prematurely regard children’s statements

as complete after a single interview (Muram, Speck, &

Gold, 1991). As Elliott and Briere (1994) write, “Forensic

evaluations that consist of a single interview may result

in incomplete disclosure and less accurate determina-

tions, especially in cases where medical or other exter-

nal data are lacking or inconclusive” (p. 274).

This recommendation does not contradict the long-

held principle in the child protection fields to avoid

subjecting children to repeated interviews by multiple

investigators from social services, law enforcement, and

the court system. The National Children’s Advocacy

Center has developed and tested guidelines for extend-

ed forensic evaluations with reticent children. If several

interviews become necessary, it is recommended that a

single interviewer conduct them and that the question-

ing be sensitively structured to build rapport over time

and avoid repetitive questioning and suggestiveness

(Carnes, Wilson, & Nelson-Gardell, 1999; Carnes, Nelson-

Gardell, Wilson, & Orgassa, 2001).

E r n a O l a f s o n a n d J u d g e C i n d y S . L e d e r m a n

31W i n t e r 2 0 0 6 • J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l

Because many sexually abused children in externally corroborated cases are known to disclose only gradually, more than a single interview may become necessary to serve children’s safety and justice. See the guide- lines by the National Children’s Advocacy Center (Carnes et al., 1999; 2001).

Non-Disclosure or Denial by Children When Interviewed about Child Sexual Abuse

The most troubling cases for the courts are those in

which there are red flags indicating a strong possibility of

child sexual abuse: The case is reported, the child inter-

viewed, and the child discloses no sexual abuse. There are

two classes of children to consider here:

■ Children who previously disclosed partially or fully to another person and thus precipitated entry into the system; and

■ Children who came into the system through other means, such as diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease during routine medical care, extreme sexual- ized behaviors, or the discovery of videotapes docu- menting the abuse.

It is about children’s disclosure patterns once they

are in the system that the experts disagree, and these

cases are the most troubling to those responsible for

protecting children from abuse and protecting adults

from false allegations.

London et al. (2005) state that “the data clearly demon-

strate that most children who are interviewed about sexual

abuse do disclose and do not later recant…” (p. 217).

Lyon (in press) responds with a critique that reveals

problems with two kinds of case selection bias in many

of the samples upon which London and colleagues

based the above conclusion. Lyon argues that:

■ To avoid suspicion bias, one must examine cases that did not come to the attention of the authorities because a child disclosed to someone prior to the formal interview; and

■ To avoid substantiation bias, one must examine cases in which substantiation was completely inde- pendent of the child’s statements.

To understand how both forms of selection bias

artificially inflate the actual rates of children’s sexual

abuse disclosures, consider the following extreme case.

If we suspect sexual abuse only when a child has previ-

ously disclosed, then 100% of children in a sample of

children suspected of being sexually abused will have

disclosed at some point. If we substantiate child sexual

abuse only if a child discloses, then 100% of children

in a sample of substantiated cases will have disclosed.

The reality is only somewhat less extreme. The great

majority of suspected CSA cases come to our attention

only because a child has previously disclosed. Child

sexual abuse substantiation also depends most heavily

on children’s disclosures, because external evidence of

child sexual abuse (such as physical findings or offender

confession) is rare and generally detected only after

sexual abuse has been suspected.

London et al. (2005) seem to agree with Lyon about

suspicion bias by writing, “Prior disclosure of abuse pre-

dicts disclosure during formal assessment” (p. 209), but

they do not then systematically deal with the problem of

suspicion bias. London and colleagues also acknowledge

but do not fully address the substantiation bias problem

by writing, “In many of the cited studies, classification of

abuse was often based in part on children’s disclosures;

consequently, the conclusion that abused children do

disclose abuse during formal interviews may be circular”

(p. 217). They then base their conclusion that “the evi-

dence fails to support the notion that denials, tentative

disclosures, and recantations characterize the disclosure

patterns of children with validated histories of sexual

abuse” (p. 194) on their review of research studies that

are in many cases flawed by both suspicion and substan-

tiation bias. What do studies that avoid both biases tell

us about this area of contention?

Studies of Disclosure Patterns in Cases without Selection Bias

Nine boys and one girl were interviewed by police

after Swedish law enforcement discovered videotapes of

102 incidents of child sexual abuse, ranging from expo-

sure of the child’s genitals to oral/anal/vaginal intercourse

(Sjoberg & Lindblad, 2002). The perpetrator was either

related to the children or knew them through his work

at a day care center. Abuse severity was coded both from

the videotapes and from children’s statements. No child

had previously disclosed abuse nor had it been suspected.

Five children reported no abuse during police interviews,

for a disclosure rate of 50%. The child who had suffered

C h i l d r e n ' s D i s c l o s u r e P a t t e r n s i n S e x u a l A b u s e C a s e s

32 J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l • W i n t e r 2 0 0 6

the greatest number (60 incidents) and most severe

sexual assaults according to the videotaped evidence did

not disclose during the police interview. Two of the five

children who did disclose did so only in response to lead-

ing questions. No child reported any sexual behavior not

documented on the videotape.

Cases with children not suspected to be sexual abuse

victims who are diagnosed with sexually transmitted dis-

eases, who are too old to have acquired the diseases con-

genitally and too young to have acquired them through

consensual sex with peers, also avoid both suspicion

and substantiation bias. Confining this review to STD

diagnosis deals with the problem raised by London et al.

(2005) that “medical evidence” is not always a “reliable

benchmark” because, for example, genital redness may be

caused by many things besides sexual abuse.

Lawson and Chaffin (1992) found that among 28 chil-

dren in which STDs were medically diagnosed without

prior suspicion of abuse, only 12 children (43%) made

an allegation of sexual abuse during the initial formal

interview, and 16 children did not. Almost half of these

children had shown no physical or behavioral symptoms

of sexual abuse, so that there were no “red flags” that

would have otherwise brought these children into the

system as possible CSA victims. Maternal attitude influ-

enced disclosure patterns greatly. Among those children

whose parents were supportive, 63% disclosed abuse

during these initial interviews, whereas when caregivers

expressed skepticism, only 17% disclosed.

Of the 16 false negatives in the original Lawson

and Chaffin study, five were subsequently located and

consented to be interviewed. Four of these five had a

supportive parent and one a non-supportive parent.

Researchers presented the study to parents and chil-

dren as an evaluation of responses to prior emergency

room visits, and they never mentioned child abuse.

Nevertheless, four of the five parents spontaneously

told the researchers that their children had disclosed

sexual abuse some time after the initial hospital inter-

view, a finding that supports the idea that CSA disclo-

sure is often an incremental process that may require

more than a single interview (Chaffin, Lawson, Selby,

& Wherry, 1997). Upon psychological testing, the four

non-disclosing children whose parents had been sup-

portive at the time of the initial interview tested three

times higher on dissociative symptoms than did the dis-

closing children and nine times higher on dissociative

symptoms than non-abused control children. Because of

the nature of this study and the very small numbers of

children involved, these results are far from conclusive,

but they do suggest a possible link between dissociative

symptoms and non-disclosure among CSA victims.

London et al. explain the Lawson and Chaffin

results by describing this sample as “unusual” and as

representing “the small hard core of children who do

not disclose abuse when directly asked” (2005, p. 215).

Lyon argues in response that the Lawson and Chaffin

sample avoids the problems of suspicion and substan-

tiation bias that characterize many other samples. Lyon

then raises a concern about the many cases that are

closed as unsubstantiated after a single interview during

which a possibly sexually abused child without medical

evidence fails to disclose when formally questioned.

A number of other samples document similarly

low rates of disclosure in STD cases. Lyon examined 21

studies published between 1965 and 1993 of children

diagnosed with gonorrhea. In nine of these papers, the

authors referred to a “history” of sexual contact or sexual

abuse for some of the children with gonorrhea, without

clarifying whether this history came from children’s dis-

closures or from other sources (Lyon, in press). In most

of the remaining studies, the authors used words such as

“admitted” or “denied” sexual contact or referred even

more directly to children’s statements. Even when all

the cases of “history” were counted as actual child dis-

closures, Lyon finds that the average rate of “disclosure”

among the 579 children in these studies was 43%, or 250

children. Given the broad definition of “disclosure” that

he applies here, Lyon argues that this may actually be an

overestimate of disclosure rates. Most of these studies

indicated that the medical professionals questioned the

children, but the precise nature of these questions is not

known. When Lyon omits studies with children younger

than three years of age to control for developmental

limitations on narrative skill, he finds that 185 of 437

children, or 42%, disclosed.

To summarize this sample of disclosure studies that

avoid both suspicion and substantiation bias, Sjoberg

and Lindblad find a disclosure rate of 50%, Lawson and

Chaffin find a disclosure rate of 43%, and in a review of

21 studies of children diagnosed with gonorrhea, Lyon

finds a disclosure rate of 43%. London et al. (2005) assert

E r n a O l a f s o n a n d J u d g e C i n d y S . L e d e r m a n

33W i n t e r 2 0 0 6 • J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l

that when CSA victims are interviewed, a “majority” of

them disclose sexual abuse. These 23 studies contradict

that assertion by showing that only from 42% to 50%

of children known through external evidence to have

been sexually abused actually disclosed during their

formal interviews.

We agree with London and colleagues that “If the field

is to be guided by scientifically validated concepts then

this must be predicated on the literature that comes clos-

est to the standards of science” (2005, p. 220). Research

studies that avoid suspicion bias and substantiation bias

come closer to this scientific standard than do research

studies that suffer from one or both of these biases, and

these studies show far lower rates of children’s disclosure

of child sexual abuse than London et al. (2005) assert.

When children who have not previously disclosed are interviewed, and these chil- dren are known to have been sexually abused because of external corroborating evidence, their rates of disclosure range from 42% to 50%.

Studies of Child Sexual Abuse Cases that Avoid Only Substantiation Bias

Studies of previously disclosing children will gener-

ally show higher rates of disclosure than do studies in

which children had not previously disclosed, because

prior disclosure predicts children’s disclosure during for-

mal interviews. The majority of cases that judges are likely

to see will involve previously disclosing children, because

child sexual abuse is most often suspected when a child

says something to a caregiver or friend that brings the

case into the system. However, many research studies do

not fully document whether or not a child disclosed prior

to entering the system. Others state how many children

disclosed to another person prior to the formal interview.

Both categories are reviewed in this section.

Hershkowitz, Horowitz, & Lamb (2005) examined

all interviews with alleged victims of sexual abuse, aged

3 to 14, in Israel from 1998 to 2002 (10,988 interviews).

Most of the alleged victims were aged 7 to 14. During

one interview, 71.1% of these children made allega-

tions of child sexual abuse. Boys were less likely than

girls to allege sexual abuse. Children aged 3-6 were less

likely to make allegations than children aged 7-10, and

children aged 11-14 had the highest rates of allegation.

Children were much less likely to make allegations

when the suspect was a parent or parent-figure. This

very large study confirms patterns observed in smaller

U.S. samples. However, because of limitations in the data

set, the authors did not state which children had made

disclosures prior to the formal interviews, although it

is known that prior disclosure is the primary means

by which cases come into the system (Lyon, in press).

The authors were also unable to determine from the

data set which children had been interviewed more

than one time. Finally, it was not possible to analyze

separately those cases that had independent evidence

corroborating child sexual abuse, so that the validity

and non-validity of the children’s allegations could not

be determined.

Elliott and Briere (1994) find that 39 of 118 (33%)

children aged 8 to 15 for whom there was external evi-

dence of child sexual abuse made no disclosure about

having been sexually abused during formal interviews,

and some of the remaining 67% of children with exter-

nal evidence who did disclose required more than one

interview to do so. Twenty of these children had report-

edly disclosed to another person before the interview

but did not do so during the interview, and 19 disclosed

to no one either before or during the formal interview.

A higher percentage of the non-disclosing children had

mothers who were not supportive. There was a higher

percentage of African-American children among the

non-disclosing group. Victims were aged eight through

adolescence, and other research has shown that school-

aged children and adolescents are more likely to dis-

close sexual abuse when questioned than are young-

er children (DiPietro, Runyan, & Frederickson, 1997;

Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Keary & Fitzpatrick, 1994;

London et al., 2005; Lyon, in press; Sas & Cunningham,

1995). London et al. mistakenly calculate a disclosure

rate of 84% in the Elliott and Briere study, a percentage

that is inflated because of substantiation bias. London

and colleagues (in press) calculated the 39 non-dis-

closers against the 248 children classified as “abused,”

although the 248 substantiation figure includes over

100 children classified by the researchers as abused

because they made “consistent, detailed, contextually

embedded, developmentally age-appropriate accounts

of at least one abusive incident” (Elliott & Briere, 1994, p.

264). When substantiation bias is eliminated and the 39

C h i l d r e n ' s D i s c l o s u r e P a t t e r n s i n S e x u a l A b u s e C a s e s

34 J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l • W i n t e r 2 0 0 6

children who did not disclose during formal interviews

are measured against the 118 cases with corroborative

evidence independent of children’s disclosures, the

disclosure rate during formal interviews is 67% and the

non-disclosure rate of known victims is 33%.

In their forthcoming chapter, London et al. also

cite inflated 75% disclosure statistics from a study by

Dubowitz et al. (1992). There were 28 children in that

study who had medical examination findings indicative

of child sexual abuse, and of these, 13 fully disclosed, 7

did not disclose, and 8 “partially disclosed.” London et al.

(in press) must be including the 8 partial disclosers in

this high percentage, although these partial “disclosures”

are described by Dubowitz et al. (1992) as “suggestive

doll play or an inconclusive account of alleged abuse”

(p. 690). When only real disclosures are included, the

disclosure rate in the Dubowitz study is 46%.

Finally, because of methodological shortcomings

in two older studies, Sorenson and Snow (1991) and

Bradley and Wood (1996), they are reviewed only briefly

here. Sorenson and Snow report a 72% initial non-disclo-

sure rate by children, and Bradley and Wood report a 7%

total non-disclosure rate apparently over the course of

several interviews. The end results for both studies do

not differ greatly. Bradley and Wood write that 95% of

the children in cases that had external evidence of child

sexual abuse similar to that used by Sorenson and Snow

“made a partial or full disclosure of abuse during at least

one interview with DPRS or police” (p. 885). In their

evaluation and treatment sample, Sorenson and Snow

write that 96% of the children for which there was

external evidence eventually reached “active” disclosure,

often after weeks or months of treatment.

Prior disclosure predicts disclosure during formal interviews. However, in externally corroborated cases in which children have previously disclosed, a substantial percent- age of children do not disclose during the first formal interview. Many of these chil- dren do disclose if given the opportunity in subsequent interviews.

Recantations

A 10-year-old girl who has told investigators that

she was repeatedly sodomized by her soccer coach

comes to the witness stand during criminal proceed-

ings, freezes, and mumbles to the jury that she “cannot

remember” what happened; as with many cases of anal

penetration, there is no medical evidence. An adoles-

cent boy who has told his school counselor that his

stepmother “messes with my dick” explains to the child

protection investigator the next day that he was “just

kidding.” A preschool girl who has reportedly told her

divorced mother that her daddy “tickles my coochie

and it hurts,” climbs under a table during the advocacy

center interview and denies ever visiting her father. Are

these children withdrawing their allegations because

they were never abused, or are they recanting true state-

ments about abusive events?

These are among the most challenging cases to

investigate and to litigate. There are far fewer studies on

recantation than on delay, non-disclosure, and disclosure,

and there is not yet definitive research about recanta-

tion rates in externally validated cases. Recantation

rates in various studies range from 4% (Bradley & Wood,

1996) to 22% (Sorenson & Snow, 1991). Most studies

of recantation rates contain serious methodological

flaws. Therefore, we cannot agree with the statement

by London et al. (2005) that “only a small percentage of

children in these studies recant” (p. 217). It is more accu-

rate to state that we simply do not yet know how often

and why children recant their statements about actually

having been sexually abused.

There is research currently under way. Malloy, Lyon,

Quas, and Forman (2005) recently presented results

from a random sample of 217 substantiated CSA cases

from the Los Angeles Dependency Court in 1999-2000

to discern disclosure patterns across all interviews.

Children were aged 2 to 17, and 90% were female. Most

of the children had from 3 to 9 interviews. The major-

ity (78%) had disclosed to someone prior to the police

or social services interview, so that the low initial non-

disclosure rate of 9% can be explained by this sample’s

suspicion bias. Twenty-three percent of the children

fully recanted their allegations at some point, and an

additional 11% minimized the severity of the abuse they

had initially reported by partially recanting, for a total of

34% full or partial recanters. Lack of maternal support

and abuse by a male caretaker were predictors for full

recantation. In cases that had medical evidence cor-

roborating the sexual abuse, 25% of the children either

fully or partially recanted the allegation, and 24.5% of

E r n a O l a f s o n a n d J u d g e C i n d y S . L e d e r m a n

35W i n t e r 2 0 0 6 • J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l

children whose perpetrator confessed recanted at some

point during the evaluation. The authors conclude that

recantation is not rare in externally corroborated cases

and in substantiated cases, when all interviews in each

case are examined.

Recantations should not be interpreted to mean that

an allegation is necessarily false. Unfortunately, criminal

courts do not always agree. For example, in Florida, a

prior inconsistent statement from a recanting alleged

victim of child sexual abuse is not sufficient in and of

itself to sustain conviction, even if repeated on multiple

occasions (State v. Green 667 So.2d 756 Fla.,1995. West’s

F.S.A § 90.803(23)).

Researchers have not established whether recantations are frequent or infrequent, but they do occur in externally corrobo- rated CSA cases, especially when abuse was by a male caregiver and/or maternal support was absent.

Bizarre Disclosures

Many children’s cases never reach the courts

because they contain bizarre and impossible details.

These can include accounts of, for example, having

been abused aboard rocket ships, having been abused

by the Wizard of Oz, having been stabbed all over the

body (without medical evidence), having murdered

and dissected a baby, and other grotesque and extreme

statements. In a random sample of 104 child sexual

abuse and physical abuse “gold standard” cases with two

forms of external evidence selected from a child protec-

tion facility, the blind scoring of transcribed disclosure

statements shows that 15.38% of the most severe cases

with victims aged 4-9 contained such implausible details

(Dalenberg, 1996; Dalenberg, Hyland, & Cuevas, 2002).

These fantastic statements were from cases in which the

researchers could be certain that physical and/or sexual

abuse had actually taken place. The rate of bizarre state-

ments in the mild, externally verified cases from this

sample was less than 4%. Because both true and false

allegations can contain implausible details, their pres-

ence does not help investigators sort truth from fiction.

What this study does indicate is that implausible details

in an otherwise solid disclosure do not in themselves

prove that an allegation is false. Indeed, these fantastic

elements may indicate that the child experienced espe-

cially severe physical and/or sexual abuse.

Variables that Affect Disclosure Patterns

We agree with London and colleagues (in press) that

future research with a multivariate model is necessary to

find causal explanations for children’s disclosure patterns,

but there are some trends that seem to be emerging.

■ Maternal or parental support: Children who lack caregiver support are far less likely to disclose than are children who have a supportive caregiver, when “support” is defined as a willingness to believe that the child sexual abuse could have happened (Elliott & Briere, 1994; Lawson & Chaffin, 1992). Elliott & Carnes (2001) find that a majority of mothers either believe or support children in CSA cases. Those cases that reach the courts may differ in crucial ways. Thus, in dependency court, familial support is often absent, hence the intervention of the state in the parent- child relationship to protect the child. The victim child, and often her siblings, are removed from their home, and sometimes there is an arrest of a family member who may be the breadwinner. In too many cases, the child is blamed, feels responsible for break- ing up the family, and eventually recants (Malloy et al., 2005).

■ Relationship to perpetrator: In some cases, the child is dissuaded from disclosing the abuse by fam- ily members who do not believe the child and wish to prevent shame and embarrassment to the family. Most studies demonstrate lower rates of disclosure or longer delays in doing so when abuse is by a family member rather than by a non-family member (Goodman-Brown, Edelstein, Goodman, Jones, & Gordon, 2003; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Sjoberg & Lindblad, 2002; Smith et al., 2000; but see also Lamb & Edgar-Smith, 1994; London et al., 2005).

■ Age: Retrospective surveys indicate that victims first abused during adolescence are more likely to dis- close than are younger children, and they are more likely to disclose first to another adolescent than to a caregiver. Retrospective surveys also indicate that school-aged children are more likely first to reveal child sexual abuse to a parent than to another child (London et al., 2005, p. 201).

■ Gender: In both retrospective surveys and child samples, there are suggestions that boys may be more reluctant to disclose than girls, although other abuse-specific variables may influence gender differ- ences (Ghetti & Goodman, 2001; Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Kendall-

C h i l d r e n ' s D i s c l o s u r e P a t t e r n s i n S e x u a l A b u s e C a s e s

36 J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l • W i n t e r 2 0 0 6

Tackett, Williams, & Finkelhor, 1993; Levesque, 1994; London et al., 2005; Sas & Cunningham, 1995; Sauzier, 1989; Widom & Morris, 1997).

■ Culture: Although more research needs to be done in the area of culture and disclosure rates, there are indications among child samples that children from minority groups face culture-specific barriers to disclosure that could contribute to delays or denials (Dunkerley & Dalenberg, 1999; Elliott & Briere, 1994; London et al., 2005, p. 205).

■ Severity and duration of abuse: Research stud- ies show inconsistent results. Future multivariate analyses accounting for severity and duration of abuse, age, gender, culture, and relationship to perpetrator may clarify this issue.

■ Batterers: The courts should be especially alert to the potential for child sexual abuse by batterers, because research studies indicate that battering father-figures are from four to nine times more likely to perpetrate incest (primarily on girls) than are non-batterers (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002). Because of the atmosphere of terror that can per- meate violent homes, both adult and child victims are often justifiably reluctant to speak up when formally questioned unless they can be convinced that they will not be in danger for doing so (Jaffe & Geffner, 1998).

■ Dissociation and post-traumatic stress: Children subjected to prolonged, severe abuse may face multiple obstacles to adequate disclosure. Unwillingness to face the discomfort of post-trau- matic flashbacks may cause traumatized children to numb their feelings and cognitions and shut down during interviews. Dissociative symptoms may interfere (Chaffin et al., 1997; Putnam, 1997). Cognitive disabilities caused by damage to the central nervous system and brain are associated in numerous studies with histories of severe child maltreatment in early childhood, and these deficits may interfere with children’s ability to recall and describe their life experiences (Elliott & Briere, 1994; Putnam, this issue).

■ Modesty: Modesty or embarrassment should also be considered as motives for silence. One labora- tory study indicates that girls aged 5-7 are reluc- tant to disclose even non-abusive genital touching during interviews. Saywitz, Goodman, Nicholas, and Moan (1991) found a 64% false negative dis- closure rate in a subsequent interview among girls who had been touched genitally and anally during

a pediatric examination. It was only when the girls were directly asked with a yes-or-no question if the doctor had touched them on the genital and anal areas that these girls disclosed. This sugges- tive question produced a false positive rate of 8% (three girls) among those in the control group who had not been genitally and anally touched, and one of these girls provided contextual details. Most experts in the field warn against interview questions that name both act and perpetrator, and many courts define such questions as leading. Nevertheless, in this study, there were eight times as many false denials when this suggestive ques- tion was not asked than there were false allega- tions when it was asked.

■ Other reasons for non-disclosure: When non-dis- closing sexually abused children are questioned, they cite fear as their primary motivation not to tell. Older children who are familiar with depen- dency procedures know that they and their sib- lings may be removed from their home if they tell. Children may fear being stigmatized as “sluts” or “faggots” by their schoolmates if word gets out (and it too often does) that they are sexual abuse victims. Children may fear consequences to themselves, to the perpetrator, or to other family members (Goodman-Brown et al., 2003). Children often otherwise love and trust sexual abuse perpe- trators, and in some cases, they may not be fully aware that what is happening to them is abusive, criminal, and wrong.

Conclusions The most difficult form of abuse to prove in court

is child sexual abuse, even in dependency cases where

the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence

or clear and convincing evidence rather than proof

beyond a reasonable doubt. Few convictions carry the

same degree of stigma and legal ramifications for the

convicted and the potential for serious emotional and

psychological harm to the victim.

It is important to understand that the rules are

different in sexual abuse cases, and every judge must

understand the science. It is common in sexual abuse

cases for the victim not to disclose in a timely manner.

It is not unusual for the victim to disclose little by little

over a period of time. It can happen that the child victim

will recant. In any other prosecution for any other crime,

these actions would be considered indicia of unreliability

E r n a O l a f s o n a n d J u d g e C i n d y S . L e d e r m a n

37W i n t e r 2 0 0 6 • J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l

or lack of truthfulness and would be legal and factual

impediments to conviction. Indeed, a denial of abuse by

the alleged victim would prevent prosecution.

In dependency cases, the court is bound to protect

the health and safety of the child while balancing the

rights of the parents. It is important that judges under-

stand the science so that they can do justice when the

defense lawyer argues, “It did not happen because the

child recanted”; “It did not happen because the child’s

disclosures were not made close to the event”; “It did

not happen because the child kept adding new infor-

mation.” As in domestic violence, the often frustrating

behavior of the victim needs to be explained to the

trier of fact from the victim’s perspective, by those

who have studied this behavior.

When justice is not done in a sexual abuse case, the

harm can be devastating. No jurist wants to take a child

from her home and break up a family when abuse has not

occurred. No jurist wants to leave a child unprotected in

an abusive family. The reality is that it is very often diffi-

cult for a judge presiding over a child sexual abuse case to

feel certain about his or her decision and interpretation

of the facts. Many judges spend sleepless nights worrying

about the ramifications of their decisions.

S U M M A R Y O F R E S E A R C H F I N D I N G S

1. Experts agree that a majority of child sexual abuse victims do not disclose their abuse during childhood.

2. Experts agree that when children do disclose sexual abuse during childhood, it is often after long delays.

3. Prior disclosure predicts disclosure during formal interviews. Children who have told someone about the abuse prior to the formal interview are more likely to disclose during that interview than children who have not. Children who have not previously disclosed and who have come to the attention of the authorities because of medical evidence, videotapes, and other external evidence, are less likely to disclose during medical or investigative interviews than are previously disclosing children.

4. Gradual or incremental disclosure of child sexual abuse occurs in many cases, so that more than one interview may become necessary.

5. Experts disagree about whether children disclose sexual abuse when they are interviewed. However, when both suspicion bias and substantiation bias are factored out of studies, studies with external corroborating evidence of child sexual abuse show that 42% to 50% of children do not disclose sexual abuse when asked during formal interviews.

6. School-age children who do disclose are most likely to first tell a caregiver about what has happened to them.

7. Children first abused as adolescents are more likely to disclose than are younger children, and they are more likely to confide first in another adolescent than to a caregiver.

8. When children are asked why they did not tell about the sexual abuse, the most common answer is fear.

9. Further research is needed about recantation rates, which range in various studies from 4% to 22%.

10. Lack of maternal or parental support is a strong predictor of children’s denial of abuse during formal questioning. Abuse by a family member may inhibit disclosure. Dissociative and post-traumatic symp- toms may contribute to non-disclosure. Modesty, embarrassment, and stigmatization may contribute to non-disclosure. Gender, race, and ethnicity affect children’s disclosure patterns.

11. Many unanswered questions about children’s disclosure patterns remain, and further multivariate research is warranted.

38 J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l • W i n t e r 2 0 0 6

Sexual abuse cases are specialized cases that

require specialized knowledge, a tool judges must have

in order to do justice. Knowing the law alone is not

enough. By understanding the research in the sexual

abuse field (see page 37 for a summary of research

findings), judges can enhance their ability to make just

decisions by applying the law to the facts.

A U T H O R S ’ A D D R E S S E S :

Erna Olafson, Ph.D., Psy.D. The Childhood Trust

Department of Psychiatry, ML0539 University of Cincinnati Medical School

Cincinnati, OH 45267

Judge Cindy S. Lederman 11th Judicial Circuit Court

Juvenile Justice Center, Room 201 3300 N.W. 27th Avenue

Miami, FL 33142

C h i l d r e n ' s D i s c l o s u r e P a t t e r n s i n S e x u a l A b u s e C a s e s

E r n a O l a f s o n a n d J u d g e C i n d y S . L e d e r m a n

39W i n t e r 2 0 0 6 • J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l

Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. G. (2002). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bradley, A. R., & Wood, J. M. (1996). How do children tell? The disclosure process in child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 9, 881-891.

Carnes, C. N., Nelson-Gardell, D., Wilson, C., & Orgassa, U. C. (2001). Extended forensic evaluation when sexual abuse is suspected: A multisite field study. Child Maltreatment, 6(3), 230-242.

Carnes, C. N., Wilson, C., & Nelson-Gardell, D. (1999). Extended forensic evaluation when sexual abuse is suspected: A model and preliminary data. Child Maltreatment, 4(3), 242-254.

Chaffin, M., Lawson, L., Shelby, A., & Wherry, J. N. (1997). False negatives in sexual abuse interviews: Preliminary investigation of a relationship to dissociation. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 6(3), 15-29.

Dalenberg, C. J. (1996). Fantastic elements in child disclosure of abuse. APSAC Advisor, 9(2), 1, 5-10.

Dalenberg, C. J., Hyland, K. Z., & Cuevas, C. A. (2002). Sources of fantastic elements in allegations of abuse by adults and children. In M. Eisen, J. Quas & G. Goodman (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

DiPietro, E. K., Runyan, D. K., & Fredrickson, D. D. (1997). Predictors of disclosure during medical evaluation for suspected sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 6(1), 133-142.

Dubowitz, H., Black, M., & Harrington, D. (1992). The diagnosis of child sexual abuse. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 146(6), 688-693.

Dunkerley, G. K., & Dalenberg, C. J. (1999). Secret-keeping behaviors in black and white children as a function of interviewer race, racial identity, and risk for abuse. In K. Coulborn Faller & R. VanderLaan (Eds.), Maltreatment in early childhood: Tools for research-based intervention (pp. 13-36). New York, London, Oxford: The Haworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press.

Elliott, A. N., & Carnes, C. N. (2001). Reactions of nonoffending parents to the sexual abuse of their child: A review of the literature. Child Maltreatment, 6(4), 314-331.

Elliott, D. M., & Briere, J. (1994). Forensic sexual abuse evaluations of older children: Disclosures and symptomatology. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 261-277.

Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14(1), 19-28.

Fivush, R. (1994). Young children’s event recall: Are memories constructed through discourse? Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 356-373.

Frasier, L. D., & Makoroff, K. L. (in press). Medical evidence and expert testimony in child sexual abuse. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 57(1).

Ghetti, S., & Goodman, G. S. (2001). Resisting distortion? Psychologist, 14, 592–595.

Goodman-Brown, T. B., Edelstein, R. S., Goodman, G. S., Jones, D. P. H., & Gordon, D. S. (2003). Why children tell: A model of children’s disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27, 525-540.

Henry, J. (1997). System intervention trauma to child sexual abuse victims following disclosure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 499-512.

Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., & Lamb, M. E. (2005). Trends in children’s disclosure of abuse in Israel: A national study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(11), 1203-1214.

Jaffe, P., & Geffner, R. (1998). Child custody disputes and domestic violence: Critical issues in mental health, social service, and legal professionals. In G. Holden, R. Geffner & E. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research, and applied issues (pp. 371-408). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Keary, K., & Fitzpatrick, C. (1994). Children’s disclosure of sexual abuse during formal investigation. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18(7), 543-548.

Kendall-Tackett, K. A., Williams, L. M., & Finkelhor, D. (1993). Impact of sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 164- 180.

Lamb, S., & Edgar-Smith, S. (1994). Aspects of disclosure: Mediators of outcome of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 307-326.

Lawson, L., & Chaffin, M. (1992). False negatives in sexual abuse disclosure interviews: Incidence and influence of caretaker’s belief in abuse cases of accidental abuse discovery by diagnosis of STD. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 107-117.

REFERENCES

C h i l d r e n ' s D i s c l o s u r e P a t t e r n s i n S e x u a l A b u s e C a s e s

40 J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l • W i n t e r 2 0 0 6

Levesque, J. (1994). Sex differences in the experience of child sexual victimization. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 357-369.

London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 194-226.

London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Shuman, D. W. (in press). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: A review of the contemporary empirical literature. In M. Pipe, M. Lamb, Y. Orbach & A. Cederborg (Eds.), Disclosing abuse: Delays, denials, retractions and incomplete accounts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lyon, T. D. (2002). Scientific support for expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation. In J. R. Conte (Ed.), Critical issues in child sexual abuse (pp. 107-138). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Lyon, T. D. (in press). False denials: Overcoming biases in abuse disclosure research. In M. Pipe, M. Lamb, Y. Orbach & A. Cederborg (Eds.), Disclosing abuse: Delays, denials, retractions and incomplete accounts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Malloy, L. C., Lyon, T. D., Quas, J. A., & Forman, J. (2005). Factors affecting children’s sexual abuse disclosure patterns in a social service sample. Paper presented at the American Psychological Society 17th Annual Convention, Los Angeles, CA.

Muram, D., Speck, P. M., & Gold, S. S. (1991). Genital abnormalities in female siblings and friends of child victims of sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 105-110.

The National Research Council (1993). Understanding Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Olafson, E. (2002). When paradigms collide: Roland Summit and the rediscovery of child sexual abuse. In J. R. Conte (Ed.), Critical issues in child sexual abuse (pp. 71-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pipe, M., Lamb, M., Orbach, Y., & Cederborg, A. (in press). Disclosing abuse: Delays, denials, retractions and incomplete accounts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Poole, D. A., & Dickinson, J. J. (2005). The future of the protocol movement; Commentary on Hershkowitz, Horowitz, and Lamb (2005). Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 1197-1202.

Putnam, F. W. (1997). Dissociation in Children and Adolescents. New York, London: The Guilford Press.

Putnam, F. W. (in press). The impact of trauma on child development. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 57(1).

Sas, L. D., & Cunningham, A. H. (1995). Tipping the balance to tell the secret: The public discovery of child sexual abuse. London, Ontario, Canada: London Family Court Clinic.

Sauzier, M. (1989). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: For better or for worse. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 455- 469.

Saywitz, K. J., Goodman, G. S., Nicholas, E., & Moan, S. F. (1991). Children’s memories of a physical examination involving genital touch: Implications for reports of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 682-691.

Sjoberg, R., & Lindblad, F. (2002). Delayed disclosure and disrupted communication during forensic investigation of child sexual abuse: A study of 47 corroborated cases. Acta Paediatrica, 91, 1391-1396.

Smith, D. W., Letourneau, E. J., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., & Best, C. L. (2000). Delay in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(2), 273-287.

Sorensen, T., & Snow, B. (1991). How children tell: The process of disclosure of child sexual abuse. Child Welfare, 70, 3-15.

Summit, R. C. (1983). The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse and Neglect, 7, 177-193.

Widom, C. S., & Morris, S. (1997). Accuracy of adult recollections of childhood victimization: Part 2. Child sexual abuse. Psychological Assessment, 9, 34-46.

REFERENCES

REDACTED STATEMENT: JANE DOE OCTOBER 2008 AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT

I. \ txv e torn e -4\ne Pm -4-0 fy,c0/19 . (In 044; cAA (SW(Yncr4-

4/0 3i4lia1 Arleni&e._ 4n-4- criaat -An yve_ Line n U10.6 a 0.V. •

13-pnYie tij;AA,. it -tmeAtc;i1v4, "POtAcr&Pni ebe

"T.." onulti emdie rA t li EATit-oniunt- ke_S-f 64- -0/1( Office of the Attorney general.

Mir "dile

SIGNED:

VITNESS: TRANSCRIBED BY:

N c, New

+)n-b\ seM ekojs -The Ars+

Mai ea kte.s,.scs

(4,; n k. v../ 4 \Th0A • s .%-C-Ctrer4-

oMiess aw. xits-6

WVItct NC- ) +IVVUOV‘. qt nn."6"-- A inCk4

\ \VA ax\K tincte ti".14Cct\‘`l —vine se( .4.,,nck cackle-cc $

"PncV .izc o16c. 0„ka te.kc s

--Pck.A- \\FCC tr),6 =. \\veA ,1401AAn XNArriAltr

Sor t

08/03/2007 14:30

PAGE 29

STATEMENT OF: CR# PAGE: S

DATE: 01-66 -047 STARTING TIME: 0 ENDING TIME: j2,7"/ TAKEN BY: LOCATION: ilmimis

WITNESS:*411a; SIGNED: _iuwsop____ TRANSCRIBED BY:

4PAGE:STATEMENT OF: DATE: 0 -CS tY(7 STARTING TIME: j0:06# TAKEN DV:

ENDING TIME: ga7

LOCATIONS.

WITNESS.

WITNESS: tRANSCRD3ED IW:

SIGNED:

08/03/2007

PAGE 30

r no v -At ;— Nov c n4). t r- 04 Ickgrl.

t. tok, Dna cri e 111111110VaOmAcm vyn nv-e A \neseirlir"

"N \ni e trov-e -n-Knyy,

tt he- rt utftez for -v.\ -tinn ker 4rcr.

p-ko U-k-

o-i-Nne , ; c -Patag r- irrni thni NrnA °Aso AvNk tthnAir itnPP. 4Th6)S R

WITNESS:

SIGNED:

TRANSCRIBED BY;

08/03/2007 14:30 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMD PAGE 31

STATEMENT OF: PAGE: 5

DATE: E76:eil STARTING TIME: gage' ENDING ITME: 1.2-:299,6W

TAICEN BY: sOlegaln

41. • • IL la •

\ mos.\ CaS OAcsuce &KW- cod

\lorne C

4a5r w

LOCATIONIS

6") --C. r ( 3.101"-C ads eArk cks '001

—n? cr cr. %Nilo\ Nca ,ec. M lep.ts ovt.

‘,36 int(' LOCAL, abt t.ce elriaa3Zak-r--ad

We lt\ . CA) "IVe othuse )tiVacriv.Tres( i

iNntA Ate. t I

1 C.-Pr 3/41e Nnovwc e eve___12-1-29)-saa-\RS- d: a SM.. a• • "a_ -

Sfrisies1 • Clouse nr.ropre. urv6:1 -14 n erf--

‘rAisej . woo otiwt1/441 a y. cl_

\ent_ L)nn1 04po Nt. \\Ala( ari\k PAti Sl&ke/CS

08/03/2007 14:30

PAGE 32

STATEMENT OF.11111.111.1111. CRS PAGE: Q DATE: 046 -091 STARTING TIME: ltrObleil ENDING TIME: ge21/3/7 TAKEN BY: LOCATION: a

Ns a ^Fe sjnon)ec- misCek-Onte 000t Ise fly uhenevor- 4.11frawr- t th ).11)4- Oat* PA. .

_ a • 44

‘01 the -1-a\me sa ton c lyn Nanks 1/1.911. ckbosie)

tn -65e -Ly4t, Tak. 6;y4A1, werAt --cn (Th. erase *v. Thits,ln 12:"'"‘ nnut-t ) JeArcii vIcoq- \news - %testy\ (AY\ "MrAnt.T" ok I lot*

9).)1 Y•nagetAAN

SIGN/ED: alit— TRANSCRIBED BY:

08/03/2007 14:3 WSPD PAGE 33

••• •I•L•t• • ,

e nerga atanol- hemecre,_wsttex)D kr-

WITNESS!

!STATEMENT OF: PAGE: n IDATE; -0(7 STARTING TIME: aneof ENDING TIME: 42-,,,9,47 !TAKEN BY: LOCATION: 11111111MMED

1; cv ?eStinn° "Vvzseete reanner IANN. Apar \-ntnO\ rive (ber‘ _IsnriAj\tt YYlt tic Sn lrCkY1 .

vRwar Nrc‘ 4t'"na "4‘ tt At) \ 4)(Vot‘ 1-Nen -301.w.ers6.44-- kon 1•C\ iEv! V•Vs 0411.61 O‘Yla_ e Ins\NnTilt elenla _

Nnat „Az \ner eirm

-n" ow, wn4-. itte. -ftryle

tuntat 0)- wpote —Ng -itp.s1-- u 4.er vv.) rrott.0-r- e Myr clAAti-t-

t .nnv.Ac -pm ts\ry..• -IV'S 1:SC(4i C I /kW..." at, • • ,

r4‘‘),_ g‘s-Aer- -tLA mit_ 01.re nrxd) .StsNm • /v.& -aNnY... C, JS rn AsSc -kr) -S•ty

tfiptc SA1Dt4.) ‘-ve \real -to ijttic1

Peaer 04cpc4.4" rcis tk kJ) ( herds C 44 44‘13

Pne

SIGNED: 411/a11111111111.—

TRANSCRIBED BY:

‘o\u s-ncz,․) Sc ").o;\ istmi tak ) we. TvA. mnetiz c- A‘crc1/4__. noIA- SSA( Vvick -ft) pe t 11A-A sz LAW t 64.42 ‘2":5 Z. yNS kk e IC:avnetiter

Pnermrt4-- 1mA `9.€ &kJ, "isinvw c- 4-i-ktv.On -17)

Lk) tittt.)

-11-2) 40‘ r"

sister

08/03/2007 14:30 PAGE 34

STATEMENT OF: PAGE: -48

DATE: 0 -65-

Igoe

041 STARTING TIME: . ENDING TIME:a:27a,

TAKEN BY: LOCAT/ON:

EN.1\N_ \'c +an 1eoN4' t t.thS -irin sr -kcA \na. r. _OvIA gym twist r 4 ahcren

cackveim Nott roe tivit t 3ot 4- Tf \MAI kc3è W n

-Mt arsa, '.*AciAtvx+- fl tkotrfteMAtt.._ t tAint ti\ &u e\- (tnntr.&tt &C..s3cA a wens erv4 . evc

intik. virus. %.1 nnt Conik. Sims c‘at. NtArtne&sratC- way-6\et -Can r NO, leelnosibta scmt

SIGNED: 411111111111111.-- WITNESS: TRANSCRIBED BY:

AS CLIMIDSWV/11. :SVALCLIAt

—11111111S :GUMS :SSULLIM SCI`r3

Q

WO- a a) U17) it)

airy); e 1/4M

-}"Dik-% vP6v0 05- 311`)• ‘A")*(")1 CPI AA c?' vo t C"op HE N gu1/4 ‘vi rick) \1SO.A.

NOloct. ?wick ) 1A C,A s.,i4a WTI 9'

\Nip \two

tva? L \1/4t 1 V(YI VUM C\kt I 5 k eitio '-u-

'°1' lz)e k ‘03/4 IR ?VW Lir) n u) Agt-TI,\

ritti ass I dfl ) ;et !-)PAXX n pen 9- ‘N% 6-0 OVICI t.0

)\1031- (41" 1-Skiirn at9Q‘KA LAx VW0 on rp.? —m—ren---rrallarws-4 \ant:

4 -MI_ -4.71M \fle.

2140In301 /4331Y1

DATIONZ ao staurvis 49-0 :aava

104 :3Dva :30

-YardimenmatS SO 1- i() Tran.:.; y4,

0111.1111111S1111.11. E/E0/88SE 39tod

1

WITNESS:

08/83/2007 14:30 SD

PAGE 36

STATEMENT OF

Da-046 -17

TAKEN BY:

a ILI • Itai iiitat.t.r.-s:AMBe a I

STARTING TIME:

PAGE: lb ENDING TIME:

LOCATION:a

*'•/

--Ns "et n it -4.1(1%0i 0n05_ (ter ‘NncikerrC--- t.

4t\ -1r'sciftx.)1

C PtVle

OAP vvmi tett- WO. C6111C

\.g CKI n't& my) hays 11* (1.114 Cumvple

-1/2horin0A WV? •=. SO.\ k WC) . \-\C

ntt ObucAbni

_.ictnon ak eke eve le•

so,‘ X v :ha+

schrea 1 an A -c -in Nct NI tin 4itivre kg/ ee. Ain would,. \hutmertattr•

SAIn &Iv\ kihr -Stki 0A.1 ecri-

--‘nue)r. onrvi 5t- IA* tatMLci rYK. ark 1ump . rin Mk/ buit, ANA The tirre-fo ultwel • he rnia (malt Stitt, VT) ir.hx4-

—Mk vm 44- Vie- LOPYth- --b., 4110 SChn())

lt"A+ PAC o'N\ nni 1/2 flax

I. SIGNED:a111119—

WITNESS: TRANSCRIBED BY:

.10 liAs

08/03/2007 14:30

PAGE 37

STATEMENT OF: CRit PAGE:

DATE: 00 -03 -eel STARTING TIME: toin ENDING TIME: a

TAKEN BY: qm LOCATION: 111111111111111111.

See u yks 4trm ikA \net, 5\14' (An --k1C11\41.-

c\U tvn‘&5 (*CNC (1/4-'1nck jr?\k& w+tz. An EV VIV OKI *INA n .40 ton kaic 4ksi beleS out. ktibutk

eVon -PD•SA- C N0e04- etkif t net ,

Wreka, tut In I Le I ma.) ,sh torstt--- Vint In-E- 4142.`A 5.04. (hi. 4-11/4) --i-hnne 4 7-41‘,/ In 0-4- 'Or s-c-c nig A +IV nivy, 9 00;- r1, ht 044442._

et a A Nita 'dim l a O cL4f1n 'j an&

k+III Sri, WI. O. `ft\ INeN5, n4\14 fc vfairt te.. 1 -4A-Ektg._ execp..)-"

ny,,c ts, „„,ADA -A, a erre c-k- Ott-ce

reNkii \CO'brkYN r

eanowN, c' \ A— sAe. LION.) Q/Vt•PAL -1/27'N tOtvnit OkYkA, 1344 'hu innutk pre-it ryi_

ann A MS dee p tTh flCVfr ate /I ATti ele es

WITNESS: SIGNED:

WITNESS:

TRANSCRIBED BY:

88/83/2807 1

PAGE 38

STATEMENT OF: CR# PAGE:

DATE: 0-6 -047 STARTING TIME: V ENDING TIME: ardep,'

TAKEN BY: p LOCATION: eallIMMO

k I AYst )\ ni>1/4A\ ni-soN cwj SYCyltal) atkri 0 INA c r (1,4— rve.ALkomA netvim i -4.ent L

lihaeD W CAW )\C\ +nit nn INA WO I* -W14 1,:a 3 oak ci

rnA") reni Nelmsevy, a ft 01/4 . EV4 ki IN\SWk- V14 + tArk ‘I" Vurks̀ c CM14 •

-Ts. -4 r•rat 4...tsti.Sre y khp_sk INN \last, 4\ Occtek \MI Firk.“ k- whkna az -tv,.“ kiwi; k \tvt c:s ct )\n,41. n::4-.(v) \IN nk tan On trra, astskT- Vat err Orbit

ett

Arc\ taw" \nit C 'ykt t NAP A \irst Ail eVri ‘Ak‘IL IAA ar LOVA CiAtt • %rye ak\niP c

Lunt L actie_wi se e NeN\W• Ar1 hit I twit) 1.1( Imni4 -kel\ cts 4r Lotto 4) . M t oNTE. Mit r

rel 44Pstot tont A rspit, *-stArsaa- \Nie AAVN'A-• \L4 c \Lb W\ Itze.m. "nd$ 1.4 MU 1k

WITNESS: SIGNEDe- WITNESS: TRANSCRIBED BY:

08/03/2007 14:30

SIGNED:

TRANSCRIBED Int

PAGE 39

WITNESS:

STATEMENT OF. CR# PAGE: /5

DATE: lat -6 -0, STARTING TIME: idte ENDING TIME: aratAV TAKEN BY: LOCATION: a

• . toa'rk- 411 (\NI c tiskt. Ink (IMP° le ONA., bt-1- of (DIA Carrie in -01.it

VNWS R-4101Y\ Ap mg vet1,t)t NtAvnAlk i ckl*-No I4I ok

enue‘e aetv.in trIr in 60v A nse\ ni-to -r -kinnyk- ujixAk newa n 11-t

Covl C .flyne exr4 Oust now • IA INS. LA) tz-cteN e:3‘441- thVerr-n LtreN\AO 17ktt

—b flrw kb. ) \ANN& \e" €7,0% ° Yvkli 'ism)* \

S.to r IN(SS2 a br.syrk- Alt\ Itel Cu )

IN\ ki .C nAske 9- yv %Or ujiNG ),C) _S•1 -e \It 1.04(

ot. bA4-47-tyy. b <NI

• 0 Nt a,C1) S\111 Nui —77 sDA- -46 Yi\iikt raink

rtrAtse isoms3/4;ne,fick4

sister

WITNESS:

STATEMENT OF: CRF PAGE:

DATE: 01-6 -047 Siall.111.111,ARTING TIME: GM'

.

LOCATION: isENDING TIME: 14°:TAKEN BY:

WITNESS:

08183/200ealliMe

PAGE 40

. is cl

-kfitog britAts ht. nfitu btel sister rep — fithrs-021 e Saw Ahn. rna-44

Weil -3' an ti: the v y C-tmir-M slit, A

.....tar—All—tig.--IstakALL-)rnt; h itt i-te . 1-1 n Sa j1/4. Snatt flat ton m. ; ttio4—

LUNA* \ALI- ira \\L4 \f‘Neyt Um, • 1.4 94. -Setsue. The u..tre+ 4n

Ant\ nnThvnierk rk4TAA NVA Aelf

.X -it 101. r 5ive44 hu-nitt,4 sods__ Lentos' at-- 11.• tient wife --Hut 5-huni rit4 -Me rnas+ rh.t.

-VAS r ite" }wit' bottrl re

s ussmnil— hn otit

s'a '4-

Nn

4 -4.-1-$44. mscfr

SIG

TRANSCRIBED BY:

etrivon

at /fl

vnTNESS:

WITNESS: 1 'Tr AI Sr SIGNED. WITNESS: TRANSCRIBED BY

08/03/2007

PAGE 41

STATEMENT OF: CR# PAGE: I; DATE: 0146 -0€.7 STARTING TIME: .164W ENDING TIME: 17,709/0/ TAICEN BY: ••n11111n•• LOCATION: a

; fl. tu4 1.-no tyt. lit rile

ektho m , ic 641, N414c1 A V,' JAye 0-r-Hvz.

cowl, . He 4n41 n. iste_ ot C/c1fssC cold hi t e ci or nit rno sarktv`k d Ord he-

t. la3 60.,sy pet rkV II 1Ynan Cot/ \err

814 on_daf t-a'n • cy-6 (At 'VW IN-( .14- VAIL 9N14 1 ar 3wri- irme ;AA d Iss‘w\ +n

het rne 62ost Vst %A i 41 int , 44- —11,4t-1- 44-nt n b4;tvid -5-, ( . 6 trt 64/tv ttri arr-

......Az_cittScal_be tem St hotti PA 6A re rse4- CAM nk • .-.40ka NC- 5/44-11t 0, a tannri w

lys3 if. 4- MX- 44.2 hunt 0.), a bak -in 44- kiw' tk

08/03/2007

PAGE 42

STATEMENT OF: CM PAGE: t6 DATE: 0 -05 -ø' STARTING TIME: alga ENDING TIME:a272),7 TAKEN BY: LOCATION: a

my e_ a i,us,d All The (Ali -OlintA tan( 0,79 maniA wets Aome voor id IAA /4- 1417 Ck JAMS Nen -Hkt pAn-ut nee: woe (1134farnnrri41 he Ci#416 .6r 4101/44) @ rfilt Mot v

hy- &vie Ihti niMist pri4- u.S >n -N 411 L Iliasand sr% d n so •"1 -1-Aft

i\n3 born And 544- an tAIL ?kyle. my g_ boould Inaci. --6

4k \-tMq_cry, 4.1c tanod "ui4i4i rv ?ha4c Li 4 s 0.1 tll ii vAi- pun Ilut ChnveL cu rt Cintka kit 1Crid 3cre1/4,_

piNkr n h wcvi Lorna %Fe. 13-4- kra-tni-omn nor.2. eiczts -4-1. a (ken 12_ . W t It& Athrv kir _bt _Sn'Si Srkr1111111. .ntiltitc4

n4' (ALM os\A tnt uwika 4e t\

SIGNED: SEP--

TRANSOMED BY:

I • • • A WA'

WITNESS:

08/03/2007 14:38 .1.111110111111111. PAGE 43

STATEMENT OF: CR* PAGE: 17

DATE: 0-13 -,7 STARTING TIME: A 0Itfl ENDING TIME: ajgreg TAKEN BY: LOCATION: itallarillia

iAnd -ItorN ovcskeledie RSCIlc iiond -+if Le a

si-fse-le A (P-4aCtIree3 th6± 14 31a4f.A.eci S alsister _.,;„N

cuinck- atrwic., itt vitnOtk it IELIMII-fn wit- ni• -AA) nnvt eyo_ Sioh t to/ lisp at-I-flown. fiC

hie ow ti t so‘li thIs‘en +k tAThtiI 't1\ Va Te n it\ 0M _crittur new VA z`nA nTres

tic thnu.&h tk- rAi4- rns1 _A s ksho Ca -A:A -Acre( 6e. ro_usse_ Inc Altai oa rAp -4a be. 04144

nattste._ %Amin& Ias, trN -Mk FlArrek ;10

4) On 10,10- caati cs."

INNI K.A.e Ion 4tr4 cot) (Er 'fits+ -tit

SIGNED:

'ERANSCRESED BY:

PAGE 44 08/03/2007 14:30

STATEMENT OF: CRO PAGE: r3

DATEz-0 -0113 - 017 STARTING TIME: IL ENDING TIM:a:20W

TAKEN BY: LOCATION: (S

use

1st _IA its het- (knit irad , Fre, (0 ARA__

1:444-sat4bbv. anti 41.6%8 it4- nu, to he nw 9h. (C

MA? inlln n Cams na-1- +k I itchItoron cc- e erni

c 14- 4sticA4c. A4+ ot gaia '1St( (NM_ ct i‘e knet.s cims >es -4.1 vnv.s-epirh,

OkiCip44 ‘Net.t tws-ks 0,,c4 -in _suck_ A

SA : Cnvna ed An NI Anti, jw4Se4 nAl ke0li4 ciovAQ skerAta 4 rymitraf- kiN rmi nics44, and

vms g1M1\1\S bYX +hp -Pte-nt ate\ •frkt Cfrwet-c. 'QAI

ekr. Arsai flys_ "It) ' 44. AittA\ nu) .1 \-% linkn V\

teattrt -17, +11 0-win - IN/ CR 113E-- \erre CO

rtt ottA Sict: A qiii‘n/liC it/IPS \I/CA • 014 1111111.24-

: WITNESS: SIGNED:

ATTNESS: TRANSCRIBED BY:

WITNESS:

VVTINESS:

08/03/2007 14:30

PACE 45

STATEMENT OF: CRit PAGE: sg DATE: 0 ege,,-09" STARTING TIME: ." ENDING TIME: g.29947 TAKEN BY: LOCATION:

Sa t 1 I Car\ nut 7t1- \\ ins J'ew caà tvn ewe enki Alm+ snA nts e *Ante S.ovitrf bs

pJ3of5 ynti , X- a s.; c K -4 t4- acc

%Ai n Thapbs 4, Von, al\ A Cs- Ye irk

PACT*U P ot)lk 1;..e rkvyti

As q OtNtAa_ oiOtia- 4H+ cl-r th ilk jaUxiat. ‘N../ciaucts Citft c. 11/4flhAlva-

Linnet WS 00. 144-it n,ilt en inss4(o trn

Az pitsgibu. . NNInAne‘ m ‘...>Ath km4- A4IN Ytt\W e. fkk O. C I; ‘ k 'In eta\ k tel rtaltbaft- -11inark- en

A4N1/4. et r.1‘\\X Vann"1\3 ‘a- caw0 "Cf-on\ fa CO / 3/4 CC) —SbOcrli.61.---MatokereaL-SIS.L....3212401SSICAS,

t ke CAtA VV.A ) rAntt, ty a wolc-4- \ton/ Svely-4- \-4

skulk 1:;thi ivnor , it tALLP .51n Itie —p Ock Meat

SIGNED:

. cØrssasst_

TRANSCRIBED BY:

Sas PAGE 46,08/03/2007 14:36

CM/ PAGE: 9 DATE: -.6 STARTING TIME: Invivfie7 ENDING TIME: ef:nen STATEMENT OF: WarMaire TAKEN BY: n•n11•1

LOCATION:

hV\--enakoT UnEXM aujuk -}e wte -1604_ tio •

4-0 &t, Ark- uatAkik 4R2, thm hone 4-1 11M i$*' 47, wa1/41, u.3 1-4e

£4 ' • t. fl. " L2

eAt t-pwss 00 .1- .

v tea t via nee A Lc riy 1re/a 4-6 abuse_

\No Ittn-k- SINnit / e S fk th It e "Asir \no tx \ NA -C^^ ,Nni 4 *IV tint- AC ‘c-� Mist:vitt nor 1a SNYYksit-h\-ns 4YLTInn "KA_

hi raflflrL tkc OIL EWA cs)eg 41\ Y1/44._ rytarAo (In o er-Erfür rn csrtj .S.,� me%

1-N N'YI /AM; \t a Scv4 nI flt e On r fre 114, werIA-- 5,24- sits.ts ‘ ckNA. Asiu5 Aeoje

-S&L) tit \‘'N %WO- CM- (ilea iinAin14 SC 4 Orve \At (kovt.V voktA twserm i4 n-s

SIGNED: ellIMM!FWITNESS: WITNESS: TRANSCRIBED BY:

r)r sko

08/03/2087 PAGE 47

STATEMENT OF: CRS PAGE:

DATE: 0 -6 -17 STARTING TIME: i t ENDING TIME: a t_ni'W TAKEN BY: LOCATION: a

_120�,a&L:LL-

Abet O. sip t 4,1 VA4.1‘ 6.1 C ntV1 • -C-± \LIN> ntkl.- Ot NIVZ. led S rent Anmli ny- ryd.Vt mit 611..t ,n cif614 ikrstN- clox i i‘A rxfl ci .on? *44 KR

ArA dti pet, dt, ind Nut perfron ova( • re 4-1 714._ ,. • to& a t •

164- (4- _frio en ;orb 44cici,\ VISA- Wks IA lush' Vi-

/h9 A4p‘o Akke Sorm enOto c pie_ nv44- no3 -bk

muck one_ c ;4- Ix> Jek 1/4

44, ?Afire be4- IkD 714, I 1 cet

,Ag tart sOn -(-kg

isick‘k, Lo 4, -11,4

.N41 lteANC

rpreAets *love rim tocveng.

SIGNED:_.

WITNESS: TRANSCRIBED BY:

STATEMENT OF:

DATE: 2E6 -z:trZ. STARTING TIME: TAKEN BY:

PAGE:

ENDING TIME: 47.:ZZon LOCATION: a41•101•n••

08/83/2087 PACE 48

Qr9

1\1\viN t4i roo4itir- ivatd Air yth (LEW ws ha nu 6.1 har4- de-Act- nv\ A t(

Wort etwral lk. ft nifirbsel fit- tm--- 71C- Y... hNisin12n4e- €:403 s44 nmf cis4ic

Sts

hit ryi , V%41 to + -0.0; + Oats --p- 7w siykk smelt

-c4 C""t \rame"N (IAA 614- kesy: +by on rt..,

Y.INND Pakr INAttfw e. '1)14- kw ly3 (10.4 ni b1/4/4- tpt, rAi c4- b-• YNti nirtbeir pimt

43 Iva rnotv c vs\ ret4.Sytirkt .11.1 y\ IvoNi tac \'‘e tOrti tXMA-- 0414-- 40 jctcncw ik(GOI

it 4Pok tat rnmv4 d 111111) 4.

Av't LAM C.

litc-i- ni katitly ni TrWa-le erre t ON purpt,Se Plito.NA 4CKIA

k writ_ vik ifrciN ,p.4.0,va, WITNESS* SIGNED: 4011111.111111111_ WITNESS: TRANSCRIBED BY:

4 '4 ' iviy5

azaniastivitt atom :smut%

:micas

_pram4 5t4fcQO4l .tv isivephos, (Tim*

rAV I" k "ir • 'I* • • •••/ •

Insta) ylk I dtt M143 %kJ-- art dam) P...‘ 4J,\ --1-017 TIN In (MC aijJl pAv onito rAilu-10

Tiomp\pvir, 741440L Pw? ti‘ WV\ 141.mcf 13 v5 1-f Flew -1":u r 111 -nos 1'TV

jrd'et0 d Jtifftq%t+ 1119 C7-VINI) Ct CI" L1/41 11,0‘14-1 "S-- ( De -t."fl 1RU Va 9S t rik t4v1

a-6o tu. v--0 rimylets -14-43, at:LA of- -1-vt lug

3v.p %um 794. I I" et's 034-

rrFnnr-+rr+!nn ei-i^ WO Nea1/4\ -V; • k.194_ WOCA-1 k1/4Vt -1-30‘ ?Tr

Ce:NOLLV301 Zaeltejra:alial. ONIGNIa

_e-c :30Vd

aft

:314ILL sta.urvis 49- yap anfa :AO INKIMILVLS

6t7 39Vd OE :PI LUIZ /EOM

WITNESS:

WITNESS:

88/03/2007

PAGE 50

kit)

23 STATEMENT OF: CItti PAGE:

DATE: -6 -0(7 STARTING TIME: 44 ENDING TIME: /21200*

TAKEN BY: LOCATION: le

-1-71 he until y#u' lake,

nwk hoA 44 ov. tthrv, an-I

1-s t orfecrtmAi Ctoreua_ itt es 441.'4- oh ‘NcIrao 1„,t34--le CCN're 4-1/ C W 11 gel Ship' I)-(

es Iva* as hit tM. ni‘i k kk._ (14- rhtt bilA --a our est ANN& n hiot II+ wit 661INS rk Nzt hi t rn 6441- Mut( yrin ce

nl1 nns kAJ-t4t 6pson

"Ron" --170t ociumitift(WittL_sandit._ /

rAl COW 2.an yin 5L �ti wf Melo 4a SM1 MI ‘MQ 1/410 'lobo. 45 Kul, • rrv1 4ki4Q4 4,41AI

TLc( -he ) q 303+- 1). (Intel ram c toci /me re--

Qtpc. ‘tuinpowl

SIGNED.

'TRANSCRIBED BY:

08/83/2007 14:30 3367737994

WSPD

PAGE 51

STATEMENT OF: CR# PAGE:

DATE: 0-193 -017 STARTING TIME: itlitftil ENDING TIME: 1Z70W TAKEN BY: LOCATION: a

ta_�_salk__)2AThssitra L1OA s41:3.)AS 54- sl dc

•

cAnn\ ci n:k.

ek sorNeink WCt3i ict p A- (A se &&4-:

ty4 it t. \irteratil Se, anti., thstA- -nvki -1020 14,e_ Ail s, , rtM Klwitt nth-h -tn hmen... 7Inte-- fl J& )petttuic

14?we 044A-r `tyNCLIT tem uktire r koi been SO( ect4 'on &Mats ?1/4.3k —104 )iv fAl 111110 \at\ 0.1•A *AO te-le à rrakarat' t. Lot .

WTINESS:

SIG/NED: 4101111111111.--..—TRANSCRIBED BY:

08/03/2007 14:30 PAGE 52

WITNESS:

STATEMENT OF: CR# PAGE:

DATE:430 —OS —047 STARTING TIME: ged go, ENDING MX: AllOPity TAKEN BY: LOCATION: a

)64111rn Nti M ke ±Amsc wwq nkt kb CS141-" llt unlad

i4 sister

kat.444i. jut4- Ont. It I.0 4; A nti- wroirk, 47) b hoot&

.47) btkiN- 05 0 so, o 3lineick crn btinclador (ma t vinui6 4 hbafre -(71 5e+ mioniNra° ,

pk c4;r1 tars+k,„( 41 inuk loe St kkiv4 • cs nnA sa t ta itultk ipso rvioa. e inerek (re cks.

sk tia yen( chnss., ,A49 ries Pifr -1-A )y-e._ I ; ?c.c. imp yNci 11.111.kr__

Ovivk AlAN ANInX‘i betk'CAup SktA be pbo?._. 4fe kw 4 P4-1 194S r ks-Ie -fig

'fl.'ts 44. 1 - SGOZ O "A 0 4fti kNoi ..frvy MS. v.tto SeCtt1 . Ile c.41 -r-, 1.1/6> srna-4-

ContiMt4 ht kilicr rtrIMVIC 5n kr -r4 Artitut •

SIGNED:a-

TRANSCRIBED BY:

riviA r hevtjc- 40 id h3rIng r

SIGNED:

TRANSCRIBED BY:

08/03/2007

PAGE 53

2'

STATEMENT OF: CR# PAGE: a

DATE: 0-05-#7 STARTING TIME: M stg 411 ENDING TIME: alZereir TAKEN BY: LOCATION:

utgt L Beres° -1-tas -fs ICtIOW Tf. •

(otitci eknist- -44.2 M. -DA 'tar -11%*?ed- 5votk—r-S.4 5 n Ins -k 4th rul -AY hcl gsko .Ca-k- q pcirrs-

nip. »,..1 rintor .Si, --1iv&4- 4 r 9 Sa-i— nn

so. Ne *r# j4t flñdt. --;o1A tr.aWiermAt

\\bus kple ..-1-hrts, <1.0 wo,1/4 -theM nn

V4 Cd4.... k rdtkic 4o4.. rut \AIN./ qu i Coty:A-

Aar 11 \ ahritki h 47, Awfoc- 4:1) Pit COE_ -SC or-eic

c iatitc %14tfts 1 11 4c fl rr aci-e + So onacti-

h rkk n. 114- --Per)thA .Cifqr e

W \Iv lymstni. Nun @. qr .\ rad . ova

Ser6 vvvistarri r A .= cave:it A 4.. ittl keep

WITNESSI*4114

WITNESS:

14. ams 'aI tIla

11111111111111,— .SIGNED:TRANSCRIBED BY:WITNE%WITNESS:

Nay. a PAGE 54 g()

27 STATEMENT OF: CRF PAGE: skV

DATE: $-16 -t'7 STARTING TIME: ENDING TIME: 2.2f,o,

TAKEN BY: LOCATION:

11.1int magyi0. \nnu) vz-

as:Av. 14- a SSA' XIC 414.0 Ah it (Y10 6.11V3U tkilk

%sk \sen,ust &- -.

. jeLjible) A-11 j'h ILAA. s ykat

y,10 rf nht) 14.st cow r N-tAim sc Item%) A-C--Ut, rntlesb\rs rjCsn4 an4 kt qiiposeci

--N1 '4%.9 rn M itsit kg_ 0,k) 0.61SAL et n jahini,L4

s4a.. V•4 AVE og-A Ahock- k ainxtd kis nwp

• t • • •

A;A A.04- ktr,3 rmi 'PAY iket Ayouna 44t ro tit.r ;xi _its

eXth Brikt4 had r1/4 1at4M*1 pArt Ai -4-410

08/03/2007 14: PAGE 55

,ast know. Sk. ti ? ynel el • 7.-7 • kma jtn lerovi le 40 .04 cutren+

VS/ hi I it

STATEMENT OF: CRIF PAGE: 2-eir

DATE: -16 STARTING TIME: 15: Joo, ENDING TIME: awsew TAKEN BY: LOCATION: 111.111111a

-Arid *a lee tsrlilk (yds awl.. re4 Anws Sa.±es,t..326si__C?„6/Irlas Ino-v-e _11 e021/12P311-• 04 *ha+ '2v. if a 2 rvt--)

ci -tire NT 'TóVtac -him \tars as() --17, 3 fb.r1.- . Ant- 'Ainozsc- khoe..k rvv. i six Acs we ice -Inn se vet k ht sit 11"6 k • th

WITNESS:4dArei

SIGED• (411.1a WITNESS: TRANSCRIBED BY:

SIGNED:

TRANSCRIBED BY:

88/03/2007 14:30 a PAGE 56 C.3)

2t7 STATEMENT OF: CF# PAGE:

DATE: jaSei -017 STARTING TIME: 00 ENDING TIME: at29,207 TAKEN BY: LOCATION: Sal

4- NEM e_. occAncii 4, n,..,, o 14-1 1 -Vic

S 4 liNtratf LAMA .44.13 (cr45 \,-1545 n (\Nock Spiti44(53 Cycsta4-‘ (Ira MP t emerr; 01C.C. \WS 5) .1\1C/ea. bitY\ cleit tor el rin.St 1-g.

cirn S€ &t-4 pond .crfv4; km-k— *hot+ -}fil-1

‘ 1 --KIL 651*- ---15 4.o

t oruvuk enA jç,. ).%4 ski- Ozkre ()ANA Jo st ako. scC

3/4 i%,0 rt- Ann t1/4 A Ittow- A Uswihkir_IS

k `k

42) CiCtiCe c cit A 9cm entlyl iifti Jjp).A X1114.2. C Are

\,bre Cue 00 -4/CH-e1

eta Ns/1cl -kr-ri..s ituAAjt o andl "Mt* hks Ica -sem_ •l len+ 64 pv

On."

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT

Prosecutor's File #: (;) — Defendant's Name: ftf...tnala Indictment*:

In the space below, please write about how you and your lam* were affected by this incident. Please do not talk about the facts of the case or anything you might think of as testimony The judge and the prosecutor would like to know:

a. Your feelings about the incident b. How your life is different because of the incident c. What you think the defendant's sentence should be

Your Name:

WAS -itn-4,1e, (mei r ,1,; 41/4 .54.,nutt1/4. /xi-ye -In tzi.nA, UM*, 5Jt e-;nas.

1- WS itdel APA t ka5 matt f. tvi.e 4' +yre o-P rersnn tImet-1- s tnIne voxy 0A,14A. it-Avat :Atm,/ r.ew-Finas (AnA r Mier, -2r,r en 14 4— -rz Snme nint

i war, ar..n tip OY \ ryits k UN+ OSJCAMMtvl IC rin.( in up ryve SMCHLá 1st 1 ryi oat 0,1itAren a S e 14- 04 M; 1/4 SA 10 iiCnn •

%. •111. • • •••

scnit err. A krx )11

rAse. /ono tnns.i Ace Cornp, -1-60ec the r rirmr kArvt4 „arks , es no 4- hnotre The •-in An 6n 4- rts iNn ,t -1,;.t

• s 'nsibflji41 P -0Me %, 1 94. -In e nc,t) 012 a%

%AI

nos, . • fin 11. 1 S 01/4 (1,r. irsive . rE" 1411.1 rny Pespnns ;hi la .4eiLS.LLGese

#11 L- , ,

*-ib t -in ti4N and m artkirii I r -knelt,/ riel 44.p. eras?, ths *X Please return this form and all documents within 5 business days to:

If you have any questions, please call the County Office of Victim Witness Advocacy at