PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In other evidence on Thursday, experts said interviewers had breached some of the first rules of interviewing children for evidential purposes. They frequently mentioned things the parents recorded and sometimes referenced other children’s statements. They also asked suggestive questions. Hayne said she had systematically coded the interviews of the complainant children and, on average, children were asked more than 20 suggestive questions about “abuse related matters” prior to each allegation against Ellis. Based on her coding and her colleague Associate Professor Deirdre Brown’s viewing of the videotaped interviews, interviewers had introduced a range of toys, dolls and diagrams that would not represent best practice today, based on research over the last 20 years. The research was not available at the time of the trial. Hayne said most experts agreed first interviews were usually better than the subsequent ones, “particularly in this case”. “A lack of impartiality was present from the very first interview with each child. Our analysis of the questions in the first interview indicated children were asked on average 15.2 abuse-related questions during that initial interview.” She noted Brown’s evidence that if she had assessed these interviews as part of an accreditation process, she would evaluate the interviews “as not yet competent”. “Based on my reading of the transcripts and the questions that were asked and the protocols used, the interviews did not reflect what we know about the best ways to elicit the most complete and accurate accounts of children,” Hayne said. Importantly however, given the amount of additional information that children were exposed to prior to their interviews ... I am not aware of any interview protocol or debriefing procedure that would have been effective in ascertaining what did or did not happen.” Brown, a clinical psychologist and Otago University memory scientist, said the “availability, use, timing and questions used in conjunction with the various tools and props used in the Ellis interviews were not consistent with current practice guidelines”.
------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Experts unhelpful on children's memory in Peter Ellis trial, Supreme Court told," by Reporter Martin Van Beynen, published by 'Stuff' on October 7, 2021.
GIST: "Experts in the 1992 Peter Ellis trial did not give the jury any useful help to assess the complainants’ evidence, the Supreme Court has heard.
Ellis’ appeal against his convictions on child abuse began on Monday, two years after he died.
He was convicted in 1993 of sexually abusing children in his care at the creche. He faced 28 charges regarding nine girls and four boys but was convicted of 16 charges regarding seven children. One girl recanted in 1994 reducing the guilty verdicts to 13 charges.
Giving evidence in support of the appeal, memory scientist Professor Harlene Hayne said psychiatrists Dr Karen Zelas and Dr Keith Le Page were not experts in memory and the jury received “no proper assistance even in terms of what was known at the time”.
“Given our understanding today, both experts provided evidence that was incomplete, incorrect and potentially confusing,” she said.
Crown witness Professor Gail Goodman, from the University of California, said Zelas had talked a lot about memory that was “pretty accurate” at the time but more debatable today. She did not seem aware of research on suggestibility and props and did not emphasise her concerns about contamination and leading questions that she mentioned in a letter to police in August 1992.
The letter to Detective Sergeant John Ell has been traversed in earlier evidence this week. In the letter, Zelas expressed concerns about highly leading questioning of two children by their parents and described the questioning of one child as “intensive interrogation pertaining to ritual abuse”. The child went on to accuse Ellis and others of an incident in which children were taken away from the creche and abused in a ritual way.
In other evidence on Thursday, experts said interviewers had breached some of the first rules of interviewing children for evidential purposes.
They frequently mentioned things the parents recorded and sometimes referenced other children’s statements. They also asked suggestive questions.
Hayne said she had systematically coded the interviews of the complainant children and, on average, children were asked more than 20 suggestive questions about “abuse related matters” prior to each allegation against Ellis.
Based on her coding and her colleague Associate Professor Deirdre Brown’s viewing of the videotaped interviews, interviewers had introduced a range of toys, dolls and diagrams that would not represent best practice today, based on research over the last 20 years. The research was not available at the time of the trial.
Hayne said most experts agreed first interviews were usually better than the subsequent ones, “particularly in this case”.
“A lack of impartiality was present from the very first interview with each child. Our analysis of the questions in the first interview indicated children were asked on average 15.2 abuse-related questions during that initial interview.”
She noted Brown’s evidence that if she had assessed these interviews as part of an accreditation process, she would evaluate the interviews “as not yet competent”.
“Based on my reading of the transcripts and the questions that were asked and the protocols used, the interviews did not reflect what we know about the best ways to elicit the most complete and accurate accounts of children,” Hayne said.
“Importantly however, given the amount of additional information that children were exposed to prior to their interviews ... I am not aware of any interview protocol or debriefing procedure that would have been effective in ascertaining what did or did not happen.”
Brown, a clinical psychologist and Otago University memory scientist, said the “availability, use, timing and questions used in conjunction with the various tools and props used in the Ellis interviews were not consistent with current practice guidelines”.
“In the context of the interviews before the court and how the various tools were used we don’t know enough to categorically say they did not have a contaminating impact. Given what we do know, there is a risk they did.
“They were used to ask about new information in and around play-based interactions potentially creating confusion or encouraging confabulation. Many times new information emerged in conjunction with interaction with toys and dolls and there is the potential for this to be inaccurate.
“It is my opinion that we have to acknowledge the possibility the use of these aids may have undermined the children’s accuracy.”
Clinical psychologist Dr Fred Seymour, in evidence for the Crown, said interviewers had to adapt protocols to the situations they faced with individual children and non-adherence did not necessarily negate the accuracy of a child’s account.
Some children, when told the interviewer had spoken to their mother, would feel more at ease.
Sometimes props were needed to elicit more information and young children may need more cues to give their accounts.
Crown witness, clinical psychologist Suzanne Blackwell said dolls, props and drawing were not inherently problematic. They could be used to establish a rapport and make children more comfortable.
Insufficient research evidence was available to reach conclusions on drawings and the risks they posed for accuracy, she said."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resurce. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-----------------------------------------------------------
Psychiatrist Karen Zelas was the prosecution's expert witness. She also supervised the social workers conducting the children's interviews and advised the police about how they should conduct their investigation.[24] She testified that the complainants were credible and their behaviour was consistent with sexual abuse.[25] However, in August 1992, she wrote to the police saying that two of the complainants had undergone "highly leading questioning" from their parents.[26] Her letter was not disclosed to Ellis's defence, and Zelas did not mention any concerns about the two children's credibility at trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ellis_(childcare_worker)
